And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don’t think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it’s a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you’re interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
They’re being a bit ridiculous to be honest—it’s clear you were just clarifying–but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn’t seem like it was your intent.
There’s a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear reactors
This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that’s fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn’t respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.
If the comment was corrected to read
There’s a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear enrichment sites
Would their original point be any different?
That’s why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn’t significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.
deleted by creator
And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don’t think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it’s a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you’re interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
deleted by creator
Okay, I have a hypothetical question for you:
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
deleted by creator
The US bombed a sovereign nation, does that not constitute an act of war, regardless of the target?
deleted by creator
They’re being a bit ridiculous to be honest—it’s clear you were just clarifying–but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn’t seem like it was your intent.
This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that’s fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn’t respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.
If the comment was corrected to read
Would their original point be any different?
That’s why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn’t significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.
deleted by creator