this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
343 points (91.7% liked)
World News
32285 readers
748 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not the same thing at all.
The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they're immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn't bad for the environment. You're citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.
If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a "coalition to ban something."
The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium's effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.
yes it is an opinionated source but it is also an opinionated source with scientific evidence to back up its claims. What you are doing is seeking false balance between the position that has been reached trhough scientific peer reviewed study and the position "nuh uh"
I'm agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I'm disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.
I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP's article:
Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone's intelligence for not doing so.