| |
| ▲ | defrost an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message. | | |
| ▲ | dgroshev an hour ago | parent [-] | | Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" | | |
| ▲ | defrost an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I expect this: > "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims. I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance. | |
| ▲ | JdeBP 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.' |
|
| |
| ▲ | SturgeonsLaw an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do. | | |
| ▲ | dgroshev an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians. | | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.? | | |
| ▲ | fakedang 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | And the same UK taxpayer money is now being spent to ferociously defend Ukraine, and in turn European interests. That same UK taxpayer money is spent to promote freedom of the seas for global trade, whether it be the Hormuz, the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, the Baltic or the Horn of Africa. Defence spending is only as good as the government that controls it, but you can't be serious if you're discounting the importance of military readiness at all times, given the world we live in. The UK's military spending has always been much more justifiable, especially given that the country actually spends a lot on education and healthcare too (and I will argue that both of them are some of the SOTA systems in the world currently, in spite of their challenges). | |
| ▲ | dgroshev an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided? | | |
|
|
|
|
