• aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

    • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration?

      Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.

      Of course it’s not the exact same article.

      so you even admit that they lied

      The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

      so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.

      • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.

        America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.

        What conclusion do these facts support?

        • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What conclusion do these facts support?

          that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.

          • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            40
            ·
            1 year ago

            You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.

            I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.

            So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?

            • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.

              I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.

              I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.

              you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.

              So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?

              here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.

              are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?

              • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                28
                ·
                1 year ago

                You, in this post:

                twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.

                So what conclusion do the facts support if not that the us is to blame for opium production during the occupation?

                • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So what conclusion do the facts support

                  I’m not here to draw conclusions, just to present the facts (and object to when my words are twisted, when logical fallacies are used to argue against the facts, etc.), which is all I have done.

                  • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    24
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.

                    Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course.

                    That’s a conclusion. Now I’m not trying to get a gotcha or own or something here. I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to. My question is how’d you get there?