Lavender

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.

The US bombed a sovereign nation, does that not constitute an act of war, regardless of the target?

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?

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.

I'm not offended - I just wonder where your priorities are.

You asked a question and I tried to explain why focusing on correcting details can derail a conversation when the consequences and response would likely be materially similar.

I mean I don't see an Iranian politician looking at the bombing of an enrichment site by the US and finding it much better than bombing a reactor. Do you?

It's shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I'll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we're talking about the material conditions around a bombing.

The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one's argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.

If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I'd want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings' targets isn't adding to the discussion in the same way.

I don't mean to attack you, but read the room.

Again, why are you splitting hairs in this situation? The main issue with this is that the US bombed another country, escalating an already tense international conflict.

Will the damage to infrastructure be different? Yes.

Will the act be seen as a lesser act of war? I don't think so.

Is that where you want to split hairs on this issue? You don't get anything for being technically correct.

I heard his voice

That looks so satisfying.