Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DelayedReaction
Why don't we use this kind of logic in everything we do? In ten years time, when it turns out that laser eye surgery causes my eyeballs to pop out, what should I say? In ten years time, when it's revealed that the Internet causes major psychological harm due to message board trolls, what will I say then? In ten years time, when we discover that wearing yellow acts as a homing beacon for invading aliens, what words will soothe our concious?
Making decisions based on the possibility of risk in the future is a silly idea. You base your decisions on what you know at the time, and in this case our research shows that depleted uranium has a minimal impact on health. If we were to follow your logic, every decision would be paralyzed by the fear of future harm. |
So by your logic, it was ok to dump 1000's upon 1000's of gallons of Agent Orange onto our soldiers in 'Nam. There were reports that ther may be some damage but minimal health risks, yet look what we have from Agent Orange. (I'm sure someone will discount AO's effects, which sadly will be demeaning to those Vets, who were exposed and suffer from its effects.)
By your logic, it doesn't matter that we don't need those weapons, we will use them anyway, who cares what the future risks are.
By your logic, we should fucking do whatever we want to today because the future doesn't matter.
My logic is very simply put like this...... WHY ARE WE USING WEAPONS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS WHEN WE DO NOT NEED TO??????
Or is it you position that the war over there dictates use of these weapons? Then why are they necessary if we are so much more superior to the enemy over there?
As for your first paragraph, I'll just simply say it shows nothing about the argument just the mentality of holier than thou attitude, that chooses not to face the issue at hand nor add anything supportive to their side.