This is not correct. Food security in the country has drastically improved and continues to improve - FAO data - Unicef data - both support this position.

By choice.

No? The reason it's ostracised is a UN vote that was successfully passed that has never been challenged since because the DPRK is not in or allowed to join the UN, any attempt to would be immediately veto'd by the west. This is called 1718.

Wild to me how many replies you're getting that defend North Korea

You see, this here is a problem. You consider simply stating factually true things that people are generally unaware of to be "defending north korea". You live in ignorance and seek to maintain that ignorance in other people rather than view the situation in a more balanced and academic way.

[–] What_Religion_R_They@hexbear.net 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

the DPRK is not in or allowed to join the UN

The DPRK is in the UN. Unless you mean the UNSC, but even if it were in the UNSC they wouldn't be able to challenge the blockade resolution.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 4 points 11 months ago

Post was written at 4am. Genuinely not sure what I meant. No challenge can be made to resolution 1718 though because it includes the requirement for the DPRK to stop developing nuclear weapons and icbms, and that's a non-option.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm not going to engage with someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is literally no "ad hominem" in that entire fucking comment, telling you that you don't know about something (ignorance) is not ad hominem, dickhead. If you're going to do reddit-tier debate-pervert shit to deliberately keep yourself in ignorance of factual information and stop yourself from ever learning anything then at least get your fucking debate-pervert shit correct.

This comment is ad hominem. Loser.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ad hominem arguments are ones that dismiss your arguments based on insults or attacks on you personally, not just being insulting while making an argument against you.

The fact that you don't know that (or can't tell the difference between them) just demonstrates your ignorance, so in this particular instance they weren't even being insulting, they were simply stating a fact.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You live in ignorance and seek to maintain that ignorance in other people

Quite literally the definition of argumentum ad hominem. Attacking my character as well as my motivations, neither of which are the subject of the discussion and are only being used in a fallacious way in an attempt to cement their argument. Their follow-up just demonstrates why it's not worth the time to engage with someone who makes such fallacious bad faith arguments.

The preceding paragraphs were attacking my argument and would have made an interesting argument otherwise.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, you dumbfuck, there is no argument attached to those insults. There is nothing in their comment saying that you are wrong because of your ignorance, which is what an ad hominem argument is - we are pointing out why you are wrong, and then calling you a lentil brained moron.
This is stuff they made me learn at school over 20 years ago as a 13 year old. You should be embarrased that you can't even get the most basic fallacy right.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You okay?

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

I know you feel smart for taking a holier than thou attitude, but you're just revealing you're too dumb to come up with an actual response.