You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.
Sorry, I was trying to think of a more reasonable alternative than your literal statement that didn’t make sense.
Can you please explain what you meant by
Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?
Read back your comment. Does it sound like an honest, good faith effort at dialog?
I’m blocking you now and I’m not going to think twice about this exchange.
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it’s usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge “ackshyually” about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to “what is it that disturbs you?”)
Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.
I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
OK. So elaborate. What is it that disturbs you?