• vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”)

    Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.

    • qarbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      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

      It’s basically an organization designed to take young people and teach them to run toward a firing machine gun when told to do so.

      Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • qarbone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 minutes ago

        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.