3 ms·
You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some war
by cynicalkane 17y ago
You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others." If that's not what you meant, then you need to seriously re-examine what you are saying, or else don't act offended when people read your words and not your mind.
Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong.
And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me.
Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- oconnore 17y agoI'm not acting offended. I did mean that. And at this point you are adding nothing to this discussion. Quoting generic Wikipedia articles, of which you only skimmed the first paragraph, does not prove your point, whatever that may be. Neither does the sentence, "You are wrong." Have a nice life. PS. You called me "an idiot of the first class." I have no idea what the first class is, and I'm sort of curious what an "idiot of the second class" might be, but that is irrelevant. You infer that my intelligence is lacking, and that that implies my argument is weak. That manner of argument is known as ad hominem. You should read your own Wikipedia article.