For my arguing something so obvious, you sure seem to have missed what I said. You think my point would be stronger if I agreed with the parent instead of disag

For my arguing something so obvious, you sure seem to have missed what I said. You think my point would be stronger if I agreed with the parent instead of disagreed... Except that my point is that I do not agree with his post at all and it's obvious that he does not almost certainly understand the difference. Suggesting team sports as a "good substitute" for wartime experience plainly demonstrates a lack of understanding, really a true failure to grok. This suggestion has some features in common with the idea that Call of Duty somehow captures what combat is like. It's immediately recognizable as something a distant spectator would say. Someone that watches sports and war on television, for example. But it's not a good comparison at all, and certainly not a good substitute. Since you think this is such an obvious thing, perhaps you can compare and contrast your own combat experiences with his proposition to get what you were hoping to get out of my post. If you're not speaking from experience, then I'd ask that you not add noise by trying to oversimplify something you're only guessing at. If you don't know what it's like, that's totally okay, but I'd suggest not trying to shoehorn posts that do come from experience into the narrative you want to find, which is that it is somehow possible to "substitute" team sports "in important ways" for war. I'm telling you that they are only superficially, vaguely the same shape if you squint across a dark room. Add a few layers of abstraction, and they share cosmetic similarities. Otherwise they are not comparable in any way, let alone important ways, and I do not agree with the parent I replied to.