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.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.
But can we agree that: 1) saying “teaching you to run into machine fire” is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?
The most obvious read of the original line is “jarheads being sent to their deaths,” – they told me to, so I’m going to run into machine gun fire – which would obviously receive pushback.
And that’s saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.
You say it’s “the most obvious read” and yet the other poster still missed it. They weren’t pushing that point back; they were pouring random trivia, as if it was pushing it back.
That’s why I mocked the “ackshyually”. Could I rephrase the quoted point another way? Yes. Will I? No. I think this behaviour should be ridiculed, it adds no relevant content to a discussion. Ackshyuallies, sealions, why do we [social media users] even entertain this sort of thing?
And tone won’t change content in this case. “Teaching you to run into machine fire” has a negative tone but there’s nothing wrong with it. Call it “brave souls laughing at the face of death” (positive tone), or “suicidal butchers going Lemming style, WAH-HOO!” (way more negative), the point still stands: an institution is able to train people to disregard one of their most basic instincts to do its [the institution’s] bidding, that is bloody scary.
EDIT: plus the “what is it that disturbs you”. It shows willingness to make shit up about things one cannot reasonably know; it’s a waste of time to discuss with people like this, because once you brush off their assumption they’ll pour another, and another, and another.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
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 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.
It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.
It doesn’t need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; “dangers in general”); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; “risking to get harmed”).
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, “le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon’s knee, you’re instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!” doesn’t address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those “ackshyually”.
Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.
But can we agree that: 1) saying “teaching you to run into machine fire” is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?
The most obvious read of the original line is “jarheads being sent to their deaths,” – they told me to, so I’m going to run into machine gun fire – which would obviously receive pushback.
And that’s saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.
You say it’s “the most obvious read” and yet the other poster still missed it. They weren’t pushing that point back; they were pouring random trivia, as if it was pushing it back.
That’s why I mocked the “ackshyually”. Could I rephrase the quoted point another way? Yes. Will I? No. I think this behaviour should be ridiculed, it adds no relevant content to a discussion. Ackshyuallies, sealions, why do we [social media users] even entertain this sort of thing?
And tone won’t change content in this case. “Teaching you to run into machine fire” has a negative tone but there’s nothing wrong with it. Call it “brave souls laughing at the face of death” (positive tone), or “suicidal butchers going Lemming style, WAH-HOO!” (way more negative), the point still stands: an institution is able to train people to disregard one of their most basic instincts to do its [the institution’s] bidding, that is bloody scary.
EDIT: plus the “what is it that disturbs you”. It shows willingness to make shit up about things one cannot reasonably know; it’s a waste of time to discuss with people like this, because once you brush off their assumption they’ll pour another, and another, and another.
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.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”
OK. So elaborate. What is it that disturbs you?