• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

The USA doesn't know what "War" is anymore

#26
The difference between an absolute and a conditional is not a nitpick.

And you know who complains about "nitpicks" in the first place? People who regularly get their asses bitten by overlooked details; in other words, sloppy, overconfident, sometimes flat-out ignorant debaters like you and, amusingly enough, Wong.
 
#28
The Question said:
The difference between an absolute and a conditional is not a nitpick.

And you know who complains about "nitpicks" in the first place? People who regularly get their asses bitten by overlooked details; in other words, sloppy, overconfident, sometimes flat-out ignorant debaters like you and, amusingly enough, Wong.
Of course it is a nitpick. Don't tell me you never heard of an off-the-cuff comment to get a conversation started.

Do you know what kinds of people nitpick? Those who know their arguments are shit and need to keep the argument on semantics so they can later say, "I WIN TeH ENtirE ArgUment! LoL!"

The Wong is strong in this one.
 
#29
Imperium said:
Of course it is a nitpick. Don't tell me you never heard of an off-the-cuff comment to get a conversation started.
You're still backpedaling too slow.

Same moron said:
Do you know what kinds of people nitpick? Those who know their arguments are shit and need to keep the argument on semantics so they can later say, "I WIN TeH ENtirE ArgUment! LoL!"
Once again, having to entirely rewrite your claim shows pretty clearly that the criticism you're responding to was quite a bit heavier than a nitpick. You don't want to have to do that in the future, I suggest you write more clearly. Of course, that's predicated upon you thinking more clearly, which naturally assumes that at some point you're likely to think.
 
#32
Thank you. You did exactly what I wanted.

That is not a claim. It is an off the cuff comment. An opinion. A claim is an assertion of fact.

MORON!

Keep it comin!
 
#33
Random House Unabridged Dictionary said:
Claim, v. 3.to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary said:
com·ment /ˈkɒmɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-ent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
The only one that even comes close. Following from this, your best bet is "remark". Thus:

Random House Unabridged Dictionary said:
Remark, n. 7.a casual or brief expression of thought or opinion.
The only one close to your implied meaning.

However, "There are no 'innocent' in war." makes a clear statement about the non-presence of a specific type of item: innocent people. Contrast this with, "I believe," "I think," or "In my opinion," which would have qualified your statement as an opinion. You failed to do that. You made a claim. As my friend Jimmy Pineapple would say: Case... fucking... closed.
 
#34
WOW! Wong would be proud! The idea that you clearly go digging that deep in order to force opposition to accept your perceptions of what you think someone means.

---------------gratuitous break for Daniel to quote-------------------

moment of silence please...

---------------gratuitous break for Daniel to quote-------------------

Intellectually honest people would ask for a clarification upfront besides jumping down this spiraling shit hole of a nitpick to save them from making a complete ass of themselves.
Try it next time so you can separate yourself from Wong and his sychophants.


---------------gratuitous break for Daniel to quote-------------------

No claim was ever made. Try, try as you might to change the harsh reality to save whatever is left of the 'point' you were trying to make.

---------------gratuitous break for Daniel to quote-------------------

I am done pwning you for the night. I am going to brush up on steady state an step responses of active circuits. You go and do...whatever is that you do for a living.

LOL.
 
#37
If you remove the unnecessary, ever-changing politics as well as "political correctness"/public opinion of "collateral damage" - then you would have a more pure vision of setting objectives in modern warefare. The enemy are those who fight against your primary objectives, regardless. Wars played out in the world media will never be successful. Israel used to be good at this because they didn't give a rats ass about world opinion or who got hurt. Today the U.S. finds itself on the wrong side of Saudi Arabia - supporting a pro-Iranian islamic fundamentalist shiite government in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we know Al Qaida's address, but don't want to offend Pakistan - who harbors them and does nothing. It is a sham & discourtesy to those asked to fight when politics and public opinion are the primary agents guiding the objectives of war.