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”.
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.
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?”
Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?”