scottopic: (Default)
[personal profile] scottopic
[Poll #1191550]

Defend Your Position.

Date: 2008-05-21 03:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

Perimeter (hu)manned!

Date: 2008-05-21 04:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Hey leave my hubby out of this! =^_^=

Date: 2008-05-21 04:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

I thought he liked being in the middle?

Date: 2008-05-22 02:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

Date: 2008-05-21 03:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
it won't let me select both :(

Date: 2008-05-21 03:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
i just did...

Date: 2008-05-21 04:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I am in an undisclosed location.

Date: 2008-05-21 04:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Can't answer without details.
One should never make decisions of that magnitude without information...
That said, I would prefer to advocate war from a defensive position.

Date: 2008-05-21 04:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The proposition is a Mistaken Reversal.

All wars are arguments. Not all arguments are wars.

Date: 2008-05-21 04:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
funny since i was going to say "not all wars require actual arguments."

Date: 2008-05-21 04:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
*grin* Depends on what you call an actual argument. A spoken one, no. But if you go with argument being a dispute, pretty much all wars, by definition, are just that.

I love looking up etymologies on such things so...

"arguere" - to make clear.

Yeah, I'd say war clears up who owns what parcel of land or gets to set up the rules all right. Well, at least from the pov of the folks waging it. ;-)

Date: 2008-05-21 05:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
keke keke
the etymology of "war" is what had in mind too.

But say, theoretically and totally hypothetically for example, it is possible to have war to determine which commercial establishments get defense funds, but that would not necessarily entail a dispute.....

Date: 2008-05-21 05:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
True, but regardless of the -true- motivations of the war, it, by definition, has to have a dispute or conflict that the action ultimately attempts to resolve, even if the dispute/conflict is largely a pretextual one.

Or, modeling further upon the hypothesis you've offered, the war "makes clear" which commercial establishments get funds and which ones don't. After all, unless every single one out there gets funding via the war, there's necessarily an uncertainty made clear by the action. ;-)

Date: 2008-05-21 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Can you guess which book I'm reading right now? :P

Date: 2008-05-22 02:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Knowing you, the possibilities are endless.
Random stab at the bibliophile index....Red Badge Of Courage :)

Date: 2008-05-21 04:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

Date: 2008-05-21 05:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I like where this thread is going.

Date: 2008-05-22 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Sex or argument?

Date: 2008-05-21 05:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Ex Nihilo arguments are superb.

Date: 2008-05-21 07:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]


Date: 2008-05-22 01:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Seems stretchy to me, and anyway it seems like a first rhetorical step toward legitimizing some other dubious metaphors -

* Business is War
* Love is a Battlefield
* "WWF Raw is War"
* etc.

Date: 2008-05-22 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I've lost an argument, but I'll never lose a war.

Date: 2008-05-22 02:15 pm (UTC)

Date: 2008-05-30 03:41 pm (UTC)
adrienmundi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] adrienmundi
I respectfully sidestep your position, while pointing and laughing.

Date: 2008-05-30 03:43 pm (UTC)


scottopic: (Default)

August 2017

27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 03:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios