History Learner
Well-known member
Are you really going to sit there and pretend that this sprawling debate wouldn't be even more ridiculously time consuming if I tried to take on your whole post at once? Who do you even think is going to believe this lie? I mean, I guess there's at least one person. (@TerrificWarden)
Ah, so now the excuse has shifted from "I don't have time" to "I find it ridiculously to engage it"? If the first was accurate, you wouldn't still be arguing on this and if the second was accurate you would, again, still not be arguing over it. That you are proves exactly what I said; they're nothing more than excuses to give cover for a cherry pick on your part. Now that I've called it out, you've brought out the appeal to majority fallacy. You're not slick, nor clever here.
This does not prove the claim.
lol
When you're constantly shifting definitions, as you are, I'm sure it doesn't. Again, you're not clever here.
Do you really not know what cherry picking is? I just got done indicating that it's more than simply "picking one subtopic to argue about". You can disagree with my definition or you can disagree with what I'm claiming I've done, but you can't claim I admitted to "cherry picking" because as I define that term I have admitted no such thing and you have yet to define it in such a way that I admitted to actions constituting cherry picking. That's not special pleading when my definition is entirely normal and not constructed for the purpose of excluding what I'm doing from cherry picking.
I don't have to claim you've done a cherry pick when from your very first post, you admitted it. In your own words, you decided to take the point about aircraft losses as illustrative of the whole argument; would you like me to quote you on that? That is the definition of a cherry pick and why you've been reduced to special pleading and other logical fallacies because even the point you were trying to target has stood up under scrutiny, it's why you're trying to shift definitions now.
I wouldn't argue if someone said I was just trying to go after low hanging fruit. Although you're making this absurdly difficult I could hardly disagree that my goal in only arguing about one paragraph was to reduce my own workload.
So which excuse is it? If you're trying to reduce your own workload, it's odd you've remained in an extended dialogue.
Show me the military that complained about having too much dakka. They don't need to be suffering catastrophic losses to want more reinforcement. Your objection is absurd!
U.S. Armed Forces, 1944. War orders across the board began to be slashed.
Truly, working the public to generate political support for military desires has never happened.
So to appeal to the public they put it in the trade journal for the U.S. defense industry instead of American consumer media? Yeah, okay.