I’ll repeat one last time. In the simplest terms I can muster just for you.
Rationalising is imparting a state of rationality, something clearly not feasible with this conversation. Unless you want to refute that meaning and prove yourself as stupid and/or dishonest as you claim everyone else to be, drop it.
Like taking the first clause of a long, complex sentence and claiming it to be the whole of the sentence’s meaning?
And again, I’ll point out: what you want to ‘rationalize’ is the massive scope of dead civilians. There is no ‘imparting a state of rationality’ to millions of dead. There is nothing irrational about millions of dead. They are not π dead. And your whole, desperate attempt to go down this rabbit hole doesn’t alter in the slightest the facts that you are trying to rationalize away:
No alternative strategies were attempted first. Like you, the Khanid wanted to see those human beings solely as numbers—property value—and nothing else. And he was rewarded for doing so by his King, and found perfectly acceptable for service on the Theology Council. They might as well have given Napkins a seat as well.
So, on consideration, I’ll amend the earlier statement that seems to have put you into such a tizzy:
Alar Chakaid and Napkins are the only individuals in any of these discussions who have shown an actual proclivity toward atrocity. Go team Khanid, I suppose.
2 Likes
So it’s empty lawyering then?
That particular kind of long complex sentence, if we take definition 1 as the relevant one is an inclusive disjunction followed by two example cases. ‘Or’ only ever requires one preposition be true, in this case for the second to be true the first must also be, thus inclusive. The example cases are not particularly relevant, but I know you’ll cling to them as you feel they support you.
The facts aren’t a matter of any particular question, save your utter disconnection from any that do not suit your agenda.
That you despise a Paladin Deacon of the Orders Militant of the Theology Council is news to nobody, and if you did not. It would probably indicate lethargy or negligence on his part.
The only action you’ve attributed where enough is known of it to do so. Is known to have been under the command of another.
So be accurate, Duke Chakaid commanded a ground component of a severe pacification. Sardar Marshal Soshan Fayez was in overall command, under we assume Royal supervision.
None of these people require me defend them, nor is that what I’m doing. Merely challenging your presentation of your your own inferences as fact with scant reference to reality, and alternative truths when hyperbole and euphemism fail you.
Are you even listening to yourself? No, the second preposition does not require the first to be true, and both of them, as well as the example cases, are bound together by the overall summation, as presented after ‘broadly’.
As to the Sardar Marshal: Fayez commanded the space forces, with Oveg Drust as an observer from CONCORD. And if Fayez wasn’t such an utter chickenshit, I’d have killed his Nyx when the idiot dared to open fire on me, but he quickly realized his mistake, and ran for his pathetic little life.
Chakaid, a warclone, and commander of the Royal Uhlan division, was in command of the surface operations on Kahah III, which is where the shelling took place, by the Royal Uhlans, at his direction.
And if this is what you consider ‘challenging’, I’d hate to see the wet tissues you’d describe as ‘difficult’.
You’re just joking now, right?
1 Like
If I was, would I tell you?
Edit: Also, no, dammit, I really did want that Nyx.
2nd Edit: As someone else has pointed out to me, I’m a derp. I meant Aeon. ‘Armor Supercarriers That Suck Compared To Hels’ all blur together, I suppose.
Yeah, she’s just screwing with us now.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.