• Quittenbrot@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    It doesn’t. You not being able to know if the book does a reasonable analysis is only due to you not knowing the book.

    e: typo

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      You are clever, and I try to be clever, too. I only wrote that I think that the book does a reasonable analysis. I am able to know that.

      If you still want to discuss the message of the book, which one do you have in mind?

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          By being nitpicky about the way I phrased my answer.

          You are right though, I cannot speak about the book. That’s why I only talk about things that are written in the Wikipedia page.

          • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            Exactly. You talk about something just based on a snippet of information read on Wikipedia.

            I hope you now see that this is an incredibly weak basis to build strong arguments on. As you also shied away from actually stating anything precise you seem noteworthy from this book, this weak basis seems apparent to you too.

            Have a good day.

            • plyth@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              I don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.

              • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                Yet you say it is “already annoying” to know the “summary” of the book.

                Now we have two possibilities:

                1. this summary of yours is actually accurately representing the book, then if one is annoying, both must be annoying
                2. this summary does not accurately represent the book, only then the summary can be annoying but not the book

                If you think 1 is true, you also judge the book, without having read it. If 2 is true, the element on which you base your emotions is flawed and hence you should reconsider it.