• 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.

                  • tomi000@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 days ago

                    Brudi ich bin mir ziemlich sicher dass du mit ner KI diskutierst die darauf trainiert wurde nervtötend zu sein.

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

                    It would if I had to make a book report in school. Instead I am using the Wikipedia page as the primary source.