I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
I don’t think an apology is warranted when it’s apparent a claim is being made as a bad-faith deflection.
Even if you had made a compelling case for your use of the word (you still haven’t), it’s still in response to someone pointing to a genocide that’s already happening. You could’ve just said ‘Houthis are evil because they are using child soldiers’ and we wouldn’t have anything to talk about (except maybe a debate over whether that changes the ethics of a US-Saudi backed genocide against them), but instead you said “Houthis are using child soldiers”, then “Killing children is a form of genocide”, and then chose not to elaborate any further, even when pressed.
“It really seems like it to me” is about as satirical as dwight type-casting an italian-american as a mobster.
It seems like it is to me. Killing all the children means there won’t be a next generation.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
Cool, that’s not what I said, but ok.
Maybe don’t put words in my mouth?
So your point about them using child soldiers is unrelated to your claim that they’re “killing children in large numbers”?
Seemed like you were conflating the two, maybe I got that wrong.
When you casually drop ‘genocide’ into a conversation without elaborating on who or what you’re talking about you’re likely to cause some confusion.
The correct response is to start your question by apologizing for assuming you knew what I said.
Too bad you didn’t bother doing that.
Too late now too.
I don’t think an apology is warranted when it’s apparent a claim is being made as a bad-faith deflection.
Even if you had made a compelling case for your use of the word (you still haven’t), it’s still in response to someone pointing to a genocide that’s already happening. You could’ve just said ‘Houthis are evil because they are using child soldiers’ and we wouldn’t have anything to talk about (except maybe a debate over whether that changes the ethics of a US-Saudi backed genocide against them), but instead you said “Houthis are using child soldiers”, then “Killing children is a form of genocide”, and then chose not to elaborate any further, even when pressed.
“It really seems like it to me” is about as satirical as dwight type-casting an italian-american as a mobster.