• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    You … DO realize wars do not have a 100% death rate, right? You DO understand “casualty” can refer to someone who has only been wounded enough to stop fighting, right?

    • vegetarian_pacemaker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I fail to see what I had mentioned in the comment that lead you to believe that I thought wars have a 100% death rate or that the word casualty did not include the injured.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably the, “I never know what to understand” coupled with the, “wait, NOW they’re not sacrificial lambs??”

        Both are true. Both they get used and abused on the battlefield AND the survivors are going back to civilian life still rapists and murderers. You are clearly believing in a false dichotomy about who survives war.

      • Don_alForno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the fact that there is no contradiction unless you believe “sacrificial lambs” would have a 100% death rate.