Lightbulbs wrote:dragoncrystal24 wrote:
But yeah texas's post was an impossibility. Or rather, a highly unlikely event. I was merely translating his comment.
You told me to stop trolling because I called his post out for being an impossibility, then when I restated what I said a second time using an analogy you agreed with me.
Not necessarily. He was saying that if there was no war (no people to fight in it), these donations would be useless. You translated his post as saying that because war is bad, nobody should donate. He meant that if there was NO war, you shouldn't donate. YOU translated it as even if there is war, you still shouldn't donate. Obviously, I can't read his mind, so I may be wrong, but this is what I got from his post. You didn't call out his post as an impossibility, you just said that he didn't think people should donate. Compare them if you want.
Lightbulbs wrote:texas_hitman wrote:If people knew what was going on they wouldn't go to war. Making these types of donations useless.
So because war is bad wounded soldiers deserve no treatment.
You're retarded. Granted that was pretty much already known.