The Infantry Problem 2

[TerrorBite]

I think the arguing of "semantics and logic" are to keep people from being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting the views of those they disagree with and skewing stats to support their position.

+1 

It feels like every 2nd post is correcting the lack of logic in the last one, but it is necessary not to let an argument stand if it's based on flaws. 

Any chance we can transfer future posts which are not relevant, substantial in argument magnitude, and based on evidential reasoning to a junk thread until corrected? Otherwise all the bs posts feel like they're getting in the way of progress.

eg. Boho - "The poll says 31/49 think infantry is strong, ok or small changes are needed."
This is not incorrect, but the grouping of the 'infantry is strong', and 'ok', with 'small changes' gives this statistic no summary value, nor is it used in the following argument. If this is the case it is not substantial in argument magnitude and should be removed.
If it were to be considered to be used (objectively was not used though?), it would have violated evidential reasoning through dishonesty, through the grouping bias, causing deception. 

The issue with these comments remaining is that even if they make useful points elsewhere, the issues must be addressed, which wastes time and causes a bunch more posts.

---

Oh wait, walls being removed and inf strength are not mutually exclusive, so it should be 31/43