I’m tired of the rhetorical tactic of labeling any disagreement with one’s position as a “war” on something or other. “Democratic war on free trade”, “Republican war on women”, “Democratic war on math”, “Republican war on science”, &c… &c… Disagreement isn’t an act of war. Pretending that it is one is a vapid, pointless way of arguing. It should join the “Well that’s what Hitler would think” line on the list of things that are immediately dismissed, as indicating that the speaker has no meaningful argument to make.
So, you’re proposing a war on this particular rhetorical technique? 
I agree - we should have a war on that rhetorical flourish.
Well, somebody was gonna say it …
Edit: ninja’d! D’oh!
This isn’t “disagreement,” it’s policies being put into action. The women whose lives are ruined by unwanted children and the gay kids who are beaten on a regular basis are indeed the victims of Christian warfare. Sorry if acknowledging that fact offends your delicate sensibilities about proper rhetoric on the Internet.
So it’s just the labeling not the actual act you’re against?
There was a column in the washington posta couple of days ago that made this exact point. In general I agree,
Oh, fiddle-dee-dee…
Obligatory Michael Franti link.
It’s Wargate!
No “wars” and no “Czars”.
Always remember; drug lords, bad. Drug czars, good.
War is just an extension of politics, or diplomacy by other means…
-XT
This sounds more terse than I intend it to, by virtue of it’s brevity, but do you actually mean anything by that or is it just supposed to be a stand-alone statement or aphorism of some kind?
It’s actually a Clausewitz paraphrase if memory serves. I was attempting to be witty, nothing more.
-XT
Ah, fair enough, sounded interesting so I just wanted to know if you were going to elaborate.
There didn’t seem much of a debate here, and the term ‘war’ can mean many things. I seriously doubt anyone realistically would take the OP up on his proposal, and even if they did it would simply be to use a different semantic term. War by any other term smells just as sweet…
Yikes, there I go with the paraphrases again. Just in that sort of mood I guess. 
Next I’ll be quoting Groundhog Day if you aren’t careful…
-XT
No… your OP is intellectually bankrupt. Sometimes a metaphor of conflict is absolutely apt. In particular there really has been a concerted effort from some-but-not-all on the right to combat science. No, you cannot hide behind the claim that it’s mere “disagreement”.
From major Republic candidates who disbelieve in evolution to statements of “Gorebal warming”, the claim that many on the right are not doctrinally opposed to science is gainsaid.
We aint gonna call it waarh no morrah…
(First time I ever heard the term ‘Gorebal warming’…that’s not even very clever. The Pubs are really going down hill fast. :p)
-XT
No, OP was more or less right. War is a ridiculously emotive word to be used in such a context. It’s meant to exaggerate how unreasonable someone’s opinion is, very rarely accurate and very often ideologically motivated. If it was an infrequently used turn of phrase, and it’s use pertained to actual aggressive intentions, or a specifically vitriolic rant, it would be fair play, but it’s just an example of intentionally manipulative rhetoric - people can do without that in my opinion.
XT:I am not making it up.
But it’s not a hostility to science, it’s just a difference of opinion. Just like if someone told you to eat sawdust instead of food, they wouldn’t be hostile to nutrition, they’d just have their own opinions.
Why, we need to Teach The Controversy.
No, it’s perfectly apt. Attempts to shut down the results of biology and climatology are nothing less than an assault on scientific truth. They should be absolutely unacceptable to any and all rational, honest citizens and we should not be afraid to point out exactly what’s happening in the clearest terms possible. There is a faction within our nation which has launched an attack on scientific progress, and that’s bad.