|
|
| Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG (1277089) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 31 08:42:14 2015, in response to Re: George Zimmerman Is WRONG, posted by AlM on Mon Mar 30 11:56:38 2015. Nilet is worse than Olog when it comes to perverting logic.This statement is self-evidently false to anyone who has ever read any of our respective posts. If you wish to make this claim, you'd better have some pretty compelling evidence. Yet your post is surprisingly devoid! Imagine my concern. Nilet says that Salaam is alive because he avoided the draft. Yes. Were Salaam to have gone to war, there's a significant chance he'd be dead today. Later he says no one should have taken that literally. Only the SubChat Autism Brigade would take it literally in the first place. If I say that getting shot in the chest is fatal, I obviously don't mean 100% of the people shot in the chest will die. If I say falling from 5,000 feet is fatal that doesn't mean you won't be able to find a single person in all of history who managed to survive it. And when I say going to war will get you killed, I obviously don't mean that every single person who goes to war will die fighting it. I'm starting to see why you think I can be compared to Olog— your ability to understand basic English is rather limited. Presumably his metaphorical meaning was that Salaam's dodging the draft increased his chances of being alive today. Gee, you think? But Dave does take Nilet literally... If that's the case, then Dave is stupid. Or autistic. ... and now Nilet interprets Dave's rebuttal as being to the metaphorical thing Nilet said, not to the literal thing. As I said, I do tend to assume the best of people. That includes assuming that Dave isn't stupid enough to misinterpret a simple sentence with a clear meaning. It's hopeless. He reserves the right to reinterpretation of his statements after the fact... My statement has a plain meaning. It continues to have a plain meaning. At no point has any "interpretation" been required, so there's nothing to "reinterpret." Are you seriously claiming that if I told you it was raining cats and dogs, you'd accuse me of animal abuse for dropping felines and canines from the sky? ... without accepting that others might have taken them at face value to begin with. Neither you nor Dave has ever taken my statement at face value. You intentionally misinterpreted it, and when I told you that you misinterpreted it and reminded you what it actually meant, you insisted I was "changing" the meaning, or even claiming I meant something completely different from what I actually said. It's not possible to have a discussion with someone like that. I'm inclined to assume the best of people, so right now I'll assume you're genuinely unable to understand non-literal language. However, whether you are genuinely unable to understand figures of speech or willfully misinterpreting what I said because you enjoy being a nuisance doesn't really matter, because it's impossible to have a debate with you either way. |
|
|
|