> Completely wrong. I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree

> Completely wrong. I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree with all of them, but I'm not sure what you do disagree with. I certainly do not think that people are robots who operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. That is not even close to a thing that I think, and I think I can vaguely see how you got that impression, but it's just wrong. I'm sorry, I sometimes trigger that impression in people, I know this but I'm not very good at avoiding it. > In what way? In what way would I like to be called out? "This is Bulverism" would be fine. > Do what less? In this specific case, Bulverism. At other times, other kinds of speech too, like slurs, gibberish, factually untrue statements. (This is not an exhaustive list.) > I very much do believe they lack empathy. Well, uh. Okay. Tangents upon tangents, but - do you think that because that's the only possible explanation you can think of, for why he said what he said? Or some other reason? I note that your stated beliefs about my internal experiences do not match my actual experience of my internal experiences. Does that make you less confident in your beliefs about Jess' internal experiences? > I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem. Again, not even close to what I'm pushing for. (For example, "it should not have been said" is not a pure factual statement.) Also, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.