2 ms·

The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue

by acqq 9y ago

The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite.

vidarh 9y ago
> The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. So argue that with them, not with me, as I've not argued "that is not why" at any point. > And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. I didn't claim it is "actually irrelevant". I very narrowly claimed it is irrelevant to the argument put forward in the comment you originally replied to. To try one last time to make this clear to you: The original comment implies that the real reason is different from that stated in the verdict. The text of the verdict can not be authoritative on that, because the implied claim is that the reason given in the verdict was an excuse. You may very well have good arguments for why the verdict was the real reason, but I did not at any point question whether or not the verdict was the real reason. I only pointed out that if someone questions whether or not the crime stated in the verdict was the real reason for prosecuting him, the text of the verdict itself is not relevant as a counter-argument, because what they are questioning is not addressed by the verdict at all. He can be 100% guilty in line with the verdict, and the original argument could still be true (again: I'm not arguing it is), so to counter the original argument, quoting the verdict is irrelevant. Nothing you say can change that - it's not a matter of opinion. > Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite. Failing to understand the argument you're responding to doesn't make your argument more valid either. This is my final word on it, as we're going in circles as long as you keep failing to understand the argument.

by acqq 9y ago

vidarh 9y ago

> The person in question obviously never saw neither the text of the sentence nor heard about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. And it seems that these that argue "that is not why" have the interest not to mention either of those. So argue that with them, not with me, as I've not argued "that is not why" at any point. > And even if we assume that the given "person didn't accept" something so blatant, that fact is definitely not enough to allow anybody (including you) to claim that the text of the sentence is actually irrelevant. I didn't claim it is "actually irrelevant". I very narrowly claimed it is irrelevant to the argument put forward in the comment you originally replied to. To try one last time to make this clear to you: The original comment implies that the real reason is different from that stated in the verdict. The text of the verdict can not be authoritative on that, because the implied claim is that the reason given in the verdict was an excuse. You may very well have good arguments for why the verdict was the real reason, but I did not at any point question whether or not the verdict was the real reason. I only pointed out that if someone questions whether or not the crime stated in the verdict was the real reason for prosecuting him, the text of the verdict itself is not relevant as a counter-argument, because what they are questioning is not addressed by the verdict at all. He can be 100% guilty in line with the verdict, and the original argument could still be true (again: I'm not arguing it is), so to counter the original argument, quoting the verdict is irrelevant. Nothing you say can change that - it's not a matter of opinion. > Being in denial doesn't make your argument more valid, quite the opposite. Failing to understand the argument you're responding to doesn't make your argument more valid either. This is my final word on it, as we're going in circles as long as you keep failing to understand the argument.