4 ms·

I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about

I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.

detaro 6y ago
In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote > but there are for acting upon it publicly. So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
- aptidude187 6y ago
  >In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind. >So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre. There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
  - detaro 6y ago
    jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. > In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
    - aptidude187 6y ago
      > jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
      - detaro 6y ago
        As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.
        aptidude187 6y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?

I am only responsible for what I state, not what others (mis)understand. AGAIN, it was in reference to the hyperbolic statement that the root comment made about being punished for just 'existing'.

detaro 6y ago

In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote > but there are for acting upon it publicly. So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

aptidude187 6y ago
>In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind. >So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre. There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
- detaro 6y ago
  jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. > In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
  - aptidude187 6y ago
    > jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion. I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
    - detaro 6y ago
      As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.
      - aptidude187 6y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?