3 ms·

>So basically you stopped at the subtitle, which makes it dubious that you got the context. The author is an historian and is not argumenting but presenting. I

• mdp2021 5y ago
  > They think lying is allowed No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. A piece about a warmonger subtitled 'Kill them all' may use rhetoric clumsily, refer to an poorly-identified audience and/or omit quotes and other rhetoric indicators, and does not mean that the author of the piece subscribes to that point of view - it may be a shout intending to represent, or give an idea, or be ironic about, the point of view of the subject, or of his commentors, or other references. Edit: to admit inadequate representations into the representational world amounts to lying... Ideas have to be fitting facts adequately.
  • incomingpain 5y ago
    >No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. That's a poor argument to convince someone to read the article.
    • mdp2021 5y ago
      I am very certainly not trying to convince you to read the article: I have told you that your statement about what that author thinks has weak grounds. I will also tell you here that you should not make statements about material you have not really considered. Taking a sentence out of context is a good recipe for misinterpreting it. This is no language that makes isolated pieces autonomous with any guarantee. Language is there for the recipient to understand it, actively.