4 ms·

> It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > and being

> It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason. An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all. > The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them. Agreed. Good thing I didn't. > You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification. They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second. So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

stale2002 4y ago
> I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > someone else jumped in Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  > Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that. > Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting. And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking. > I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote. So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?
  - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
    "Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments." I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      Are you aware your post history is viewable? There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.
      - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
        I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological. There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.
        PierceJoy 4y ago
        There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions, which are well-outlined in your writing, and then ran with them, which is funny because that’s what you accused me of. Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?
        WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
        What did I say which was ideological?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications. > have accomplished precisely nothing You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there. > to how ridiculous this is? You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.

stale2002 4y ago

> I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > someone else jumped in Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.

PierceJoy 4y ago
> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that. > Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting. And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking. > I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote. So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?
- WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
  "Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments." I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.
  - PierceJoy 4y ago
    Are you aware your post history is viewable? There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.
    - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
      I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological. There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions, which are well-outlined in your writing, and then ran with them, which is funny because that’s what you accused me of. Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?
        WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
        What did I say which was ideological?
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications. > have accomplished precisely nothing You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there. > to how ridiculous this is? You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.