3 ms·
I don't need to provide a definition for what is a nebulous term like "processed" in order to argue that the one provided in the original comment is both ridicu
by _aavaa_ 4y ago
I don't need to provide a definition for what is a nebulous term like "processed" in order to argue that the one provided in the original comment is both ridiculous and not congruent with what most other people would consider processed.
> Everything that isn't raw is processed.
Likewise, this is a circular definition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 4y agoYou only do if you want to make that argument successfully. >> Everything that isn't raw is processed. > Likewise, this is a circular definition. No, it is not. A circular definition is that everything that is processed is processed, the one you're carefully avoiding in favor of argument by calling something ridiculous.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoThen please define “raw” and “processing” in such a way that “raw” =/= “not processed”.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]