3 ms·

There are too many negations in your comment for me to understand its meaning. "I do think anyone can agree that pushing the vaccine..." "Is terrorism?" Or did

• smegsicle 3y ago
  i'm not sure whether i should be more confused at your implication that three negations of what i said would be what i meant, or that "i don't think anyone can disagree" is a difficult thing to parse
  • ta8645 3y ago
    I'm no intellectual giant, but I can't parse your original comment either. At the very least, it's more convoluted than necessary. The opposite of terrorism, I guess, is being helpful and kind? So you're saying that giving the vaccine to young people was helpful and kind?
    • smegsicle 3y ago
      > it's more convoluted than necessary can't disagree with that, it was the specificity of the contention that threw me off > The opposite of terrorism, I guess, is being helpful and kind? at the very least it was done in a way in which noone could be expected to complain, could anyone disagree? ALSO: i tried to post this response much earlier, but I became rate limited and alas could not full disclosure, my original intention was to promote a healthy discussion which would then be flagged off the page, an aim that i feel was entirely fulfilled, and if you felt any emotional/intellectual discomfort, perhaps i should apologize, since you don't seem like a jerk
  • strken 3y ago
    It's because your original sentence is incoherent and internally contradictory. You think nobody can disagree that "pushing the vaccine" for "demographics too young" was..."the opposite of terrorism"? What? I can't disagree with the statement because I can't even work out what it means, so in that sense you're correct.