3 ms·
> and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland Then we would be in an entirely different thread talking about some
by jrflowers 1mo ago
> and it was the core part of an argument that people need a minimum of 2 acres of farmland
Then we would be in an entirely different thread talking about something else? I was pointing out that trying to use “I refuse to understand what I read” as a dunk doesn’t really work. If you’re trying to say “What if I invent imaginary circumstances where I am right and you are wrong?” then yeah, I’d be helpless in that situation
- strken 1mo agoWell, no, because in this case the difference between "many", "most", and "all" was unclear and was being used for rhetorical effect to support a contentious point. You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad. Similarly, if someone made an unclear point about meat consumption in support of their argument then it would and should be called out.
- jrflowers 1mo ago> Well, no No to what? No, if somebody was making a totally different argument we wouldn’t be having a different conversation? Or no that I wouldn’t be proven wrong in your hypothetical where I’m wrong? >You can't just make a broad assertion in support of your views and then complain "oh, I only meant a more narrow version" when people say it's too broad. Lmao I’d ask what you mean by “you can’t clarify stuff” but
- strken 1mo agoStuff doesn't need to be clarified unless it's unclear. If stuff is unclear, and someone objects to the lack of clarity, and a clarification is offered, then surely the statement was NOT "fine as written".