6 ms·
> You just called him insane No, I didn't. I called a hypothetical and clearly homicidal person who I doubt was ever participating in this thread insane.
by nknighthb 13y ago
> You just called him insane
No, I didn't. I called a hypothetical and clearly homicidal person who I doubt was ever participating in this thread insane.
- spion 13y agoYou can try to weasel out of it, but for all intents and purposes you did. Here is how you did it: 1. You compared the situation A to a hypothetical situation B, claiming it to be equivalent or comparable - A <=> B 2. You claim that someone describing the hypothetical situation as an overreacting description of the hypothetical situation - Describe (P, O (B)) => Insane (P) 3. By extension you imply that the person considering the first situation overreacting is also insane - Describe (P, O (A)) => I (P) (A <=> B, Describe (P, O (B)) => Insane (P)) => (Describe (P, O (A)) => Insane (P) Its probably unintentional as you did attempt to soothe it out (but that didn't help) Personally I find that using the "understanding" method works much better than the "sootheing" method i.e. "I understand why you think this way - <explanation of your understanding of the thought process of the other person> but you're wrong because <explanation where thought process goes wrong>"
- nknighthb 13y agoYou're insane. I say that not because you disagree with me, but because you have tried to turn an informal discussion into a math problem, apparently thinking it would be in any way persuasive. For the record, the final line of my comment was intended to mean, basically, "If you don't think airplanes built my amateurs are dangerous, then we're not going to get anywhere, because I would consider you insane." Whatever else you got out of it is your own invention.
- asdashopping 13y agoYou're an asshole.