"You didn't make that argument explicitly, that doesn't mean your words were misinterpreted."
I am the be all end all when it comes to the correct interpretation of my words because they're my words. They're subject to whatever point I make or have made.
My words, my meaning of words and points.
So I'm saying you misinterpreted my point.
You say "explicitly" which I take to mean word for word. When you don't stick by word for word you have to be careful of paraphrasing or reimagining what someone is saying or else you stand guilty no pun intended, you'll be charged with no pun intended again, you'll be pointed at as adding words , putting words in someone else's mouth which you may not want to admit.
Instead of telling someone what that someone's point is, let that one tell you his or her own point. I have told you my point in my last response.
" "God bless him" is a statement of support, and "that's payment for..." is a colloquial term that comes from the concept of erasing a debt owed, which is unquestionably considered a good thing."
No no no let me tell you where you went wrong, you. Let me tell you what "God bless him" means. This is where you add your own meaning causing a misinterpretation.
"God bless" may be a "statement of support " when others use it. Who's to say that's what I mean? You see what I'm saying?
You take your meaning that you provided in tandem "that's payment for", the support of a good thing.
See how you come up with your own read on things.
Never said anything about supporting anything or what is good. This is like a bias perhaps maybe you think I'm picking sides or something.
Like I said I'm just labeling the point you formulated.
"You can claim that "two wrongs make a right" is not what you meant to imply, but that is in fact what your words amounted to."
You really should learn or get in the habit of actually listening to what people are meaning by what they say and what they're explaining by the exact words they're using. You keep saying "imply, imply, imply, imply".
My words are at face value. Why is this not good enough? Why aren't they taken explicitly as you broached the word? Why are you pursuing this imagined deeper meaning?
This is how you build strawmans. Just deal with what I actually said in text. I tell you , I tell you what my words amount to, they're my words. They amount to nothing, nothing, nothing more than what's on the face of them. They amount to nothing else than that .
The particular words I use mean what they do based on either what is given or according to me.
"If I told you the answer to your question is 2+2, I don't get to tell you you're wrong by "misinterpreting" my answer as 4."
This is not the same instance. If I never said 4, and you say it was strongly implied, you can't say I actually verbatim said it and be honest and correct about it.
This is an example of how you've responded to my points. You're mixing up objective things with personal interpretations. You have to know where my exact worded point stops and your interpretation begins.
You can do your personal interpretations all day. If you want to know what I mean by anything, you ask. This "you implied" this and that is just your words and you only have a tougher time proving they're my words because I actually never used the language.
"Why? I didn't ask you to label it nor was there any reason for you to do so. There was no context for which this explanation fits."
It's called a dialogue or in this sense an interaction on a topic. It was my response, that's why. If you don't want my response to what you stated in my own topic, say so.
It was my response, that's the reason. Individuals are going to have responses, what are you talking about "nor was there any reason for you to do so"?
It's called a response. You may not like it, you may not agree, accept or understand it, so be it. It's got nothing to do with you asking for anything. I take the liberty and respond.
This point you made is coming across like you have a problem with folks that appear to oppose you. I'm not even opposing. What? You don't like the label. Ok well let it go comrade. The man is gone, let him rest in peace. You know, you arguing with me ain't allowing any peace.
"So now you're saying that the issue from the start what the definition of knowledge, which for some reason you were working with the idea that to know something is to be absolutely certain of it. That again just comes off as dishonest. If that was your issue from the start you would have raised it then but you didn't."
You really have a problem in comprehending word for word what is being said. I said you asked two different questions. Is believing in something or knowing something mean the same to you?
There were two different questions you asked. See I quote exactly what you say so I don't misrepresent and your quote is a witness even if it's against you or contradicts you. When it's your own contradiction, maybe you don't realize and you need help turning away from traveling the wrong track.
This thing was supposed to be on Mr. O.J. Simpson. You've blown all these other issues into this.... honesty,making claims, implications.
For somebody that wasn't really arguing with you, you just aching for something to argue about.
"Knowledge is a subset of belief, so if I ask you how you know something, and you do in fact believe it, there is no reason to quibble with the word knowledge. It's basic colloquial English that the distinction there is meaningless."
This just feeds my point about understanding what one another is communicating. Don't roll with assumptions, colloquialisms, generalizations and implications.
So we can leave it here for real. Hopefully you have a little more understanding.
