Re: Reply
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:39 am
PsyGuy wrote:
> Words dont explode when you misuse them. "It can be used",
> "the elevator can now be used", using "we" doesnt cause
> a fault in reality, your just inferring that you represent a larger group
> of individuals when in reality its just you. Standing in the lobby by
> yourself and saying "we can use the elevator now" is just
> yourself there is no we, we doesnt make additional people appear.
Nope, that's not how language works.
Saying 'we' doesn't mean always mean you're representing a group.
In this case I'm just saying people are able to do something.
But since you seem to need it, I can unequivocally state that I don't represent anyone but myself, and if you think that I think I do, thats your problem.
> Hitchens claim is no different than stating water is wet. Agreeing with you
> or aligning with your goals and outcomes doesnt make the claim more valid
> its not self authenticating, substantial or significant because you claim
> it to be and than clarify its obvious. Its just @Heliotrope claiming some
> person said something that you agree with and inferring anyone who doesnt
> agree with you is stupid or dumb.
You come up with a number, but refuse to back it up with data, as you frequently refuse to tell us where you've come across information (other than 'the internet').
So I reject it as a made-up number until there's any evidence that that average has any basis in reality.
And not that it's relevant, but water MAKES things wet, it's not wet itself - there's no 'wet water'.
I know you disagree - it's a discussion we've already had once before, and just like then we can agree to disagree.
> Words dont explode when you misuse them. "It can be used",
> "the elevator can now be used", using "we" doesnt cause
> a fault in reality, your just inferring that you represent a larger group
> of individuals when in reality its just you. Standing in the lobby by
> yourself and saying "we can use the elevator now" is just
> yourself there is no we, we doesnt make additional people appear.
Nope, that's not how language works.
Saying 'we' doesn't mean always mean you're representing a group.
In this case I'm just saying people are able to do something.
But since you seem to need it, I can unequivocally state that I don't represent anyone but myself, and if you think that I think I do, thats your problem.
> Hitchens claim is no different than stating water is wet. Agreeing with you
> or aligning with your goals and outcomes doesnt make the claim more valid
> its not self authenticating, substantial or significant because you claim
> it to be and than clarify its obvious. Its just @Heliotrope claiming some
> person said something that you agree with and inferring anyone who doesnt
> agree with you is stupid or dumb.
You come up with a number, but refuse to back it up with data, as you frequently refuse to tell us where you've come across information (other than 'the internet').
So I reject it as a made-up number until there's any evidence that that average has any basis in reality.
And not that it's relevant, but water MAKES things wet, it's not wet itself - there's no 'wet water'.
I know you disagree - it's a discussion we've already had once before, and just like then we can agree to disagree.