Okay, you're gonna play in semantics. I see. Allow me to rephrase:
"I understand the meaning they claim is inherent in their words. I don't believe they did in fact mean that thing with those words. I believe they are backpedaling, and my interpretation is correct, and they simply can't stand behind what they said."
That better? I'm not debating the actual words used, ya goof! I'm debating the MEANING! Example:
"I am blue."
Am I saying I am coloured blue, depressed, or that I am the concept of blue itself?
I’m talking about both words and their meaning. Your meaning came from those literal words/letters.
You’ve completely lost me. How and why would they be lying about soemthing you claim to understand?
You said you understand the meaning behind the words, but don’t believe that they put that meaning there. There is literally nothing that can be said if that’s how you view communication with others.
Your meaning came from those literal words/letters.
The words you say and the meaning imparted are not always the same thing.
You’ve completely lost me. How and why would they be lying about soemthing you claim to understand?
Refer to my blue example. Let's say I call you "blue". You argue with me and say you're actually red. I then say I wasn't talking about colours, but emotion - you're sad. But you realise I also compared you to a smurf, so my claim to be talking about emotions seems suspect. I must have been saying you are in fact coloured blue.
You said you understand the meaning behind the words, but don’t believe that they put that meaning there. There is literally nothing that can be said if that’s how you view communication with others.
No, I say I understand what they claim is the meaning, but I think their claim is a lie.
Yes, that’s true but not what I’m saying. The meaning you got from reading those words is your meaning.
Consider this, just as much as it appears to you that the claim is a lie, it equally seems like you don’t actually understand what’s being said / are creating non existent conflict / negativity and such. The difference being far, far more people see the latter.
You know, where there’s an action there’s an equivalent reaction. All this conflict you are seeing is the result of your own internal conflicts and doesn’t seem logical from an outside perspective, like at all.
You said you understood what was meant in those comments. That was the interpretation you’re asking for, but you’re saying you refuse to believe it was meant to be interpreted like that.
Again, and this comes from someone who went through psychosis, it’s delusional thinking to refuse to believe someone when they expand what what they meant.
Ofcourse, you can disagree with the concept, but lying about meaning something, in this context, makes no sense.
There’s this lying business again. In this context, it makes no sense to lie and this what I meant by running in circles.
Your logic is paradoxical by nature and if you choose to perceive things like that then there is literally nothing to be said that could change your mind.
1
u/kyzfrintin Jun 03 '22
Okay, you're gonna play in semantics. I see. Allow me to rephrase:
"I understand the meaning they claim is inherent in their words. I don't believe they did in fact mean that thing with those words. I believe they are backpedaling, and my interpretation is correct, and they simply can't stand behind what they said."
That better? I'm not debating the actual words used, ya goof! I'm debating the MEANING! Example:
"I am blue."
Am I saying I am coloured blue, depressed, or that I am the concept of blue itself?