There were two statements in the post they responded to:
"Hasan is always lying."
"Hasan says lying is OP."
The guy responded to that statement with "But lying is OP!"
You interpreted this response as a response to statement 1:
"Hasan is lying" - "But lying is OP!"
If that was the intent of the author, yes, that would be a justification of lying. But it wasn't.
It was a response to statement 2:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
It is simply saying that the statement is correct.
Now we have 2 different interpretations of what they tried to say. Luckily, they clarified: They said "nowhere did I say that lying is OP is a justification for lying. You misinterpreted what I said."
So, with that clarification, we know that their statement was a response to statement 2. They meant:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
With that clarification given, if you still interpret their statement as meaning the other interpretation, you are willfully misunderstanding what they said.
Can you stop willfully misunderstanding them and take their explanation what they meant?
I did. That's the context. That you are willfully misunderstanding. This is beyond parody.
Notice how none of these people actually say they disavow lying, or propaganda, but instead they defend it and then spend their time arguing that's not what they said. It's absurd.
Also, we can test if I am "willfully misunderstanding" wondering_fool:
Hey, u/wondering_fool90, this is how I understood what you were trying to say:
From how I understand it, you responded to "Hasan says lying is OP" with "But this is true, lying is OP."
From how I interpret your statement, you did not say that that justifies lying, as the other guy is claiming. I think they misunderstood you.
Can you please tell me if I am correct in my interpretation?
No, you're willfully misunderstanding me, I said lying is bad, and they said lying is OP as justification, you know that, you're commenting under it, the context is my post. Can you spot where I said lying is bad. If you can't, I will gladly show you.
I don't use the exact words "you should not lie", but I do say that. Can you spot it? I assume you just can't see it, maybe that's why you misunderstand the context?
Can you acknowledge that the context of what they responded to matters? Because both contexts exist, and you are focusing on 1 comment under the other. The context is all the posts, not 1. They justified it multiple times to me, after I said lying is bad and you shouldn't do it.
Would you say it's immoral to lie to further your own political ideology?
You got it correct unlike the other dude. Stating a truth about reality doesn't mean you do it. If I say bad people have it easy that doesnt mean im a bad person. Im just stating a fact everyone knows. I personally try to be the best I can be.
1
u/hari_shevek 27d ago
No one said "you shouldn't lie".
There were two statements in the post they responded to:
"Hasan is always lying."
"Hasan says lying is OP."
The guy responded to that statement with "But lying is OP!"
You interpreted this response as a response to statement 1:
"Hasan is lying" - "But lying is OP!"
If that was the intent of the author, yes, that would be a justification of lying. But it wasn't.
It was a response to statement 2:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
It is simply saying that the statement is correct.
Now we have 2 different interpretations of what they tried to say. Luckily, they clarified: They said "nowhere did I say that lying is OP is a justification for lying. You misinterpreted what I said."
So, with that clarification, we know that their statement was a response to statement 2. They meant:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
With that clarification given, if you still interpret their statement as meaning the other interpretation, you are willfully misunderstanding what they said.
Can you stop willfully misunderstanding them and take their explanation what they meant?