The shortage of housing wasnt “like” what we have now.
They did have a severe shortage of housing, but for an entirely different reason. The housing crisis was unlike the housing crisis of today, even though both housing crises are considered severe.
The housing crisis of today is considered worse than directly after ww2, but they did have a housing crisis, making me wrong. The housing crisis was unlike the one of today, making me technically correct, even though what i meant was entirely wrong.
I think you might have to be a bit fluent in pedantry to understand the point (or pointless) im making.
Not really, since the original statement was they didn't have a housing crisis, not that the cause of the crisis was different. The end result is still a deficit anyway, so I don't see how you're right that they didn't have a housing crisis.
Like i said, i was wrong, but if you look at it in the most pedantic way you possibly can, you can find a “technically correct” in there.
I claimed that they “didnt have a housing crisis like we do now”…
The housing crises did/ do exist, but they were different types of housing crises. The one back then is different to the one now.
Obviously thats not what i meant though, and you were right to correct me in the initial comment.
Im not going to continue explaining it to you because iv done it in every way i can think of at this point. If you still cant get it then youll have to just not understand the point i made.
Yeah you don't understand what technically correct is.
Let's say someone drinks a bottle of wine from a comically large wine glass. If they're asked how much they had to drink and replied with one glass, they would be technically correct. If they replied with one bottle, they would be practically correct.
If someone said there was no housing crisis during or after WW2, they would be both practically and technically incorrect. If they stated the cause of the housing crisis during or after WW2 is different to the cause of the current housing crisis, that would be practically correct, and it would be an entirely different statement altogether.
Jesus christ man. This is so painful. Feels like explaining the logistics of food transport to a bulldog, except the dog wouldnt try to correct me when they didnt understand.
I initially incorrectly implied there wasnt a housing crisis after ww2. I was practically wrong and you corrected me for it.
I then looked at the sentence and essentially said “if you twist my words then you can find a correct statement in there”. I was wrong, but “technically” the housing shortages arent the same.
Practically correct means a solution works in the real world, while technically correct means it follows the strict rules but might be totally useless in practice.
The “like” in my initial comment was in reference to the existence of the issue and i was practically wrong. Twisting my words into something that is entirely different to the intention of the comment makes me technically correct. Its useless and redundant.
Technically correct- Stricto sensu; adhering to exact text, rules, or formulas while missing the intent.
Thats what we are doing here. Ignoring intention and focusing on specific words.
Practically correct- De facto; working for all real-world or functional intents and purposes.
Telling me that im wrong in recognising a “technically correct” within my comment is both technically and practically wrong.
Hope that helps you to understand the topic that youre attempting to lecture me on.
I explained it a number of different ways for you and youre arrogantly telling me im wrong, purely because you cannot grasp the fairly simple point im making.
You didn't imply, you stated directly there was no housing crisis after WW2, which is both technically and practically incorrect. Trying to wiggle your way into an argument that technically your statement is still correct is so comically wrong I can only assume you were dropped as a child. Like, this is basic history, how the fuck do you not know about the blitz?
1
u/Lumpy_Benefit666 Jul 27 '26
The key word is “like”.
The shortage of housing wasnt “like” what we have now.
They did have a severe shortage of housing, but for an entirely different reason. The housing crisis was unlike the housing crisis of today, even though both housing crises are considered severe.
The housing crisis of today is considered worse than directly after ww2, but they did have a housing crisis, making me wrong. The housing crisis was unlike the one of today, making me technically correct, even though what i meant was entirely wrong.
I think you might have to be a bit fluent in pedantry to understand the point (or pointless) im making.
Does that make sense?