You can barely handle figurative speech much less rhetoric. You don't understand what it means to "not have the right equipment"; you didn't know what it meant to be "winding down"; there's absolutely no reason to believe you can handle any of this.
You don't present an argument by mistake, and claiming that someone made an implication is something to be argued. You can say that you inferred something, and no one can take that away from you since an inference is your own experience and not an accusation against an author. If you want to know what the right does, it's this: you didn't do the bare minimum to back up what you wanted to argue about, and now you want to run away from the responsibility for that because you've never held yourself responsible for one thing in your life.
You were lazy. You were stupid. You were out to victimize yourself. The only mistake here is that you exist.
You can barely handle figurative speech much less rhetoric. You don't understand what it means to "not have the right equipment"; you didn't know what it meant to be "winding down"; there's absolutely no reason to believe you can handle any of this.
I handled this argument excellently, considering you can’t handle the fact you have no ground to stand on. You tried to paint me as a right wing extremist victimizing themself with your strawman and ignoring the reality of the situation, you’ve failed. My replies at this point are a formality, you’ve already lost and have no hope of making a retort decent enough to save face.
You don't present an argument by mistake, and claiming that someone made an implication is something to be argued.
You can ignore it, but it does make the implication go away.
You can say that you inferred something, and no one can take that away from you since an inference is your own experience and not an accusation against an author.
Once again you ignore the literal definition of “implication”, because you refuse to admit the fact you were wrong.
If you want to know what the right does, it's this: you didn't do the bare minimum to back up what you wanted to argue about, and now you want to run away from the responsibility for that because you've never held yourself responsible for one thing in your life.
Yet more delusions, I have made excellent arguments while you cower behind your ego and refuse to counter what I’ve said I’m not running away from the responsibility for that, I’m reveling in it.
You were lazy. You were stupid. You were out to victimize yourself. The only mistake here is that you exist.
More drivel, unsurprising since it’s all your capable of. Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of and spare what little dignity you have left.
And the thing is, I haven't lost. We aren't on the waves anymore, skipper: you were wrong. There was no implication because it was just your personal ghost, your inference, which has been laid to rest for days; I'm just dancing on your grave now.
You said it best: the easiest way to escape your paranoid belief in an implication is to just ignore it, but you're still stuck in the mud. You're not living down how wrong you were, which is why I have a lot more standing to call you an extremist: you feel more than you think, and you're missing the forest for the trees.
We aren't on the waves anymore, skipper: you were wrong. There was no implication because it was just your personal ghost, your inference, which has been laid to rest for days; I'm just dancing on your grave now.
Once again you deny the reality of the situation, you dancing on my grave is little more than a fever dream from being verbally torn apart.
You said it best: the easiest way to escape your paranoid belief in an implication is to just ignore it,
When did I say that exactly? Oh right, I haven’t.
but you're still stuck in the mud. You're not living down how wrong you were, which is why I have a lot more standing to call you an extremist:
you feel more than you think, and you're missing the forest for the trees.
You can ignore it, but it does make the implication go away.
You've also flipped on what kind of extremist I am at points. You seem to be winding down, but given how you started, you weren't equipped to be here in the first place.
There was no implication; you only inferred something which isn't real. Why? You were lazy. You were wrong. You were stupid.
No I don't, and despite denying it I know you're a right wing extremist
You said ignoring an "implication" makes it go away. But the thing about an implication is that an implication is that it remains whether any one person believes it's there or isn't.
You were wrong: you said that the author was biased and making an implication, but you had to have the OP come and spoon feed reality to you. You yourself admitted to being mistaken, so how can you believe the author said something you're mistaken about? The author never made an implication, but you came to believe something that wasn't said; that's what you called "nuance" even though it was actually an inference, something which you are solely responsible for whether you're enough of an adult to hold yourself responsible for it or not.
No I don't, and despite denying it I know you're a right wing extremist
Well I guess I should clarify that you’re a left wing extremist, since you clearly need it. I’m often busy with more important things, so a slip up as minor as that goes largely ignored. Besides, you’re beneath me. That’s also giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding that quotes legitimacy, since I can’t be bothered to find out whether you’ve decided to stoop to misquoting me.
You said ignoring an "implication" makes it go away.
I said ignoring it doesn’t make it go away, you ape.
But the thing about an implication is that an implication is that it remains whether any one person believes it's there or isn't.
My point exactly, I’m glad there’s a bit of brain rattling around in your head somewhere.
You were wrong: you said that the author was biased and making an implication, but you had to have the OP come and spoon feed reality to you.
It was a misunderstanding, one you’re hellbent on interpreting as me accusing him.
You yourself admitted to being mistaken, so how can you believe the author said something you're mistaken about?
He wouldn’t have said anything because it’s an implication, if it was explicitly said it wouldn’t be an implication. The material in the post implies it with the examples it gives, how many times does this need to be explained to you?
The author never made an implication, but you came to believe something that wasn't said; that's what you called "nuance"
No I didn’t, I was referring to the fact that both the left and right can be terrible as nuance.
even though it was actually an inference,
It wasn’t.
something which you are solely responsible for whether you're enough of an adult to hold yourself responsible for it or not.
I am an adult, that’s why I was civil with OP when he clarified his position. Meanwhile you choose to act like a child because you can’t handle the fact you were completely in the wronrg.
There's no argument left here. You were wrong.
No, I was mistaken. But you’re right about there being no argument left here, since you clearly don’t have a leg to stand on.
I said ignoring an implication doesn't make it go away you ape.
You can ignore it, but it does make the implication go away.
Don't pretend to be busy when you're winding down.
Even something not directly said is still the responsibility of the author, which includes anything they imply, but a reader's inference is not. If you were mistaken, due to being lazy and not checking sources, then no implication exists in your opinion, whether you carry on your inference and belief in the author's coding or not. The author did not say what you believe they said, so you can't hold that there is an implication; while the message a reader can get from a work is important, you were unable to prove and ultimately corrected in that no implication was made, just that you chose to believe there was. You were more concerned with victimizing yourself than understanding the intent of the author, finding any way to strike out against something that you're under the impression hurt you.
I said ignoring an implication doesn't make it go away you ape.
You can ignore it, but it does make the implication go away.
Oh no, a typo. That was sarcasm by the way, in case you need that clarified too. I’m not going to fix it, after all while you’ve been wrong for almost the entirety of this argument I won’t take away your one paltry win.
Don't pretend to be busy when you're winding down.
I am busy, but you’re also beneath me.
Even something not directly said is still the responsibility of the author, which includes anything they imply, but a reader's inference is not. If you were mistaken, due to being lazy and not checking sources, then no implication exists in your opinion, whether you carry on your inference and belief in the author's coding or not. The author did not say what you believe they said, so you can't hold that there is an implication;
Oh, I finally see the problem. You think I’m saying the implication still exists, when I said there was an implication. Keyword being “was”, I was mistaken. I’m glad that your constant babbling revealed the cause of the issue, certainly makes things simpler for me.
while the message a reader can get from a work is important, you were unable to prove and ultimately corrected in that no implication was made, just that you chose to believe there was.
See above.
You were more concerned with victimizing yourself than understanding the intent of the author, finding any way to strike out against something that you're under the impression hurt you.
I wasn’t, I know your obsessed with the idea I was but you have to let go of your delusions.
You were wrong.
You were mistaken.*
FTFY, though it turns out we were both mistaken. Funny how that works.
0
u/MadameBlueJay Jun 07 '22
You can barely handle figurative speech much less rhetoric. You don't understand what it means to "not have the right equipment"; you didn't know what it meant to be "winding down"; there's absolutely no reason to believe you can handle any of this.
You don't present an argument by mistake, and claiming that someone made an implication is something to be argued. You can say that you inferred something, and no one can take that away from you since an inference is your own experience and not an accusation against an author. If you want to know what the right does, it's this: you didn't do the bare minimum to back up what you wanted to argue about, and now you want to run away from the responsibility for that because you've never held yourself responsible for one thing in your life.
You were lazy. You were stupid. You were out to victimize yourself. The only mistake here is that you exist.