So wait...we are supposed to interpret what the rapist might have meant, instead of what he actually said...there, for us to read? Even though what he said is sort of in line with him...you know...raping people.
That seems convoluted, and prone to error. I understand though, like I said, you didn't really agree with what he said there, but something that you made up in your mind, and only needed a couple extra posts to clarify, it's all good.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So wait...we are supposed to interpret what the rapist might have meant, instead of what he actually said...there, for us to read? Even though what he said is sort of in line with him...you know...raping people.That seems convoluted, and prone to error. I understand though, like I said, you didn't really agree with what he said there, but something that you made up in your mind, and only needed a couple extra posts to clarify, it's all good.
So wait, we're supposed to interpret a single statement to be absolutely universal even though we don't know the context and we can easily think of exceptions to such statements?
That seems convaluted and obviously prone to error. I understand, though, that because he's a rapist, all of his opinions will be interpretted with the maximum rapey fashion and not amount of intelligence will be granted to rapists making statements because all rapists are dumb, to be sure. I have no problem with you clarifying a natural bias towards rapists because, hey, no one likes rapists, right?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...yes we should. Obviously.
That's the wrong answer, obviously.
Person 1: "Man, birds are so annoying. Wish they'd go away."
P2: "ZOMG! You hate every single bird that has lived, is living, and will live? U R DUMB!"
Context: Person 1 is complaining about the birds outside of his window in a casual conversation. He obviously does not intend to mean every single bird.
That would be nice if we were having a conversation with the rapist.
As it is we don't and the issue is "do you agree with the statement?", not "do you agree with a different statement that sort of uses the same words, but a couple other things added and maybe some meanings removed, which the person originally saying it may or may not have meant?". There was a removed statement, no other context for you to base any sort of implications on.
So, we come back to "I understand you didn't mean it, but you agreed with a specific statement, we can't know what you were thinking at the time of writing, we only know what you actually said".
Originally posted by Bardock42
That would be nice if we were having a conversation with the rapist.As it is we don't and the issue is "do you agree with the statement?", not "do you agree with a different statement that sort of uses the same words, but a couple other things added and maybe some meanings removed, which the person originally saying it may or may not have meant?". There was a removed statement, no other context for you to base any sort of implications on.
So, we come back to "I understand you didn't mean it, but you agreed with a specific statement, we can't know what you were thinking at the time of writing, we only know what you actually said".
You should not think of exceptions to a brief statement that was obviously made casually. That's dishonest. Instead, you should understand that any time you see a brief snippit of a casual conversation, make sure you don't do idiotic things like assume the statements are intended to be truly universal.
Almost any statement anyone makes ever has an exception. (Maybe things like truisms are the exception to the exception?)
Go ahead, make a statement that is not a truism: I'll show you an exception.
Instead of focusing on the exceptions of things people state, you should focus on why what they state is correct. Generally, it is *ssholish to always look for exceptions in statements. It is along the same lines as correcting someone's spelling or grammar when the thoughts are still being conveyed properly.
"I claim A".
"A has exception #3."
"Cool. How cares about the exceptions because I wasn't talking about the exceptions, obviously."
Additionally, why did Sancty ask you to argue for her? (That does not mean she directly asked you).
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nonsense
K.
So you'll have to explain what you mean by that because I can think of about 4 ways it can apply.
But I'll continue to take statements like those at face value, never assume they mean them universally when there are easy exceptions (like, do you really think he had a model in mind for a clothing shoot...you know... a job? Obviously, it would not apply to the model because they did not choose the clothes. It's their job. Or how about a person dressing for the beach? It's tough to dress for the beach without wearing something revealing. Sure, you can wear things more revealing than others, but it is quite difficult to avoid revealing a lot. There's tons and tons of obvious exceptions just like that. Do you think he thought of all the exceptions and still concluded in a universal manner? If so, on what grounds (other than the biased conclusion that all rapists are dumb and cannot think very well (not true. Some are very smart...like you)).