- Aug 14, 2021
- 168
- 260
First i never "backtracked." Backtracking is changing what i was saying. I clarified cause i messed up what i had typed. Everyone uses backtracking as changing what someone meant cause they realized they messed up and should change it to look better. I admitted i messed up what typed not what i meant. I am human who can be stupid. I'm not perfect, but hat has nothing to do with meaning explaining time and time again that it depends on the people doing the sentencing. That is why i typed that you don't seem to read everything i typed. Cause i explained it multiple times which nothing you typed disproves that.I am not misunderstanding anything. You specifically wrote about me making a comparison.
I did not make one. I gave an analogy.
This is the not the first time you've written something, then subsequently claimed not to have meant what you wrote. You did the same when you stated that only video was creepy, then back-tracked to say both were.
I understand exactly what you write. You just seem to write statements which convey other things than what you intend.
If what you wrote is, again, not what you intended to say, then you are miscommunicating.
No-one has ever said that video is not worse than audio. You're making an argument against something which no-one has said.
I have explicitly stated that it is worse, numerous times & you have the audacity to accuse me of not reading? That's rich!
What I am saying (for the umpteenth time!) is that it does not matter that one is worse than the other, if the outcome is death either way.
It's like saying getting 2 life sentences is more than 1. *In literal terms, not legal ones.
Is it, though? Really? No-one can serve more than 1. So the punishment is the same, either way.
1 life sentence, 2 life sentences, 20 life sentences, 200 life sentences. All = 1 life sentence.
Again, because that's a comparison & no-one has attempted to do that.
Are you intentionally displaying ignorance? Or do you simply not understand the difference between an analogy & a comparison?
I made an analogy of one situation where the amount & method does not matter because the outcome is still the same, in relation to another situation where exactly the same premise is true.
How are you unable to grasp the simple, basic logic in the premise of the analogy?
There is no relevance to video being worse than audio. It does not matter a jot if you are killed for being a spy, either way.
Precisely the same as it does not matter if the murderer killed 10, or 20 people, he's getting executed either way.
I declared that it was an intentionally extreme example. I also gave a far more low grade example, of someone stealing one chocolate bar, or two.
They're still a thief, or a mass-murderer, or a spy, either way.
I let it slide that you called it "illogical logic", but perhaps the fact that you do not understand this basic principle explains why you're having such difficulty following extremely simple, basic logic.
It's either illogical, or it's logical.
There is no such thing as "illogical logic". Being illogical makes it the antithesis of logic.
It cannot be both.
Whatever your reason, I've explained it in simple enough terms for most to understand, yet you're still unable to grasp it.
I'm clearly wasting my time in trying to help you with understanding, it does not seem that you have the necessary comprehension skills.
I cannot explain it in any more simple terms, so I will stop now & spare you the embarrassment.
Good luck out there.
Dude an analogy is a comparison. How do you not know that!!! How can you analogize something but not compare in some sort of way. If an analogy has no comparison between the to then how are explaining their relevance to one another?
How does one not get worse consequence for something that is worse than another? When it comes to life you can't quantify life. That is why you can't even compare the number of kills of two cold blooded killers. You are the one who does not understand. cause i have said it depends on the person who is doing the sentencing that matters. When it comes to "illogical logic." I use that as saying someone thinking they are being logical but are being illogical. Meaning There thinking is off and they do not realize it. Just cause people do not use those terms together cause its a weird redundancy does not not mean people do not understand what i mean. I have explained it clearly that it depends on the people who are doing the sentencing. Not everyone will detach themselves from the situations hence why i said a father is more likely to "rip a dudes arm off and beat him with it" instead of just beating him. If just recording the father may beat the dude, but depending on how angry he is the beating would vary with different people. Not everyone looks at things the same way. That is why different people will handle things differently. You are stuck in your viewpoint while i am looking at the whole picture with thinking about how different people look at it. Also you seem to think an analogy can be an analogy without comparing one comparison to another.
If you are wondering why i was redundant in this one its cause you seem gloss over that point without addressing it.
So yeah unless you figure out a way to actually disprove what i typed in this one you have not embarrassed me. I am annoyed that you made into a broken record though.
