Ogami-san Can’t Keep It In - Vol. 4 Ch. 21 - Can't Be A Wolf

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls Here's what I said:

Indeed, if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant. What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

I also said from the very beginning that life experience and exposure are irrelevant. I made it clear that simply having a limited life experience and exposure is unsufficient for considering anyone to be ignorant. What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls "is one thing" does not mean nothing, but it's irrelevant in light of what follows.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/be-one-thing
I did not ignore the part where the hypothetical you would have said the same thing. I addressed that by saying that the life experience and exposure of the hypothetical you "is one thing," that is, it's not relevant to whether you would be considered ignorant. In what way would I be more ignorant under my own definition? I highly doubt you can even provide the definition I gave of what it means to be ignorant, or else you would not have made such an ignorant statement about me. In what way did I fail to read what you have said by addressing what you've said right from the beginning? Don't blame your failure to understand my words on me.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I also made it very clear that the hypothetical you would not be considered ignorant on account of your lack of life experiences alone. I didn't backtrack; I merely explained what these simple English terms mean, because it appears you don't know the language well. It is not up to you to decide what "is one thing" means. My use of it is based on the common meaning of the phrase, that it modifies the importance or relevance of the prior clause in relation to the following clause. You failed to explain how I'm ignorant given that you can't even provide a simple explanation of what "my" definition of ignorant is. I'm not the one here who needs simple English terms explained to them.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
I actually did say that the hypothetical you is still ignorant, however, so I most definitely did not ignore anything, nor has my position ever changed at any point in time.

What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

Remember, you based the hypothetical person on yourself when you said, "Imagine if I lived in the UK or any other country that uses the term "aircon" for my entire life. Despite that fact, it is entirely possible that I might never have heard the term. That would be my life experiences and exposure, and yet, I could still say the same thing that I said earlier." Hence why the "you" in my statement as quoted above is addressed to both you and the hypothetical you.
I did not assert anything contrary to fact.
Let's break down your statement to see if it holds up logically:

You asserted that the hypothetical person would not be considered ignorant and then said that the life experiences do not matter while also saying I am ignorant.

So there are three statements here:
1. "the hypothetical person would not be considered ignorant"
2. "the life experiences do not matter"
3. "I am ignorant"
Now, with regards to the first statement, that's incorrect, since I stated clearly that "What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts." When I explained, "if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant" that was pertaining to the life experience and exposure as their own separate points, where I have stated "is one thing" to put a stop there to make my point, that these have no relevance at all to what makes you ignorant.
Therefore, with the second and third statements, they are both true. And there are absolutely no contradictions whatsoever.
You keep repeating yourself, but fail to realise that the one who keeps failing how to read is you.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
>Wow, you're still illiterate and ignoring what YOU wrote.

How is referring back to what I wrote ignoring what I wrote?

>Your position has never changed? That's such a complete and obvious lie.

It has always been the same. What's changed is your reading comprehension, and I don't know if it's gotten better or worse.

>Why did you say that the hypothetical "me" would not be ignorant "that being one thing"? Again, I have to ask the same exact questions because you keep backtracking. Why would the hypothetical be not ignorant while I would be?

I did not say that the hypothetical you would not be ignorant. I said "that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant."
I separated out what is irrelevant from what actually makes the hypothetical you ignorant: "What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts."
In that regard, there is no difference between you and the hypothetical you.

>For the purposes of this conversation, it doesn't matter that the hypothetical person is based on me or not. The hypothetical is still separate from me.

Right. And you're both just as ignorant, if not just as pathetic.

>You said the hypothetical person would not be considered ignorant because they wouldn't be asserting things contrary to fact. That's literally false. I can point out the words that show that is false.

I didn't say that they would not be considered ignorant because they wouldn't be asserting things contrary to fact. I said that based on their lack of experience alone, they would not be considered ignorant. That's a huge difference that only a moron would not be able to distinguish.

>You only said that the hypothetical would indeed be ignorant after SO MANY posts. That shows how you are backtracking. You literally changed your position because I showed that you didn't read the hypothetical.

I've actually said that the hypothetical is ignorant for asserting things based on their limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. I've said that from the beginning. The problem is when you forgot that you referred to the hypothetical as yourself in the first place. Now you are the one backtracking and wanting to separate the hypothetical from referring to yourself.

>That is NOT how a person is supposed to write to explain themselves. Simply saying "that being one thing" DOES NOT mean you are putting forward a new hypothetical. Ask ANYONE who speaks English, and the VAST MAJORITY will say that you said that the hypothetical person is not ignorant FULL STOP. You didn't explain anything.

I have not put forward a new hypothetical. Stop putting fake arguments into my mouth. I even provided you a dictionary definition of "be one thing" to help you understand how this common English phrase is normally understood by casual English speakers, yet it appears the grasp of basic English has continued to elude you. To reiterate, "being one thing" compares the clause that comes before it with the clause that follows the phrase.

>I even asked you multiple times why the hypothetical person would not be ignorant while I would be. You made TWO comments about other issues before you EVER responded to that question.

Wrong. I kept referring to my original statement because the answer is already there.

>You are now hanging in BY A THREAD to say "that being one thing" means whatever you want it to mean. It needs to be contextualized. Here, it meant nothing. You still directly said the hypothetical person is not ignorant, and you didn't even clarify when asked MULTIPLE times.

I gave you the dictionary definition. It does not mean whatever I want it to mean. "being one thing" never means nothing. I never said that the hypothetical person is not ignorant. I made it clear from the beginning, but it is you who forgot your own point of reference when it comes to referring to the hypothetical person.

>That's the worst part that proves how much you are lying. You used ambiguous language. I even asked you to explain. It took you FOREVER to ever say anything. Read your own definition of "being one thing". It does NOT justify what you did here.

There is nothing ambiguous about the language I use. It took you forever to understand the point I initially made, and I suspect this would go on for quite some time before you even finally come to an understanding of what "being one thing" means in the English language. What part of "being one thing" does not pertain to what I stated initially?
Here, let me break down my use of "be one thing" and how it pertains to your ignorance:

Indeed, if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant. What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

First clause: if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure
"is one thing" i.e. "be one thing":
"You can say that the first of two ideas, actions, or situations is one thing when you want to contrast it with a second idea, action, or situation and emphasize that the second one is much more difficult, important, or extreme." - Collins English Dictionary
Second clause: What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts.
"is one thing": second clause renders the first clause irrelevant.
Reclarification: That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

>How pathetic can you be? You are literally trying to twist language in a way that no one uses. If you actually spoke that way in real life, virtually everyone would say you are the wrong one right now.

I'm not twisting the language. You're just too ignorant of the English language at even the most basic level.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I had to write to explain in length your failure to grasp the terms used. I am, after all, an English Language major. How can the dictionary definition show me to be wrong when you claim, rather foolishly, that "is one thing" in the context of my argument means "nothing"?

 

[LaDeeDah]

...what is wrong with you people? Jesus

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I'm not giving a university training in English. I'm showing exactly what went wrong with your failure to understand English as it is commonly used, since you refuse to acknowledge that it's all your own fault for your continued ignorance. I am indeed using the language in a way that ordinary people would understand clearly. I even pulled up the dictionary to show you that it is you who don't even know such a thing about the English language. You are not a normal reader. You are way below average in terms of understanding the English language.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls Who do you think you are to be telling me how English is commonly used? No, the comparison made by "that being one thing" does not need to be between the hypothetical you and the real you. I already made it clear that the two clauses (ideas, in much simpler terms) that I compared with are: 1. 'if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure' and 2. 'What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts.' These are both referring to the hypothetical you in the scenario you gave earlier. I made this quite clear, but your ignorance has blinded you to it.
And if you want to claim that the only way to prove myself right is to take a poll of random people and see how they feel, then why don't you do it to prove your assertion about how the English language is used, you ignorant hypocrite? Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur; what has been asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
> Read what I said. I didn't say it needs to be about the hypothetical me and the real me FULL STOP. I said that it needs to be about the hypothetical me and the real me unless you specify otherwise. You did not specify otherwise.

No, I made my point clear. The comparison does not need to be about the hypothetical you and the real you. I don't need to specify otherwise because the comparison has always been between the two clauses, and only the first clause is specific to the hypothetical you, while the second clause is applicable to both, hence why both the hypothetical you and the real you would still be considered ignorant.

> Again, this is an example of you failing to read.

No, that's an example of you missing my point.

> I'm saying YOU have the burden of proving your point. I have shown how YOUR dictionary definition can support my position. That means that the burden shifts to YOU to prove your point. You have not done so.

On the contrary, the dictionary definition I gave not only disproved your earlier ignorant assertion that "this being one thing" means "nothing", it also proves that there must be a comparison, and the comparison is between two ideas or clauses, not two persons. Furthermore, you are the one who refused to accept the dictionary definition and then tell me to poll random people, why are you not doing that in the first place, hypocrite?

> Wrong. That's what this entire current argument is about. If you had made it clear, then I wouldn't have had these messages. But you did not make it clear. You're literally putting the cart before the horse. That would be the equivalent of me saying "Well, you're clearly wrong, so that means I'm right." That's what you're doing right now.

You're getting these messages because of your failure to understand what has been made clear. Your grasp of the English language is piss poor.

> It is your ignorance that has blinded you.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

>Again, I was the one who set the hypothetical. I was the one who posed the question. You answered the question. By doing so and failing to make any caveats in a clear form, you have agreed to the terms of my question.

I have indeed answered your question. I pointed out clearly the parts of your hypothetical that are absolutely irrelevant to what is needed to declare you ignorant.

>This is the fundamental way that language works. I do not assume that you are talking about completely separate issues UNLESS YOU SPECIFY. YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY. If we went with your interpretation, that would mean all of communication breaks down.

In the first place, you didn't specify that the hypothetical refers to someone else apart from the real you, hence why I addressed the hypothetical as "you". The confusion stemmed from your own failure to make the distinction to begin with.

>Imagine if I asked "What color is the car?" and you said "It's blue." Turns out the car is red. You then say "Oh, when I said "it", I was talking about the bird I saw at the same time." That's fundamentally what you are doing. You're being grammatically and syntactically correct. You are being conversationally wrong. Any ambiguities MUST be resolved in favor of the initial topic unless explicit instructions are made otherwise. You failed to make explicit statements. That is why the ambiguity in your statement MUST be interpreted in light of hypothetical me versus real me.

Except in this case, you arbitrarily set the rule that when I use the phrase "be one thing" it has to make a comparison between the hypothetical you and the real you, which is complete and utter bollocks because the comparison I am making is between the two mutually exclusive clauses about the hypothetical you 'having or lacking certain life experiences' and both the hypothetical you and the real you 'making assertions that contradict actual facts.' So either way, it remains that you're ignorant. Changing my point of reference for the comparison does not change your ignorance.

>The ONLY way that your interpretation makes sense is if language is no longer about communication. That shows how fundamentally idiotic your position is.

This is a non sequitur. Just because you are a failure at communication does not mean that language itself has failed; it's just you.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
> Wow, you entirely failed to address the major point. The major point is that the way that I used language is the necessary way to use language unless you ACTUALLY SPECIFY.

The way that you used the English language doesn't even qualify as abuse seeing that it requires you to actually know how language works. You don't get to decide how language works.

> You continually lie and ignore words in order to justify your point.

I would like to say the same to you, except to accuse you of lying would imply that you have the necessary intelligence for it.

> First of all, the fact that it's a hypothetical means that it's NECESSARILY apart from me. That's what a hypothetical means!

I'm speaking of how I addressed your hypothetical.

>Second of all, why does it matter? You haven't given a reason for why it matters if the hypothetical person is in fact the same as me or different from me. That literally has no relevance here.

The relevance is in how I addressed your hypothetical. You got confused when I used "you" as an address because you wouldn't know if I was addressing the hypothetical or you, though context should have been sufficient to determine to which I am referring.

> YOU KEEP IGNORING WHAT I WROTE. I said that you can make the comparison about whatever you want IF YOU SPECIFY. In the conversation about the color of the car, if you had SPECIFIED "The bird is blue", then no duh you're talking about the bird!
> You continuously fail to read what I actually wrote.

I did not in fact ignore what you wrote. I made it clear that what you wrote is complete bullshit. I do not need to specify anything just to compare the two different clauses around the phrase "be one thing". As an English Language graduate, I can in fact tell you that that's not how language works. In comparing clause 1 and clause 2, the subject, which is the hypothetical you, remains the same, but it doesn't matter in the end because, as I have shown, both the hypothetical you and the real you are still ignorant for the same reason that is completely irrelevant to clause 1. You act as if making clause 2 referring to the real you rather than the hypothetical makes any real difference, but in fact you are destroying your own argument since I have been speaking about the same subject as the first clause from the beginning, which you would not accept because you want me to be wrong about my point of reference because somehow that makes some sort of difference as to whether you are rightfully called ignorant.

> In the original post, YOU failed. You did not specify. Your sentence could EASILY be read as saying that the hypothetical me was not ignorant DESPITE the fact that the only difference was life experience.

In the conversation about the hypothetical, if I had specified the real you is ignorant, then indeed I would be talking about the real you being ignorant. But I did not specify, hence it is illegitimate of you to change the subject from the hypothetical you to the real you without me specifying it.

> Let me put it like this. The fact that I am having this conversation with you right now PROVES that you are wrong.

That's like saying the fact that a student is repeating a year proves that their teacher is wrong. That's stupid.

>I interpreted your sentence in a particular way. That fact alone shows that it is possible to interpret it that way. That presents a strong prima facie case for showing that it is reasonable!

Did I tell you to interpret it that particular way? No. This shows that you have interpreted it in a rather foolish and ignorant manner, and you never even bothered to clarify with me before running with it. Just because it is possible for a child like you to be wrong does not mean that it is reasonable to be wrong. It is simply a reflection of your weakness.

>Again, this is not insurmountable. I already challenged you, and you have not met the burden. I repeat myself because you continue to fail to read. If you can show that the majority of people WILL NOT have the same interpretation, that you agreed that the hypothetical would not be ignorant, then you win.

You didn't challenge me. I proved to you using the dictionary that you're entirely ignorant about what "be one thing" actually means. You have not met the burden of proof at all. Besides, my point is that the hypothetical is ignorant simply for making an assertion which contradicts the facts, and that their life experiences or lack of is entirely irrelevant to the fact that determined them to be ignorant.

>You have failed to do that. You need to show NOT ONLY that you disagree with my interpretation but ALSO that a lot of other people would disagree.

To begin with, there is absolutely no reason to believe that anyone with moderate intelligence would agree with your interpretation at all.

> Wow, you're incredibly stupid. Seems like you don't even know how communication works. You need to agree that certain things mean certain things to have communication.

Certain things do mean certain things, but you're the one that's wrong about what they mean, among other things you're wrong about. The fact that we're having this conversation shows that you're a complete failure at communication.

>You used words wrongly. That is how you have failed completely.

I'm not the one who ignorantly described "that being one thing" as meaning "nothing".

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
>Again, you have to literally ignore what I actually wrote in order to justify your lies and misuse.

Stop blaming me for your incompetence at communication.

> I said it means nothing HERE. I said that it does not explain your comparison. It does not explain your drastic departure from how English is actually used in real life. But no, you don't want to accept that you're wrong.

Hence why I made that long explanation on how you have failed to comprehend how "be one thing" works at all. Your ignorance of the language does not dictate how everyone else uses the English language in real life.

> Again, asserting things with absolutely no basis. I have explained that you have abused language in order to try to justify yourself. You're literally just emptily saying I'm a failure with no explanation.

You didn't explain. You merely asserted gratuitously that I have abused language, but you don't even know how language works, and I had to show you the dictionary and explain the three parts of my argument to you, and even then you were unable to understand. I even gave multiple reasons why you are a failure: failure at comprehension and failure at communication.

> WRONG. I showed how YOUR dictionary definition supports ME. You have never addressed that AT ALL.

I already did. You first asserted that "is one thing" means nothing.
Then I gave you the dictionary of it.
Following which, you backtracked and said that "is one thing" does not mean anything here in this conversation.
To which then I provided the following analysis of my own statements showing your failure to understand what is commonly understood by many:

When I explained, "if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant" that was pertaining to the life experience and exposure as their own separate points, where I have stated "is one thing" to put a stop there to make my point, that these have no relevance at all to what makes you ignorant.
Therefore, with the second and third statements, they are both true. And there are absolutely no contradictions whatsoever.

After that, you went on to make a point that I did not, saying:

Simply saying "that being one thing" DOES NOT mean you are putting forward a new hypothetical.

Well, cupcake, I didn't put forward a new hypothetical. What are you even saying here?
Whatever.
That's when I started laying the smackdown on you with my explanation of the English language:

I did not say that the hypothetical you would not be ignorant. I said "that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant."
I separated out what is irrelevant from what actually makes the hypothetical you ignorant: "What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts."
In that regard, there is no difference between you and the hypothetical you.

I have not put forward a new hypothetical. Stop putting fake arguments into my mouth. I even provided you a dictionary definition of "be one thing" to help you understand how this common English phrase is normally understood by casual English speakers, yet it appears the grasp of basic English has continued to elude you. To reiterate, "being one thing" compares the clause that comes before it with the clause that follows the phrase.

There is nothing ambiguous about the language I use. It took you forever to understand the point I initially made, and I suspect this would go on for quite some time before you even finally come to an understanding of what "being one thing" means in the English language. What part of "being one thing" does not pertain to what I stated initially?
Here, let me break down my use of "be one thing" and how it pertains to your ignorance:

Indeed, if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant. What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

First clause: if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure
"is one thing" i.e. "be one thing":
"You can say that the first of two ideas, actions, or situations is one thing when you want to contrast it with a second idea, action, or situation and emphasize that the second one is much more difficult, important, or extreme." - Collins English Dictionary
Second clause: What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts.
"is one thing": second clause renders the first clause irrelevant.
Reclarification: That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

At this point, you basically pussied out and avoided having to address my analysis by claiming arbitrarily that a normal English speaker would agree with you rather than with me.

>In addition, you refuse to even accept the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of people would agree with me. You literally cannot meet your burden because you're wrong.

Of course I refuse to accept such a nonsensical claim. That's like asking me to accept "the fact" that the vast majority of people would believe that the Earth is flat and the sun rises in the West.

> Wow, you're a massive idiot.

Says the retard who doesn't even know his right hand from his left.

>I interpreted in the COMMON way. You're the one misusing the language. No duh you didn't tell me to interpret it a certain way! that proves how stupid you're being!

So I'm stupid for not telling you to interpret it a certain way? Wow. Was it mommy or daddy who dropped you on your head as a baby? You interpreted it your way, which is far from the common way; it's a very stupid way of interpreting what I've said plainly.

>If you had told me to interpret it a common way, you would've actually been doing what you're SUPPOSED to do. You would've been clear. You would've actually used language to explain yourself.

That's not how language works. That's not how communication works at all. I shouldn't need to tell you how to interpret what I've said. How about you tell me how to interpret what you're saying, because I'm interpreting your words as "I'm an illiterate moron who does not know how language works."

>Absent any specification, I interpreted it the way that I needed to. That's the way that your words are commonly used.

That's called eisegesis, you buffoon.

an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

> WRONG AGAIN.
>You are literally admitting that you did not specify! This proves that you are the wrong one! The fact that you did not specify means that I have to interpret your words in the common way. That means that you maligned the words.

I'm "admitting" that I am speaking to you with the assumption that you are of sufficient intelligence to understand what has actually been said clearly. I am clearly disappointed. Your "common way" is simply wrong.

>In the end, you're literally trying to spew out rubbish after rubbish.

Just because most of the words I used are too big for you doesn't mean they are rubbish.

>What did you expect me to do, read your mind? That's the only way for me to understand what you wrote because you didn't write correctly. Your standard is literally that I have to know what you meant and ignore what you wrote. That is why you continue to be foolish above all else.

I wrote correctly. You failed to understand what I wrote because your reading comprehension is worse than that of a third grader. That's how low my standards are. Especially given that I have been a schoolteacher for fifth and sixth graders at an international school. If you hadn't ignored what I wrote, you would have been able to grasp what I meant, since it is clear as night and day, but no, you have to insert your own stupid interpretation into what I have said clearly just so you can continue playing the victim. That's just pathetic, really.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
> I am blaming you for your own incompetence, which you refuse to admit.

How can I admit to something that's factually wrong? You keep making all these ignorant assertions expecting people to just agree with you?

> And I made a long explanation of how you fail to comprehend how "be one thing" works HERE. You do not use words in a vacuum. They MUST be contextualized. That is a fact that you continuously fail to understand.

That explanation is nowhere to be found. I provided the context of how I used "be one thing" which you kept ignoring. You changed your argument twice regarding how "be one thing" meant in my argument, and all three of your arguments have failed to consider what I made clear.

> I have explained REPEATEDLY that you do not know how to contextualize language. You keep thinking that it's all in a vacuum. Oh, I intended "be one thing" to mean something, so it doesn't matter that it makes no sense in this particular application. That is what you are doing, over and over again.

You did not provide such an explanation. You merely repeated your lousy assertions and changed them when you couldn't sustain them. You're the one making no sense, when I provided a most sensible way that anyone with half a brain would be able to understand from what I've said.

> Hey, cupcake? You do understand that the only way for your words to have made sense is if you DID put forward a hypothetical, right?

That's not how "be one thing" is used, stupid. And calling me what I called you? That's just not cool.

>You want "be one thing" to mean life experiences mattering versus life experiences not mattering. Guess what? That is a hypothetical. You don't even know what hypotheticals are. I have to explain that to you too.

That's not what I said. I made it clear:

First clause: if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure
"is one thing" i.e. "be one thing":
"You can say that the first of two ideas, actions, or situations is one thing when you want to contrast it with a second idea, action, or situation and emphasize that the second one is much more difficult, important, or extreme." - Collins English Dictionary
Second clause: What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts.
"is one thing": second clause renders the first clause irrelevant.
Reclarification: That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

Do I have to explain what "clauses" means to you? It should be obvious from the dictionary definition of "be one thing" that each clause represents an idea, and the contrast is between the idea of living in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and not encountering the term at all, versus the idea of asserting things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. This addresses your hypothetical in its totality, unless you want to change your story now to say that the second part is irrelevant to your hypothetical, to which I would point out that it doesn't matter anyhow since it is clear that your hypothetical is to be considered ignorant for the second part alone, where the first part doesn't even matter at all.

> Wow, you're such an idiot. Who is the one who started this entire conversation by insulting me? Who is the one who continues to insult me? YOU need to justify your insult. That is YOUR burden.

No need. You're justifying it for me already with each and every single one of your comments here. Thank you for your service.

>Oh, it's pussying out by having you justify yourself?

Yes.

>Wow, you're so pathetic.

I'm not the one who's pathetic at basic communication.

> You know what's really pathetic? You're literally devolving into insults because you have nothing better to say. Instead of actually using fact and logic, you're just name calling me.

Oh look, the pot calling the kettle black. Except this kettle has actually provided all the arguments from facts and logic, while you can't even cite a single dictionary in your favour, because you don't even know how languages work.

> You're the stupid one for not telling me to interpret it a certain way WHEN THE CONVERSATION WOULD MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS YOU DID TELL ME TO INTERPRET IT ANOTHER WAY. Again, refer to the color of the car and the bird. You're the speaker of the bird. Oh, it's so obvious that I meant the bird even though I didn't explain anything. That's what you're doing.

In a conversation, unless one is speaking in parables, it should never be necessary for anyone to tell another how to interpret things. That's just not how human communication works at any level, from infant to adult. In this case, it's like you're asking me about the car, and then I talked about the car, but then you arbitrarily interpreted what I said to be about the bird. Think about it (if you can):
Using "be one thing", I was comparing "experiences of X" with "actions of X," but you rage and say that: 1) "be one thing" means nothing; 2) my comparison makes no sense; 3) I am comparing "experiences of X" with "actions of Y." You're the one with the bird brain here.

>Again, I interpreted your words the COMMON way. You literally are telling me I should've known what you're thinking without you having to explain anything.

No, you did not interpret my words the common way. Stop thinking that you are even half as smart as the average person, because you clearly aren't.

>And again, you're literally telling me I should read your mind. That is how "retarded" you are, as you would put it.

Expecting basic reading comprehension of you is not asking you to read my mind. Authors do not leave instructions on how to interpret what they wrote. It is unfortunate that you do not have the mental capacity of an eight-year-old when it comes to reading comprehension.

> You wrote incorrectly. You wrote wrongly. You wrote in a way that is like the bird speaker. You expect people to read your mind.

You're the birdbrain. Interpret this: you suck at reading.

>And then you stoop to just insulting me with different terms.

I didn't just insult you with different terms. I provided multiple explanations on how you have failed to communicate and how you have failed to comprehend. And then I insult you with different terms.

>Yeah, that really makes you look like the smart one.

Yes.

>Honestly, what is the point in me having this discussion with you if you're just going to be wholly childish? Notice that even when I insulted you, I used much the same language as you. The worst that I said beforehand was "idiocy". And yet, you want to be a child.

I'm not the one who's too childish to ignore the arguments and simply claim to be interpreting things how most people would commonly interpret things and turn around blaming me for not providing them with a guide on how to interpret my words.

>If you want to continue this conversation, sure, but at least act like a person who knows how to talk to others. Act with some level of manners. It doesn't even have to be a high level. I'm expecting extremely low standards out of you, and yet you still failed.

I reserve my manners only to those who deserve it, not to the likes of you. It is said that imitation is the best form of flattery, but your poor attempts at imitating me just sucks.

>If you don't want to do that, then whatever, but it just shows your desperation and pathetic failure.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

 

[Maiorem]

> This shows your utter childishness. You reserve your manners for those who deserve it? First of all, I wrote using much the same language as you. By your own language, you don't deserve manners either.

You do realise that in calling me childish, you are also calling yourself childish for the same reason, don't you? But whatever. No one is childish just because you say they are. After all, your words have zero value whatsoever.

>Second, that's an incredibly stupid way to use manners. You're the arbiter. You decide oh, this person doesn't deserve my manners because I don't like them. That's what you're doing. You're literally being childish because you want to be.

Unlike you, I do not associate lack of manners with childishness. That's completely arbitrary and stupid.

>It's not cool for me to use your words? What kind of idiocy is that? Do you not see how lopsidedly stupid that is?

Context, cupcake, context here being "calling me what I called you". It's not about using my words. It's just how pathetic you sound when you simply parrot back the same words that others have called you. Indeed, it's lopsidedly stupid against your favour.

>Wrong again. Every time I said that words need to be contextualized to the conversation is an explanation of why "be one thing" means nothing here. I have said repeatedly that the most logical way to read "be one thing" in your first post was to compare hypothetical versus real me. Every single time I explained any of those points was an explanation of why "be one thing" means nothing here. Those have always been consistent.

I have shown that the most logical way of reading what I said is to compare hypothetical experience versus hypothetical action, since that is the only way in which I take into account your hypothetical in totality. It makes no sense at all for me to break from comparing the hypothetical you halfway, and then compare it to the real you, even though it's irrelevant as I said. Considering if you understood what you said, you would be saying that it is possible to logically read my argument as comparing the hypothetical you versus the real you; that's still not "nothing" since that is still a valid comparison, although it misses my point and fails to take into consideration that that is not how one understands the use of "be one thing" normally. Therefore, you aren't even consistent at all with your arguments.

>You know what should be obvious? It should be obvious that when you're already in a topic about one subject, you keep talking about that subject UNLESS YOU SPECIFY OTHERWISE. That means that UNLESS YOU SPECIFY OTHERWISE, "be one thing" is read as applying to the current comparison between hypothetical and real.

Indeed, I was talking about the same subject, which is the hypothetical you, and I never specified the second clause that came after "be one thing" to be about the real you, so why are you committing the very error you are accusing me of committing? The comparison was not between hypothetical and real, but between hypothetical experience versus hypothetical action.

>You're literally being like the speaker of the bird.

You're the birdbrain for changing the subject, not me.

>Oh, I used words correctly. I used words according to how the dictionary says to use them. That must mean I'm being correct.

Yes.

>Idiotic. You used words wrongly IN THIS CONVERSATION. You are allowed to talk about whatever you want IF YOU SPECIFY. If you do not, you create confusion.

Again, that's not how basic communication works. I didn't specify the second clause to be about the real you, so why did you make it into being about the real you? If you were confused, you could have asked, instead of making an ass out of yourself.

>To top it all off, you're literally being the biggest baby I've seen by saying I can't use your words against you and that you shouldn't have manners.

I didn't say that you can't use my words against me, I merely pointed out that it's uncool and pathetic that you can't come up with your own words and resort to imitating me. And furthermore, who decides that only infants can lack manners? Your momma?

>I continuously simplify this down in length because I know that we're not going to agree with one another, but my points are still there. You're literally being a child.

Even a child has better reading comprehension and understanding of the English language than you do. I have repeatedly made that point clear, so it doesn't matter if you call me a child; at least I'm not ignorant.

 

[mangadex777]

@givemersspls @Maiorem both of you need to shut the fuck up. I read through all of this shit for nothing. @givemersspls you're wrong about aircon. Get over it. @Maiorem you're wrong about "be one thing". Get over it.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
>Unlike you, I at least added an @ tag to notify you of my message.

That slipped my mind.

>First, I am okay with being called childish. I accept that the same way that I accepted being wrong about aircon. What I do not accept is your complete and total idiocy as regards yourself. You refuse to accept that you are wrong throughout all of this regardless of how many ways I show that you are wrong.

The number of times you have showed me to be wrong is exactly 0.

>Second, I made my comments IN RESPONSE TO YOU. That is the difference. You acted like a child first. My repeating of your own words does not make me a child. It shows your idiocy.

You do know that you can respond without acting like a child, right? Only children lacking in education parrot the things that others say to them, because they lack the mental capacity to come up with something original. I don't see how you behaving like a parrot shows me my idiocy.

>I'm showing how idiotic your words were FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Context, cupcake, shows how your own words, from the very moment you said them, were stupid.

Except you do realise that I didn't use the same words from the very beginning, did I? Perhaps you should specify which words are those, because at present, you're only making yourself look like a desperate child wildly flailing against the wind.

>It's arbitrary to call it arbitrary and then give absolutely no reason. Manners are associated with maturity, something you clearly lack. If you lack manners, it's a sign that you lack maturity. You, on the other hand, have given literally no explanation here, and yet you say I am being arbitrary. Pot, kettle, black?

I'm not sure you understand what "arbitrary" means. For something to be arbitrary, it means it is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Therefore, it is wrong to say that it's arbitrary for me to call your association of lack of manners with childishness arbitrary just because I didn't immediately provide a reason for it. The reason for something to be considered arbitrary is in the definition of the word "arbitrary" itself. While manners are associated with maturity, lack of manners is not necessarily indicative of lack of maturity, for manners is a choice reserved only for those who are worthy of it. You are not worthy.

>Again, no. The most logical way of reading what you said is in context of what I said. I set the stage for the comparison. You then wanted to ignore that comparison for a completely different comparison.

You set the stage for comparison by comparing the experiences and actions of the hypothetical with the actions of the real you. I compared the experiences of the hypothetical with the actions of the hypothetical since the actions of both the hypothetical and the real you are one and the same. So then it would not have mattered either way, whether I am comparing the experience of the hypothetical with the actions of the hypothetical you or the actions of the real you. Hence why I made it clear that the experiences of the hypothetical are absolutely irrelevant.

>If you want to do that, you are free to do so IF YOU SPECIFY. Again, you didn't specify. You admitted to not specifying.

Whether or not I specified, the outcome would have been the same either way.

>The fact that you didn't specify is what caused this issue. The fact that you "never specified the second clause that came after "be one thing"" shows that you failed to make your words clear. That is how you failed.

No, this issue is because of your failure to comprehend the English language at the same level as that of a third-grader.

>Wow, this shows how stupid and utterly incapable of logic you are. I showed how a person can use words in a way that is grammatically and syntactically correct but still nevertheless conversationally wrong. What do you do? You call me a birdbrain and then fail to respond to my actual point.

The example you used is about a person who arbitrarily changed the subject. You're the one who did that with my argument, even though I never specified that I have changed the subject. You are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Hence why I called you a birdbrain, "speaker of the birds".

>Applause. This is how pathetic you are.

Meaningless words from an illiterate buffoon.

@mangadex777 no one is forcing you to read through all this. If you can show me how I am wrong about "be one thing" then do it. I would really like to see you try.

 

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem @givemersspls is right about that. When. I read your comment with "being one thing" I thought you were agreeing with him.i didn't look it up in the dictionary because who the fuck does that when they read a manga

He's still a fucking twat about everything else, but you're wrong there

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 here's what I said:

Indeed, if you lived in a country that uses the term "aircon" your entire life and you did not encounter the term, that being your life experience and exposure is one thing, you won't be considered ignorant. What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant.

What point is it that I apparently agreed with him by saying "being one thing" in the context of the above paragraph?

 

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem it looks like you're saying that person isn't ignorant because he didn't assert anything. Then rss said the hypothetical person did asset the same thingand quoted himself.

Then you two got into a super long bullshit about he said this, I never said that, blah blah blah.

Whatever. I don't even give a shit. I'm just saying what it looked like to me.

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 exactly, I said that the person isn't ignorant just because of having or lacking experiences. That's why I made it clear:
"What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts. That is why I said your life experience and exposure are irrelevant."