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

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem but the hypo did assert the same thing. That's what rss said. It can't be because one asserted and the other didn't since both did it.

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 that's what I said.

 

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem and that's why I said yo're wrong about "that being one thing". It looked like you thought it didn't say the hypo asserted the same thing then when rss showed it did you wanted to say you were talking about something different the whole time. When I read it didn't look like you were talking about something different it just looked like you didn't see what was written

Whatever. Don't reply to me anymore. I don't have a horse in this race so I don't care. I just said what it looked like to me. Rss was wrong about aircon, and it looked like you didn't read. Then you tried saying you were talking about something else all along even though it didn't look like that to me.

I get the feeling both of you are the type to never stop so that's why I'm saying both of you are bad. You're just as bad as him and he's just as bad as you.

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 The part where I said "What's ignorant is for you to assert things based on your limited life experience and exposure which contradicts the actual facts" does refer back to the hypothetical person, since it speaks of their limited life experience and exposure. What is with the lack of reading comprehension these days.

Yeah, I don't care about your arbitrary judgement of what's "bad" which in this case is total bullshit anyway.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I already have. You're the problem.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls No, it is possible for me to be wrong, except the dictionary definition proved me to be objectively correct. Are you a Flat Earther since there are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people who believe that the Earth is flat? Of course it doesn't matter that another person literally said I used words wrongly; anything that is gratuitously asserted can also be gratuitously denied.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls Speaking of the dictionary definition of wrong, the entry would simply be "givemersspls". I have already proved that I have used the phrase "be one thing" as the dictionary explained, which you would not have understood to begin with due to your below average command of the English language, which is the main issue here. Your refusal to accept correction changes nothing. You're the birdbrain, changing my point of reference without me specifying so. You arbitrarily decided that "be one thing" required me to compare the hypothetical you with the real you, when the dictionary says no such thing at all, and I even explained that you have failed to take into account the fact that I was comparing the hypothetical experience with the hypothetical action, and neither can be relegated to the real you without me specifying so because they're not the same.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I was addressing your incorrect assertion about my use of the phrase and your ignorant assertion that I am like the "bird-brained speaker of the blue bird" (seriously, do you even listen to yourself? What kind of phrase is that? And you consider yourself at least average in terms of understanding the English language?) when in fact you are more closely related to your own example given that you are the one who illegitimately changed the point of reference. You kept saying that I'm right but you contradicted yourself multiple times over in your elaboration, which of course means that you're wrong. And since you already agree with me, you obviously have no need to comment further, except if you wish to keep putting your ignorance on public display.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls Setting the topic is one thing, but the context is determined by the argument itself, which in my use is pertinent to addressing the topic. You foolishly blamed me for not addressing the hypothetical action, when in fact I have addressed the hypothetical action from the beginning. Then you turn around and insisted that based on your own arbitrary rules of setting the topic, I must contrast the hypothetical with the real, never mind that addressing the hypothetical alone is sufficient to address the entire defense you attempted to put forth since there is no difference between the hypothetical action and the real action, as the difference lies in the experience, of which I have set aside earlier and recapitulated later that the experience is entirely irrelevant as to what makes both the hypothetical and the real you ignorant. Neither of your attempts at arguing have succeeded, because my argument is solid and is unaffected entirely by whether you think I was referring to the real you or otherwise in the second part of my argument. You have yet to comprehend this conversation in a way that makes sense to most people. You are beyond fixing because of your inability to learn, even to understand what the dictionary states clearly.

 

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem @givemersspls this is actually funny to watch.

@Maiorem you're looking really autistic. If you're right then the dictionary is all that matters since it "objectively" proved you right. Things like sarcasm don't matter because those aren't about the dictionary definitions. rss is saying you're right so you have nothing to complain about

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 We're not discussing sarcasm. I'm discussing their ignorant remarks regardless of what other things they are saying.

 

[mangadex777]

@Maiorem then why are you continuing? Rss is saying you're totally right. Who cares about ignorant remarks if he's saying you're right?

 

[Maiorem]

@mangadex777 because he kept making stupidly wrong statements, regardless of whether he actually thinks I'm right.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls That's how "be one thing" is used; to compare two clauses or ideas. So of course the clause or idea of the hypothetical has been set aside, as I explained that it alone does not warrant being considered ignorant, so obviously the only thing left is to address the hypothetical action. You don't need to use quote marks when describing a factual statement.
Well of course it doesn't matter what he said it looked like. There are hundreds and thousands of people who think the Earth is flat because they think that's what it looks like to them, so are you going to become a Flat Earther just because of what others think it looks like?

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I never said hypotheticals aren't already comparisons. I said that with regards to the hypothetical you introduced, there are two components to it: experience and action, so of course in determining whether the hypothetical is to be considered ignorant, I made it clear that the first component, the experience is absolutely irrelevant to determining if they are ignorant, since they are judged by their actions when it comes to considering if they are ignorant. This point was made because you attempted rather foolishly to defend yourself from being called ignorant by introducing the hypothetical, in which the difference is only in terms of experience, so if I didn't address the experience, there's no point to the argument. You're the one trying to talk about the bird when I did not indicate that I am talking about a different person in comparing the experience and the action.

Edit:
Imagine this: you are asking if a car is considered a solid object, would a bird be considered a solid object to since it can fly; I then say that a bird being able to fly is one thing, since the act of flying in itself does not determine whether the bird is solid, but the fact that it is a tangible object makes it a solid object. Then you turn around asking whether the bird is considered a solid object or not five separate times before realising that I have already answered it from the beginning, and then you proceed to accuse me of not specifying that I am referring to the bird even though my argument is clearly about the bird. And then you insisted rather foolishly that had I not specified I would have needed to refer to the car after I used the phrase "is one thing".

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls I said it before that you don't have to use quote marks when making a factual statement. And it's ignorant to say that everyone is telling me that I'm wrong just because you and someone else said that I'm wrong. Hundreds and thousands of Flat Earthers and Anti-Vaxxers are telling you that you're wrong too, if you want to compare.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls Your comparison of the use of the dictionary is fallacious as it does not even match up to your incompetence at the language. The dictionary shows that the phrase "be one thing" is used to compare two different ideas, not two different persons. You insisted for no reason or justification whatsoever that when I have yet to even finish my analysis of the hypothetical you, I must switch to the real you, which obviously not only breaks from my argument but also for no reason leaves the hypothetical person hanging. That still does not justify your excuse of claiming that I said the hypothetical person is not ignorant, however, since you didn't allow me to finish up on the hypothetical person's actions.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls It appears you can't even read what I wrote. I never said that "be one thing" cannot apply to two different persons, but in the scope of my argument, especially when I wasn't even done talking about the hypothetical you, it should be obvious then that I am comparing the experience versus the action, both of which belong to the hypothetical. It makes less sense for me to compare Descartes' experiences with Hume's actions. Yes, that is exactly how not to use the phrase "be one thing" since you can't just say "Descartes being one thing, Hume still has insights." You are absolutely right in calling that nonsense since there isn't a comparison being done at all, much less any sense as to why Hume's insights have any relevance to Descartes or vice versa in order for the phrase "be one thing" to be used.

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls
>It doesn't matter that I had dispensed of the action in the very first post when I introduced the hypothetical.

Except that's not true at all. Here's what you actually 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. (Emphasis added)

The part about saying the same thing that you said earlier is the action that I am comparing. It's not a completely new action, but the very same action. In fact, you pointed this out yourself:

And if you actually learned to read, I said the following:

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.

That means the hypothetical case would still have the person making assertions.

It's like you don't even know what you're saying.

If you're comparing Descartes' ideas versus Hume's ideas, that would be fine. But let's not forget that this is about what I said before, so if even you can recognise that comparing Descartes' experiences versus Hume's actions is wrong, then why do you even foolishly assume that when I compared the experience versus the action? So you admit then that you have ignored the explicit constraints of the hypothetical that you laid out yourself?

 

[Maiorem]

@givemersspls As I have said before, if you agree with me, then there is no further need for you to comment. But as it stands, with each comment you make, you introduce further errors in logic and common sense.

>It really doesn't matter that you misread what I wrote.

I didn't.

>It doesn't matter that you think you're talking about "the very same action".

Of course I was.

>No, obviously what I wrote was not dispensing of the issue of actions

You can't dispense an issue that you brought up in the first place. That's the opposite of dispensing of the issue.

>Obviously that's an invitation for you to talk about the action.

It doesn't matter whether it's an invitation because I need to address the factor which makes both the hypothetical you and the real you ignorant since you asked me to judge between the hypothetical you and the real you when the difference is only by experience, and you had to include the factor of the hypothetical you making the same ignorant assertion.

>Obviously I wanted you to talk about the action in that comparison.

It doesn't matter what you want me to talk about. Obviously, you can't always have what you want in life.

>In a comparison between two things where one factor is the same in both, I obviously wanted you to talk about it.

No, you wanted me to judge if the hypothetical you is ignorant, given that the hypothetical you made the same assertions. Of course I have to address the fact that it is solely due to the assertion made that the hypothetical you is considered ignorant, where the experiences of the hypothetical you are absolutely irrelevant to that.

>That makes total sense! You know me better than I know myself!

I don't even know who you are. And I don't need to know you in order to judge your arguments to be complete rubbish.

>Again, why can't you just be right?

I am.

>Again, it doesn't matter if other people thought you meant something else based on what you wrote. You were so clear, and the dictionary says you're right.

Obviously, your incompetence at reading at a sensible level is the problem, as I have repeatedly shown.