I just gave you a thorough explanation of how he did not say the killer was MAGA, the one with the example about the color of the sky. You didn’t even attempt any sort of rebuttal, so I thought we had moved past that point. Did you already forget about that, or is returning to claiming he lied just a bad-faith argumentative tactic instead of actually engaging with the points I’m making?
Even if Kimmel had made a claim about the killer’s politics in an offhand comment with mixed reports coming in, it would demonstrate a deep lack of awareness to say that that’s comparable to an extended campaign to harass and falsely accuse the grieving parents of murdered children of being actors paid to decieve the public, causing them years of documented torment and damages, or to repeating the falsified claims of a fraudulent and abusive study that was actually made up to push a different vaccine. (Let alone the whataboutism)
“can be interpreted” would mean that he is not inherently lying, but that you are choosing an interpretation (twisting his words) to try to say that he is. Otherwise I could say you are lying about calling me bad faith because you don’t know anything about my religious practices. See how absurd that is?
Is coming into a conversation and clearly laying out my points along with giving reasoning and explanations “bad faith” now? What conventions or norms am I breaking, other than taking a fact- and logic-based approach to reality? Are those not allowed any more?
Nop,
He s responsible his words and if the most common interpretation isnt what he mean he s still responsible for it. Nobody for him to say that. Your logical approach is to dismiss the most logical one
Even if that is the most common “interpretation”, it’s already been explained how that is not actually part of his words, but you’ve done nothing to refute that except double-down on baseless assertions. Innumerable riddles, mind-benders, word games, and garden-path sentences demonstrate how inaccurate the first or most common interpretation of a statement can be. You say he is responsible for his words but blame him for others’ misunderstandings of them. And to keep track of the goalposts, it isn’t lying if you say one thing and someone else misinterprets that to mean something else you didn’t say, even if you weren’t flawless in your original phrasing.
I just gave you a thorough explanation of how he did not say the killer was MAGA, the one with the example about the color of the sky. You didn’t even attempt any sort of rebuttal, so I thought we had moved past that point. Did you already forget about that, or is returning to claiming he lied just a bad-faith argumentative tactic instead of actually engaging with the points I’m making?
Even if Kimmel had made a claim about the killer’s politics in an offhand comment with mixed reports coming in, it would demonstrate a deep lack of awareness to say that that’s comparable to an extended campaign to harass and falsely accuse the grieving parents of murdered children of being actors paid to decieve the public, causing them years of documented torment and damages, or to repeating the falsified claims of a fraudulent and abusive study that was actually made up to push a different vaccine. (Let alone the whataboutism)
You are the one being bad faith saying his formulation in no way or form can be interpreted other way than yours.
“can be interpreted” would mean that he is not inherently lying, but that you are choosing an interpretation (twisting his words) to try to say that he is. Otherwise I could say you are lying about calling me bad faith because you don’t know anything about my religious practices. See how absurd that is?
Is coming into a conversation and clearly laying out my points along with giving reasoning and explanations “bad faith” now? What conventions or norms am I breaking, other than taking a fact- and logic-based approach to reality? Are those not allowed any more?
Nop, He s responsible his words and if the most common interpretation isnt what he mean he s still responsible for it. Nobody for him to say that. Your logical approach is to dismiss the most logical one
Even if that is the most common “interpretation”, it’s already been explained how that is not actually part of his words, but you’ve done nothing to refute that except double-down on baseless assertions. Innumerable riddles, mind-benders, word games, and garden-path sentences demonstrate how inaccurate the first or most common interpretation of a statement can be. You say he is responsible for his words but blame him for others’ misunderstandings of them. And to keep track of the goalposts, it isn’t lying if you say one thing and someone else misinterprets that to mean something else you didn’t say, even if you weren’t flawless in your original phrasing.