No, that is literally the “knee-jerk reaction” I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.
Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it’s so simple?
What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?
You are describing your process of making a guess. You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected and are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
You are describing your process of making a guess.
…yes? I guessed at your intention.
You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected
Because that’s not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.
are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
…no? I’m just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said “what looked like”??
Nah you’re making up a story and believing it despite correction. Or, as a shorthand: lying.
No, that is literally the “knee-jerk reaction” I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.
Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it’s so simple?
What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?
You are describing your process of making a guess. You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected and are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
You know, lying.
…yes? I guessed at your intention.
Because that’s not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.
…no? I’m just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said “what looked like”??