Ok, we are doing semantics nitpicking so I need to spell it out even further: my main argument is against people telling others to shut up about societal issues outside of their individual power.

Can we continue the discussion from this or are we supposed to keep this going until we need to reinvent legalese to cover all bases and have a conversation?

▲

fluoridation an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's not semantic nitpicking, that's just taking words at face value. I wasn't aware we could retroactively change their meaning when it became convenient. Can I try? What I meant by my original comment was you made a very eloquently put point that made a masterful use of irony in its rhetoric.

▲

piva00 an hour ago | parent [-]

Taking words at face value and nitpicking on it while missing the forest for the trees is exactly what a "Technical Genius"-archetype does on online discussions, recommend the read if you never encountered it: https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-people-planet-a...

At no point I changed the meaning of anything I said, you required me to obviate what was already there because you wanted to pick a semantics discussion. Now that it's been obviated you decided it isn't good enough and that I'm changing meaning for convenience. Proving again that you not only missed the whole point but also is choosing to continue a semantics discussion, that's rather boring.

Again, I wholeheartedly recommend you reading the section on the "Technical Genius" of that article, you might identify yourself.

	▲	fluoridation an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]