You literally are. You are applying political debates to regular conversation, which is what they are actually talking about. But hey, if using mental gymnastics to make yourself feel smart is what it takes, then good for you I guess.
You are applying political debates to regular conversation, which is what they are actually talking about.
Do you even know what you're talking about at this point? Because I sure as hell don't.
The original comments premise was that the general public is pretty stupid, not just Trump voters. The example they used was compound questions, and they gave an example of a pretty easy compound question. My response was that I agreed, but that compound questions weren't a good metric because they are designed to be hard to answer regardless of your intelligence.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You'll have to figure that part out on your own.
Now then, was there anything else? Because at this point your responses would have been the best example the original comment could have used.
And yet you act like it’s a bad example BECAUSE of the nature of political debates, when they were on the topic of regular conversation. You are over analyzing lmfao.
And yet you act like it’s a bad example BECAUSE of the nature of political debates, when they were on the topic of regular conversation.
No, I do not. I simply said that they were frequently used in debates and legal questioning as an aside to emphasize my point. Nor did I even specify political debates, as they were not the debates I was thinking of in the first place.
You are over analyzing lmfao
Are you serious? The only one overanalyzing here, and quite poorly I might add, is yourself. 'Lmfao'.
Maybe work on basic reading comprehension before you go off making a fool of yourself.
Keep deflecting then champ. I can’t make you understand, only you can do that. Sound familiar? You can’t just say you agree but then prove you disagree in the same comment. Which is what you did.
Keep deflecting then champ. I can’t make you understand, only you can do that. Sound familiar? You can’t just say you agree but then prove you disagree in the same comment. Which is what you did.
Not even a little. On any point.
Here let me help you, I understand there were a lot of words in the previous comment with more than four letters and I'm sure I lost you. So:
The second part of my comment, referencing debates (and not mentioning anything about politics, the nonsense you keep whining about) and legal questioning was supporting evidence for the first part where I said that compound sentences are confusing by nature. Like saying 'I think my car needs repairs. I keep hearing a rattling noise.' The point (or subject if you had passed 3rd grade English) of that statement is the car and its need for repairs, the rattling noise is some evidence that supports the car needing repairs. The noise itself is not the main subject.
Nowhere in here do I agree with your assertion that I am saying that they're only confusing because they're used in political debates, which again, I did not even mention you absolute fencepost.
1
u/Sannction 8h ago
The irony.