Let me start out by saying that your conclution on what I wrote is 100%, yes 100% an assumption. Or of you rather use the term 100% missunderstood. And when you base a article on its own on that assumption from my comment, I go hard on you here. For you do in effect claim I have an opinion that you asume, but is outright wrong.
I whould advice for future referanced that you ask for clarification before "putting words on my mouth"
I do not believe in etical revenge, nor do I think its a falacy to think that there is fairness to be gained in a fight for justice, that was not how i worded it.
Let me repeat what i wrote: "I think its a falacy to expect fairness in a fight for justice. Because it was due to the lak of fairness, that created the unjust situation" or something to that effect.
Meaning; that its a falacy to expect there to be fairness in the scenario that created the unjust scenario. But yes ofcource, you are fighting for justace, to regain fairness.
Its like expecting there to be water inside a fire you are trying to put out, no there isnt. Well, unless its an oil fire, where oil floating ontop water is burning.
In any case, to conclude, your entier article here referancing my comment, is false.
Below is what i referenced above:
Perhaps you did not know that the possible implication of your sentence above is what this wrteup attempted to clarify.
Without changing words, can you explain the above?
Thanks.
I hope you do realise what you in effect do with your article in referancing my comment as reasoning in your article. And from my comment here it is clear what i did mean. And by you seemingly not accnowledging a missunderstanding, that puts you an a dissrespectfull position from my point of view.
But if you insist on that it is not an missunderstanding....... (when its now 100% clear that it is)
In a fight for justice, when you are taking action to gain justice, when you are in a strugle. To asume that IN THAT SCENARIO, that is WHEN YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, there is fairness then, i think is a falacy. As when i think about it, it is a fight to gain justice IN A SCENARIO THAT IS NOT FAIR. Meaning AGAIN, That the scenario in question, when you are fighting, is not a fair scenario.
Now if you still choose, (yes i do mean if you choose) to missunderstand it, then thats your issue not mine. But the result wil then be that you in effect falcly accuse me to to be what im not. And thus lie to your audience.
Now im sorry if this seem extreme, as i do realise that in every scenario there is room for missunderstanding, as language is innacurate. But not accepting that one missunderstood, is not good.
Now the above is funny! You still haven't communicated your point clearly. From what you wrote, there is 'fairness' , 'fighting' and 'justice'! Any reader will agree that you think it is fallacious to assume justice can be gotten by 'fighting' to get it which you term 'fallacy'!
In an academic settings, 'implication' is allowed. Your sentence still implies what i wrote above. If you think it is a misunderstanding, then it becomes your task to set the record straight and clearly explain your point. You will do this via a 'rejoinder' or writing a 'review' of my review.
So your task is to explain your point which you think 'i got wrong'. If you do that, then i will decide to attempt a critique of it or just let it go. But for now, i still don't get what i got wrong.
So there is no need for being harsh with words. Make your point. That is what matters.
Thanks.
if you choose to be this , hwo to put it, closed of to understanding... Then philosophy clearly isnt your thing. I now see. you are wrong in your asumtion of what my intention was of what I wronte, AND, you re wrong in asuming any reader whould agree with you. Because I DONT, for one.
I did CLEARLY communicate what i want from my perspective and understanding of the words used, with the words contained in the language used. you still CHOOSE to not understand. So i can only asume you do not understand the words used. As in not actually understanding the language used.
But ok, if you like missunderstanding and lying to your readers then thats ur choise.
The article here is REGARDLESS communicating a lie, being a false clame of what I intended in the comment. As your words in this article is not even close to what i wrote.
The only way, if you actually intend to understand, to resolve this, is to do so via a chat or something where you can spesifically ask what your confusion is.
It is funny! So you went ahead to flag my post with your 16 steem? You clearly abuse flag. You can't flag people any how.
In case you don't know, your English is VERY BAD. Stop writing in English.
Please stay off my blog. Thanks.
I flagged it beacause you missrepresent my intention, and fail to admit it.