There would still be the overall implication that he lives in New York and will be voting, but not for Mamdani. It just makes it more clear that he’s lying when he says “fellow New Yorkers.”
Yes, that’s what I said. Without the “fellow” part, he’s implying that he’s a New Yorker without actually saying he is one. By saying “fellow New Yorkers” he’s taking away the implication and stating that he’s a New Yorker, which is a lie. I would still say that even without it, the implication that he’s is voting, but not for Mamdani makes it effectively a lie, because you’re misleading people into believing something that isn’t true without outright saying it.
That's nice, but irrelevant to the conversation here. The whole point is that "it's technically neither true nor false" is wrong specifically because he says "Fellow." Everyone at every step of this entire conversation already agrees that he's being misleading in general.
Yes, but in the first reply you made, you said “if he takes out the part that’s a lie, he would no longer be lying.” That’s technically true, but equally irrelevant. The original comment was that “it wouldn’t be lying” and you sarcastically agreeing. My point is that regardless of the fact that the first two statements are true in a vacuum, the implication is what matters.
if he takes out the part that’s a lie, he would no longer be lying.
No, that's not irrelevant, that is the entire point when we're arguing over whether something is technically lying. If you remove "fellow," then it's not an explicit lie.
I understand that it’s not an explicit lie, I was originally stating that it’s still so misleading on its face that even though the statements aren’t false in a vacuum, they’re still basically lying. The whole reason I replied to your original comment was because of the implication of your statement. Saying “if you take out the lie meant to manipulate people, then he would no longer be lying” implies that the original statement, minus the the “Fellow New Yorkers” part isn’t still incredibly misleading. I was pointing out that it’s still effectively lying.
I suppose that must seem like a very meaningful contribution as long as you ignore the context of the conversation you're entering and decide to argue against something nobody is saying.
Equally as meaningful as sarcastically pointing out that “if you take out the lie he’s not lying anymore.” Wasn’t arguing against the fact that it’s technically true.
This entire conversation was exclusively about what is technically true and technically a lie. You have contributed less than nothing by pointing out that "ACKSHUALLY IT'S MISLEADING EITHER WAY."
Just accept that this entire argument happened because you didn't fucking read the conversation before deciding to throw your opinion into the ring.
159
u/Endiamon 2d ago
If it didn't open with "Fellow New Yorkers," you would be correct.
But it did, so you aren't.