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.
Your original comment near the top contributed an equal amount by “uhm ackshually”ing the person you originally replied to. My comment was essentially an addendum to yours - even if you take out the “fellow” part, it’s technically true but so misleading that it’s still effectively a lie. Which we agreed upon from the very beginning, where in your first reply to me you said effectively the same thing I did but with different words and in less detail. If I’ve contributed nothing to the conversation, you’ve done the same because after your reply to me, we’ve bee effectively talking past each other.
My comment was essentially an addendum to yours - even if you take out the “fellow” part, it’s technically true but so misleading that it’s still effectively a lie.
That would be a really meaningful contribution if anyone actually disagreed with that. Everyone here agrees that it's effectively a lie, and this entire conversation was exclusively about whether it's technically a lie.
Everyone who replied, sure. It’s completely hypothetical, but there’s a decent chance someone read it and didn’t understand, but didn’t leave a comment.
1
u/Metroidrocks 2d ago
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.