While Ezra was taking a nap in his crib, the family’s Husky that they owned for eight years attacked out of nowhere.

“And to just bring awareness that it could be any dog at any time. Completely unprovoked, no matter what the history is,” Chloe said.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, semantics, I get it.

    You need things strictly defined for you but aren’t willing to provide parameters or ask questions.

    You built a sand castle and then knocked it down all by yourself.

    Very impressive.

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Saying two conflicting things in the same statement isn’t semantics. It’s evidence that the author is a putz.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh, so you’re interpreting certain words to mean something different than their intention?

        Like your choosing to define a word differently than someone else?

        Isn’t there a…word…for that…

        Oh, semantics, got it, good thing you connected the dots there.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Like your choosing to define a word differently than someone else?

          No? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you know English, and interpreting them as written. There’s not a whole lot of room for interpretation there.

          Though I am starting to wonder if maybe I gave you too much credit

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you don’t understand that one word can have multiple definitions, I’ll agree that your assumptions may be giving you trouble.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Don’t think anybody asked you about that word in particular, but at least you’re crawling toward an understanding.

                Just for fun, “no” can semantically refer to 1) a discreet or broad lack of; or 2) an imperative command to avoid a particular action, but you probably knew that and were being semantically facetious, otherwise you would look like you done goofed up real hard.

                • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Go look up the definition of stupid and pretend that’s what I said about your argument. No need for semantics or nuance just take it at face value I’m sure it’s accurate enough as is

                  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I agree with you, we could define your arguments as stupid on their face without much further analysis.

                    In one sense of the word, anyway.