>>39874153So you're trying to say that just because you implied that there is a connection between the concepts of "culpability" and "evil", doesn't mean that that connection you implied is inherent? So you do admit you implied there was a connection?
My apologies for using the word inherent if that was your issue, it fits perfectly based on the amount of greentext gotcha's that I've read in the past. The term describes something that can be a characteristic attribute. That characteristic doesn't imply that this characteristic is "innate". Indeed even though the words are similar they are not exact synonyms.
My indication of your implication of the terms being connected was just that, not a dig at your ability to reason or your though process, simply a passing observation on your rhetoric.
>using the word position in the broadest way possibleIn a positional argument, your "position" is your perspective. You were writing in a manner to convince others (myself included as an audience member) to agree with an opinion. It was an attempt at persuasion. This is a "broad" definition, but it would be easily understandable by anyone who's taken a first grade level writing course in elementary/primary school. Debate is not your strong suit, but I like seeing you type.
>was going to skirt past me?It seems I don't think at all based on the tone of your posts.
>Do you think I just wouldn't be able to phrase what you're doing or?And that is?
>You must really think I'm retarded lol.I don't think you're retarded at all.
>you can't read my mind yet you want to call me hypocritical for what you feeI I meantNot in the slightest. I admit my human perception is fallible, but I still don't find that you've provided any rationale for your arguments, much less your cute lil' attempts at being confident. Admitting that I am "wrong" for calling your posts contradictory would be untruthful, as you've given nothing that would lead me to believe I've been wrong.
