But for some reason you think I "accused" you of something.
The reason being that I understand what words mean, and I can read them as they are written.
You...not so sure. Too much evidence to the contrary.
It seems to me as if you want me to limit my reasoning capabilities to induction with no capacity to make other types of inferences.
That would be silly. But of course you are here to debate, that is why you use the insincere and intellectually dishonest tactic of omitting entire strings of inferred logic and numbering single sentences out of context.
Then when called out on the oversimplification of it all, you say "that isn't what I wrote, read what I wrote." Well when what you write is general all that is left is deduction.
Possibly the problem isn't my literacy, but rather your capacity to express what you mean with specifics and without using simplistic propaganda techniques.
Or possibly the frustration is that you don't address even a third of what was written? But continue self-congratulating yourself on knowjng what words mean, when you seem to lack higher-order skills like the ability to form inferences, or to address trains of reasoning rather than sentences pulled out of context.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 29 October 2018