Sure, if you are incapable of nuance, which defines you as rather simpleminded. A ball of fire is made of whatever that fire is burning, or Hydrogen and helium, or is this simplistic explanation too much nuance for you?
In common English parlance, to say "x is a ball of y" is to say "x is composed/a mass of y, formed in the shape of a sphere". That's why if I refer to a "ball of gas", you immediately know that I'm referring to something as being "composed/a mass of gas, formed in the shape of a sphere". Therefore, if X is the component being used as the sole descriptor in the phrase "a ball", then any other additional components which may or may not comprise the mass are irrelevant to that particular assertion. For example, if I refer to a "ball of mud", since "mud" is the only component being used in that descriptive phrase, the presence of decomposed organic matter, rocks, bugs etc. which may comprise or contribute to the mass in question, is irrelevant to that particular assertion- because if they are what make up the mud, then they are "mud"; and if they do not make up the mud, then they are irrelevant to the assertion that was made. Therefore, in the same way that the self-contradiction of the statement "I didn't say it was made of mud, I said it was a ball of mud" isn't allayed based solely on the fact that decomposed organic matter is present, the self-contradiction within the statement "I didn't say it was made of fire, I said it was a ball of fire" is also not allayed based solely on the fact that the elements fueling the fire are also present. In other words, according to the rules of logic within the domain of English vernacular, if you describe something as a "ball of fire", you are saying it is a "ball made of fire", regardless of the presence of any additional ingredients, or of the "fire's" constituent components/fuel.
If you disagree with that conclusion, I invite you to pinpoint precisely which concept in that train of reasoning that you disagree with, and provide an explanation for your disagreement.
As far as me being incapable of the comprehension of nuance, you have zero reason to believe or assert that I have anything less than a masterful grasp of the mechanisms of subtlety within the realms of conceptual and rhetorical logic. Quite the opposite actually, given the evidence contained within my comment history (which you clearly are not above searching) as well as the effective demonstration of that knowledge that I've just provided in the detailed articulation of my conclusion above.
Given that in the span of only two replies (in response to a relatively inoffensive comment) you have managed to call me "simpleminded", "chump", and "smarmy cunt", I would assert that 1-telling you to "chill" is not at all unwarranted, and 2-if such a simple, light-hearted comment is capable of making you so respond with such acidity, that would seem to indicate a level of defensiveness that is itself possibly due to an insecurity in your own understanding of the nature of nuance within the realm of semantics/rhetorical logic. Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult?
Ball of plasma. Get it right.
You don't get out much do you? What you just did is called being a pedantic knob. You actually read my clarification on the comment and still had to post a wall of pretentious text to argue with me over a point of fact that I have already conceded. Did you think you were writing a novel? How much of a loser are you anyway? You are arguing a point I have already conceded you dumbarse.
Try to keep up, you are embarrassing yourself.
you have zero reason to believe or assert that I have anything less than a masterful grasp of the mechanisms of subtlety within the realms of conceptual and rhetorical logic.
And I have no reason to believe that you do and every word you say is more reason why you don't. It is just a thoroughly pretentious post as an attempt to make yourself look like an intellectual. If you were you wouldn't have made this comment.
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire
LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤”
Sounds legit
But you did. And having quickly checked out you comment history you clearly do think you are a novelist. Half of it is text walls. Your original smart cunt comment was proof that you did not understand the nuance of mine. It was just you being a smartarse dickhead and you know it. Stop trying to pretend it was something else. I am not dumb enough to believe that lie, even if you have convinced yourself of it.
Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult
Why didn't you?
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire
LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤”
Sounds legit
My example was just that, an example. I was not referring to your previous comments. There is no "getting right" an example that I'm making up, especially when it's for the purpose of distancing the abstraction from your comments in an attempt to keep from you becoming defensive again.
You don't get out much do you? What you just did is called being a pedantic knob.
What I just did is called being a logical, objective adult.
You actually read my clarification on the comment and still had to post a wall of pretentious text to argue with me over a point of fact that I have already conceded.
You did not concede my point. My point was that the phrase "I didn't say it was made of fire, I said it was a ball of fire" is self-contradictory. You did not concede that it was self-contradictory, quite the opposite- you implied that the existence of fuel means that the two phrases do indeed mean different things.
Did you think you were writing a novel? How much of a loser are you anyway?
I spent a few minutes writing a thorough, well-articulated reply out of respect for you as a person. But again, in response to my thoughtful words you are insulting me. You are asserting that responding to defensive, insulting acidity with calm, respectful objectivity makes someone a "loser". That is a sad way to see the world.
You are arguing a point I have already conceded you dumbarse. Try to keep up, you are embarrassing yourself.
Once again, the only "concession" you have made is the assertion that because there are elements fueling the fire, that means that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" mean two completely different things. Those phrases mean the same thing. Doubling down on the assertion that they don't does not constitute "conceding". And again, calling me "dumbarse". If you knew you were right, you wouldn't be experiencing the fight-or-flight defensiveness that's making you feel the need to call me names.
Also, if you think there's something embarrassing about accurately summarizing a logically sound conclusion, I'd love to hear what exactly it is.
And I have no reason to believe that you do and every word you say is more reason why you don't.
The concise, valid formulation of a sound argument involving the nuances of the English language that I presented is by definition reason to believe that I have a masterful grasp of those nuances.
It is just a thoroughly pretentious post as an attempt to make yourself look like an intellectual.
Your perception of my post as being pretentious is colored by your defensive posture. My post was objective and dispassionate. You clearly feel and are responding to me as though I am attacking you, which I'm not. I provided a systemically logical reply- if the only thing you received from it was "pretentiousness", then you either didn't read it, or were made to feel defensive by its overtly-logical presentation.
If you were you wouldn't have made this comment.
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤” Sounds legit
But you did.
Making humorous, light-hearted, logically-sound comments does not preclude one from being intelligent, or an "intellectual".
But you did. And having quickly checked out you comment history you clearly do think you are a novelist. Half of it is text walls.
It doesn't take me long at all to write thoughtful, thorough replies. Again, if in your mind responding to someone comprehensively out of respect for them as a person and for the process of reasoned discourse is something to be mocked as "thinking you're a novelist", then that is a sad way to view the world. Also, the "half" of my 4-year history that you're referring to was one recent exchange.
Your original smart cunt comment was proof that you did not understand the nuance of mine.
Your comment to which I originally responded contained within it the assertion that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" have two completely different definitions. As I already demonstrated, they do not- because "ball of X" implies "made of X" regardless of additional/constituent components. The fact that I am referencing the fire's fuel in relation to its irrelevance to the definition of the phrase proves that I understand what you're referring to as "the nuance of yours". The "nuanced" distinction is still irrelevant to those definitions.
It was just you being a smartarse dickhead and you know it. Stop trying to pretend it was something else. I am not dumb enough to believe that lie, even if you have convinced yourself of it.
Me saying "sounds legit" was indeed me being a smartass- albeit in a relatively very lighthearted, benign way. But it was not just me being a smartass, because the point contained within- that the two phrases which you presented as being obviously different, are actually obviously identical- was still a logically sound point.
Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult
Why didn't you?
...I didn't call you names. I still haven't, and I don't plan to, no matter how many times you call me profanities out of misplaced defensiveness. The reason I didn't provide you with a thorough articulation of the logic behind the conclusion that the two phrases are identical in my first comment, was because I didn't think it would be necessary. I didn't know you would get so upset by such a simple, off-handed way of playfully contradicting your assertion.
Because maybe you are just full of shit?
Again, outside of my first, sarcastic, not-intended-to-be-offensive comment, literally all I've done is reply to you with explicit reasoning behind my point, and in a respectful, logical, objective manner.
I don't know if you're just angry at the other guy who was arguing with you or what, but you genuinely don't have any valid reason to be insulting me as much as you have. Writing thorough responses out of respect for the process of communicating like adults is not inherently contemptible; and using precise, objective language is not inherently pretentious. So I don't know why you're so mad at me. All I've said, in so many words, was that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" do not, according to the rules of the English language, mean inherently different things. And if my bit of sarcasm in my original comment is what so severely offended you, that was sincerely not my intention.
So this is the sequel to the 1st novel? Even more pretentious bullshit pouring out of your mouth in a futile attempt to look like an intellectual. I didn't think it was possible for you to be an even bigger tool, but look at you go. You are here mindlessly arguing semantics with wall after wall of head-up-your-arse text. You sound like a second year arts student. Just enough knowledge to make it seem like you know something but not enough to actually make you an intellectual. Just enough to make you think you are when you just throw clever sentences at people. I can write purple as well, it doesn't mean I am smart, if anything writing that way shows you are not confident in your intellect and need to show it off in your writing rather than just making a point. Clearly this is what you do. No one naturally speaks or argues verbally the way you write so it is pretentious and should be treated as such. You are having an argument, not writing classic literature. Wake the fuck up! And for the love of fucking God stop being a pedantic and semantic douchebag. Anyone who read my original comment can understand te meaning in it and even after tha t I corrected it to call the balls of plasma but you just couldn't deal with that, you have to be a fuckhead about it and dump novels of you bullshit over the definition of a sentence THAT i ALREADY CONCEDED AND CORRECTED YOU FUCKING DUMB CUNT, ARE YOU READING THIS OR NOT? FUCKING PAY ATTENTION IDIOT! YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST SOMETHING i HAVE ALREADY SAID (YEAH, OK) TO. Wow you are fucking dumb. You are arguing a point I have already given to you. What the actual fuck is your major defect buddy? You keep delivering walls of text to claim I was wrong about something that I have already said I was wrong about.
Again, if clear, articulate speech is so completely opaque and foreign to you that all you're able to see when you look at it is a vague, undecipherable mass of "pretentiousness", all that means is that you lack the reading comprehension and/or basic thinking skills to understand it, not that I am pretentious. The fact that you read my very simple, straightforward writing and think I'm trying to "sound smart" indicates that you're intimidated by something which should sound simple to you, since simple and straightforward is what it is. And the fact that you can't respond to a single specific thing I've said- and instead reply with literally nothing but insults- indicates that you didn't actually read/comprehend any of it, just saw a "wall of text" and started typing angrily again.
If you feel the need to call someone who made a simple, harmless comment "cunt" and "FUCKING RETARDED" and to RAGE over and over again, all that means is that you are insecure, defensive, and extremely easily-angered, not that I or anyone else in your crosshairs deserves your extremely emotional overreactions. I've been nothing but patient and respectful to you, and you know that.
You acknowledged that stars are made of plasma. Good for you. All I ever said was that that's not the same thing as acknowledging that "ball of X" implies "made of X". And I never asked you to acknowledge that either, I was simply trying to help your apparently easily-overwhelmed mind understand the fact that I was never attacking you in the first place, just pointing out that something you said was logically incorrect- so there was never a reason for you to get yourself so wound up to begin with.
I hope that wasn't too much "intellectual" text for you.
Jesus fucking Christ you can't stop doing it. It is a compulsion for you or something.
And dude, I have a BA in communications with majors in journalism and creative writing and I am a published author. I understand every word you have written and know it to be shitty writing. It is full of intellectual ego, overly stuffy discourse that is pretentiousness personified, and repetition of the of the most imbecilic and mindless semantic point about something ultimately unimportant, and you just can't get past the fact that someone does not find you smart, just pretentious. The inevitable follow on from this is that you dump wall after wall of dick-headed, verbose nonsense to make you appear smart only to completely fail to recognise the simpleton who wrote the first smart arse comment. That would be you sir.
I still cannot believe you are arguing the point that I have already said you were correct on. Why the actual fuck are you still arguing? If you were wondering why I am calling you a fucking retard, it is because of that. Dumb arse cunt arguing a point over and over that he has already won. Fucking moron.
Jesus fucking Christ you can't stop doing it. It is a compulsion for you or something.
What was that about "hypocrisy" that you were accusing that other guy of? That's not meant as a personal attack bro, just pointing it out.
And dude, I have a BA in communications with majors in journalism and creative writing and I am a published author.
Ok. Neither journalism, creative writing, nor being an author require particularly strong knowledge of formal logic, so I don't blame you for misperceiving my writing style as being pretentious or egotistical. That's also not meant as a dig at you.
I understand every word you have written and know it to be shitty writing.
Please listen: my goal hasn't been "good writing", it's been logical writing.
Try to imagine, just for a second, try to entertain the hypothetical existence of a person who doesn't "argue" emotionally. Who genuinely, fundamentally thinks and communicates, to the best of their ability, according to the rules of formal conceptual logic. That person would speak precisely, to minimize definitional misunderstandings. They would formulate thoughts according to a logical progression. They would not resort to name-calling or personal attacks, but would do their best to remain as objective as possible in all their communications. They may as a result write more like a robot than the majority of emotionally-informed people allow themselves to.
If you will allow yourself to let your guard down and go back and read what I've written again- without the presumption of malicious intent on my part- you will see that THAT is what I've been doing. And that is why I sincerely invited you, from the very beginning, to explain what precisely you disagreed with in my reasoning. Because that's how sound, logic-based discourse works: establish well-defined premises, and deduce them to valid conclusions; then if another party disagrees, they point to the specific premise(s) they disagree with, and explain why. Though I unfortunately doubt you're capable of interpreting my words that way, since you've already seemingly gotten so emotionally invested in your anger at me.
But again, I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I'm smart. No one's perception of my intelligence is relevant, what is relevant is the truth or falsehood of the specific points I've made. In an effort to efficiently and respectfully make those points, it's been necessary for me to talk like an expert in logic, which I am; not like a creative writer, which I'm not (or at least don't profess to be).
If your first comment had been "oh, wait you're right, those don't mean different things" (instead of personal insults), then I literally would not have left you another single reply. This comment I'm replying to now was the first one in which you explicitly acknowledged that my original point was correct. I sincerely appreciate you acknowledging that. Although, to be clear, as I said in my last two replies, the primary reason I continued to respond was not to continue arguing my original point, but to defend myself against your mean-spirited personal attacks, by justifying that my original comment was 1-logically correct and 2-not meant to offend you. If you acknowledge that my original point was sound, then all I can do is hope that you'll accept that my original comment was not meant to offend you. Because I'm not angry at you, and never was.
-2
u/OuthouseRedback 17d ago edited 17d ago
Sure, if you are incapable of nuance, which defines you as rather simpleminded. A ball of fire is made of whatever that fire is burning, or Hydrogen and helium, or is this simplistic explanation too much nuance for you?