Reply #162: no, one should read your statement as an example of dishonest discourse

[iverglas]

No more, no less.

No one raised any issue involving any IMPOSED REQUIREMENT to carry concealed firearms in a national park.

You chose to pretend that the absence of an IMPOSED REQUIREMENT, which you, in all grammatical correctness, referred to as "needing", was somehow analogous to the absence of SITUATIONAL NECESSITY.

You used that pretense to construct an analogy, an analogy based on a pure falsehood. It is purely false to say that seatbelts were not a SITUATIONAL NECESSITY 25 years ago.
It really doesn't come much more dishonest than that.

But hey. At least you had the honesty to admit the dishonesty. At least at first, anyhow.


Why, do you think there was something vague about my statement

Why do you pretend to think I thought there was something vague about your statement? Pretty dumb, really, to quote the definition -- to use vague or ambiguous language in order to deceive someone or to avoid telling the truth -- and then pretend it wasn't there. Really pretty dumb. Do you want to define "ambiguous" for us now?

A word that has two meanings is kinda by definition "ambiguous", doncha think?

Oxford Concise does: "having an obscure or double meaning". And no. We're not talking about "obscure". We're talking about "double".


You used the double meaning of the expression "need to" -- be under the necessity to or be under the obligation to -- to construct an analogy based purely on a falsehood. There had been no statement that no one is under an obligation to carry a concealed firearm in a national park, and you know this perfectly well.

Right now, I need to pee. I'm under no obligation to pee at all, though. Were I out on the sidewalk, I would need to come inside, since peeing on the sidewalk is illegal where I'm at.