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.

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    “there was no reason, but here’s the reason” isn’t semantics. It’s just you contradicting yourself one sentence later.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      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
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Whether two statements conflict with one another is a function of what those statements mean which is also called “semantics”.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          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
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              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
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  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
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    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