You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can’t just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).
The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Let’s try a different example. If I am anti-anti-gay, does that make me gay? Obviously not. Which is what the picture in this post says. You change it and say anti-anti = pro, which is neither what we are arguing about nor true. In your interpretation, it make me pro-gay. I don’t want to be pro-gay, as in being gay is superior to being heterosexual. I am just against discrimination. So anti-anti is not pro.
“The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.”
I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you’d respond in an honest manner. I’m not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they’re irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.
You’ve made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don’t expect any further engagement from me.
Just admit there is no argument, you are just clearly wrong. Hell, even the word pro was already moving the goalpost since there is no pro in the post or my original comment. Without that goalpost move, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
You seem to have missed the bit that came after: Gun<>murder, so you can’t just use the terms interchangeably in the way that you have (category error).
The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.
deleted by creator
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Let’s try a different example. If I am anti-anti-gay, does that make me gay? Obviously not. Which is what the picture in this post says. You change it and say anti-anti = pro, which is neither what we are arguing about nor true. In your interpretation, it make me pro-gay. I don’t want to be pro-gay, as in being gay is superior to being heterosexual. I am just against discrimination. So anti-anti is not pro.
“The definition of “anti” is “to oppose” or “opposite” and it can very well be treated as a negation - particularly when it is used in political discourse, where being “anti-anti” very strongly implies being “pro”, and trying to argue otherwise is facetious at best.”
So no refutation of the clear counterexample, just calling it facetious while you are clearly wrong.
Facetious at best.
I was happy to assume your original argument was a genuine mistake and you’d respond in an honest manner. I’m not interested in debating whatever additional, spurious examples and analogies you want to dream up to argue about - they’re irrelevant and this increasingly looks like an attempt to muddy the water of a serious, and plainly evident issue.
You’ve made it obvious enough that your intentions here are dishonest, so don’t expect any further engagement from me.
Just admit there is no argument, you are just clearly wrong. Hell, even the word pro was already moving the goalpost since there is no pro in the post or my original comment. Without that goalpost move, you don’t have a leg to stand on.