• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Just because they say ‘no visual cue’ does not mean that is no visual cue.

    It literally, explicitly does, because they are talking about a hypothetical situation where no visual cues are left. If no visual cues are left, then there are no visual cues to see.

    Why, because you say so? Yes, I can. Of course I can.

    Okay. I should have been extremely specific. You cannot rightly and correctly say that there are visual cues that could be found when the other person explicitly says that there are no visual cues to be found, because in the hypothetical situation that they’ve brought up, there would be no visual cues to find, and so while you are physically capable of stating the phrase “just look for the visual cues,” or some variation thereof, you are incorrect in the assumption that there would be visual cues to find.

    When somebody says “you can’t say” followed by a statement that’s incorrect, they aren’t trying to tell you that you are physically incapable of saying that statement; rather, there is an implicit “correctly” or “honestly” between the “can’t” and “say.”

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      because they are talking about a hypothetical situation where no visual cues are left.

      No, I am not. I’m disagreeing with that, and my comments are stating as much. I’m allowed to disagree with what someone is saying.