[detaro]

In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote

> but there are for acting upon it publicly.

So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

[aptidude187]

>In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote

You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind.

>So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.

[detaro]

jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion.

> In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind

Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".

[aptidude187]

> jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion.

I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.

[detaro]

As the sentence says, I quote the response to to what you called the hyperbolic statement. Not the hyperbolic statement.

[aptidude187]

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?