> So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"?
No, I dont think any of that. Why are you trying to pin me down on my opinion about emissions killing people?
> I think you're in a pointless semantic argument
Yes, that is correct. This is an argument about language, and the nuance of the term 'contribute'. The difference between saying 'VW directly shortened millions of lives' and 'VW contributed to the shortening of millions of lives'.
I am not arguing anything about opinions of emissions or how harmful they are. Just peoples use of correct language.
You call the argument pointless, yet you are still replying!
> No, I dont think any of that. Why are you trying to pin me down on my opinion about emissions killing people?
You said neither, I thought you meant you disagree with neither, not "I'm phrasing it differently".
> You call the argument pointless, yet you are still replying!
That sentence started with a "then", and apparently the premise of that sentence wasn't correct in the first place.
Also it's perfectly reasonable to say "Oh, I thought the discussion was X, but it's Y, now I am leaving." "still replying" by making that final post is not foolishness.
> I am not arguing anything about opinions of emissions or how harmful they are. Just peoples use of correct language.
It sounds like you just hate the word "direct".
If enough people disagree with you about a word, then you're wrong. Words are defined by consensus.
That's all I have to say, I think. Sorry for trying to talk about the actual evidence since that's irrelevant to your argument.
-
Except, wait... the original post you replied to didn't even use the word "direct" even though half your posts are harping on that word. What is going on.
"Contributing" is still doing in this situation (unlike with the string). Why are you fine when that word is put in, but not fine when it's omitted? Especially when it's clear that nobody is blaming VW for all emissions. The contribution is implied.
Oh, there was supposed to be an "it" after "doing". As in, VW is causing life shortening in this situation, even if we use the word "contributing". In the string example many of the "contributors" are not doing string shortening themselves.
I tend to hit reply too early. That bad habit is completely unrelated to how concerned I am with your opinion.
I can't tell from your wording if you'd tell me to go outside if I didn't have that habit. But if you would, isn't that a generic putdown for responding to anything you say? My piece of advice is if you ever find yourself writing a comment that isn't worth responding to, the appropriate action is to not post it.
No, I dont think any of that. Why are you trying to pin me down on my opinion about emissions killing people?
> I think you're in a pointless semantic argument
Yes, that is correct. This is an argument about language, and the nuance of the term 'contribute'. The difference between saying 'VW directly shortened millions of lives' and 'VW contributed to the shortening of millions of lives'.
I am not arguing anything about opinions of emissions or how harmful they are. Just peoples use of correct language.
You call the argument pointless, yet you are still replying!