Britain leaving the EU

[Tiberius]

In your first response to my earlier post you stated "To suggest nobody would trade with us if we left the EU is ridiculous" this seems to imply to me that you branded my argument ridiculous.

My actual words: "The idea that nobody would trade with us if we were out of the EU is quite frankly ridiculous."

Bolding mine...and yes, I branded your argument ridiculous. Not you, as you tried to claim here:

...you brand anyone who opposes your opinions as ridiculous.

There is a big difference between branding someone ridiculous, and branding an argument ridiculous. One does not necessarily imply the other.

Furthermore, you just stated this "I have an issue with yours in as much as I disagree with it and find your argument for it ridiculous."

I never meant you branded people 'ridiculous' I meant that branding peoples opposing arguments 'ridiculous' on a debating forum is quite silly.

Yet you used the exact words "you brand anyone who opposes your opinions as ridiculous" (my bolding again). Is it just me, or is there a severe inability to type what you actually mean recently?

I don't see any problem with calling an argument ridiculous in a debating forum. The point of a debate is to criticize the other person's arguments. Calling one ridiculous is a criticism, no?

Would you please explain to me how you are NOT calling my argument, opinion or anything else ridiculous, when the statements I have quoted from you suggest otherwise?

I am. However that is not what you accused me of. You accused me of calling you ridiculous. I did not. Once you understand the difference between a person and an argument they use, you'll get this point.

If you're going to have a go at others from not expressing themselves properly you should do it properly yourself first. I'm not going to hang around in this thread to wait for your response of yet more contradictions and supposed 'corrections' .. good day.

Hah, I did express myself properly. I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between a person and an argument they make. First you accuse me of calling people who disagree with me "ridiculous", which I did not, and now you've changed your argument to calling arguments ridiculous. Make your mind up. I did one of those; I didn't do both.

---

And one does not simply assume that one has the capacities to express someones opnions for someone, for whatever reason one may believe that that person is originaly not capable of expressing his or her opinion. Which was clearly the case in the example I gave.

I wasn't trying to express someone's opinion for someone. I was expressing what I felt the attitude in the thread was. If I tell a dirty joke, and someone gets offended, it's not my problem if they read too much into it or took it to heart. If they respond as if I was making the joke about them specifically, it becomes my problem because they are now taking what I said and putting it into an entirely new context in which it was not meant. Likewise, I'm free to express how I feel the attitude of the thread is, and you are free to ignore or rebuke me if you think I've got the wrong idea. However, you should not take what I said and make the assumption that it was directed at you specifically, when it was presented as a general comment.

And even if it was not directed at me, I can still respond, if I feel if I have the arguments to.

Right, but you went further than that. You're bringing it up as an example of me twisting your words, despite the fact that it was a general comment, did not quote you, and was not even directed at you. By all means, respond if you think I've got the wrong idea, but don't act like I've committed some heinous act of twisting your words when I haven't even brought them up.