So you agree that, as with this statement, it can come across as a tad condescending when people narrate the tautologically obvious as a way to make a point in an argument?
I don’t know what your point is. Clearly the argument I was making is not tautologically obvious. If it were then the comment above mine wouldn’t have existed. They said the headline was wrong. That the picture wasn’t fake, it was staged. I made the argument that staged could be argued to be fake. That isn’t tautological.
Ah, for clarity: The argument isn’t tautological, calling an argument about semantics a semantic argument is. It’s also an extremely common way to dismiss someone’s claims in an argument as vague or indefinite, which in an argument about a semantic point was a rather odd thing for you to do.
An argument about the usage and contextual meaning of an aspect of language is very literally a semantic argument.
That’s literally what I said…
So you agree that, as with this statement, it can come across as a tad condescending when people narrate the tautologically obvious as a way to make a point in an argument?
I don’t know what your point is. Clearly the argument I was making is not tautologically obvious. If it were then the comment above mine wouldn’t have existed. They said the headline was wrong. That the picture wasn’t fake, it was staged. I made the argument that staged could be argued to be fake. That isn’t tautological.
Ah, for clarity: The argument isn’t tautological, calling an argument about semantics a semantic argument is. It’s also an extremely common way to dismiss someone’s claims in an argument as vague or indefinite, which in an argument about a semantic point was a rather odd thing for you to do.