Scientia

I already explained how I didn't.

If you won't understand that then cool for you.

If you can't understand that then still cool for you. You probably have something "wrong" with your ever-so-cognitive brain.
And I'm talking about how people make contradictions all the time. lol. It wasn't exactly part of the argument. It branched from "contradiction" being my favorite word. But you could always answer the question: "Is it a reasonable one?"
I wasn't apologizing.
I wasn't saying it was not an anology. Yes there is a similarity between the two. But it doesn't prove anything.

What were you trying to prove from the statement? That not calling someone who didn't know about the steering wheel thing stupid is like not calling someone who doesn't know you need to breath air stupid. Yet, when I question this flawed statement, you counteract with saying: "In both cases they didn't know something vital to their survival." And that, proves the similarity.....which proves that it is an analogy. But it was still a simple minded, logically flawed statement. As there is a considerable difference between not knowing that you need air to live and not knowing that a steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only when using certain breaks? Making it even more plausible that this info could have passed by him without him knowing. Unlike the breathing air thing. What I'm saying is, if you see a teenager who doesn't know that humans need to breath air to live, you have much more of a right to call him stupid than someone who didn't know some basic info on a car. Why is that? Because it is a commonly known fact that you need air to breath. You'd have to really be stupid not to know. And while this lock up thing might be common, it isn't nearly as common as the breathing thing. Not NEARLY. Therefore, Not knowing you need to breath air = More stupid than not knowing that the steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. Definitely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stupid. And remember, I was going under the assumption that you were using that definition of stupid. The more harsher one.
Oh, how wrong you are. I simply got sidetracked, that's all.
Yeah but didn't you use extra strength stupid? Isn't that supposed to apply to the other definition: people with low cognitive processess, and a slow mind? The more harsher one, I would presume.

And yeah, funny how almost all our "arguments" end with a definition.
Never have.
I never actually cared. And just because something makes me puke (which I lied about), doesn't mean I psychologically hate it. Though that is the more common case.
Hmmm. Can't say that I am.
I don't see ambiguity as a plauge. And I already proved why it was more logical to assume my choice of the two right off the bat. As far as I'm concerned ambiguity is like diversity. A sentence that can have different meanings.
I don't, I'm sure that there are manly men who are also gentlemen. But 9 times out of 10, or maybe 8 times, gentlemen don't fight with grizzly bears. And 9 times out of 10, or maybe 7 times, a manly man, would rather fight, than hang out and please a girl. And from what I've seen from you "manly" trolls, you aren't gentlemen at all. At least not by my standards. Hardy harr harr.
That's definitely not true. You can be manly without being a gentleman. I would go further in-depth but we would just be arguing semantics.
And I know, then, that there are some girls who would completely hate it.

__________________
------------------------------------------

"There was a footpath leading across fields in New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of Mathematics."