>>104890311>This is an absolutely unacceptable interpretation of his statement for anybody with decent social skills.
Lmao it has nothing to do with social skills. This is dictated by your preferences. I've seen people literally argue for Lancaster as long as it happens slowly. If you assume those preferences and project them on Kerry, it's perfectly reasonable.>You don't even want to try and read between the lines, you just refused to do so.
Because it's impossible? You have no metric, no hermeneutic to guide how one is supposed to 'read between the lines.' He's just making a statement. You're asserting that you can only interpret this clear statement with subtextual information based on your idea of the mental phenomena occurring in a stranger's head. It's not necessary.>>104890310
You did say literally.>>104890344
Dude, are you really trying to argue truth and necessity are the same? You're talking about untrue assumptions. An unnecessary assumption is not an untrue assumption. This is semantics, not syntax, as you do not seem to understand that necessity is not synonymous with truth.
Necessity concerns something that is needed, not something that is true. An unnecessary assumption can only mean an assumption you don't *need* to make. It doesn't mean it's true or not. It is ambiguous because it literally does not tell you if something is true or not. In context, he's talking about the truth (or canonicity) of a ship, so it obviously follows that if these assumption of the ship's 'truth' aren't necessary, they're aren't necessarily true (nor false). Saying something isn't necessary isn't the same as saying it isn't true.