And now we see the crux of the issue.
Poly said:
No, I think you have that backwards. PureX purposely conflated the two sentences in order to imply that this is what Bob is encouraging. If not, why the need to even bring up anything about people who encourage others to commit a violent crime? What was the purpose if that had nothing to do with what PureX was talking about concerning Bob?
I emphasised the one word to point out what is called a "mind-reader's fallacy." Poly, do you have proof that this is what PureX purposely did? No ... you have a reasonable conjecture, but for actual evidentiary proof, you would have to read his mind to ascertain his motives. Since you cannot read his mind (and since your conjecture, though solid IMO, is not evidence of his thought processes), the argument fails.
Poly, I am not saying that PureX didn't
mean it precisely as you believe. I'm not saying you're wrong. The only thing I'm saying is because you cannot prove that one emphasised word, the entire argument falls apart.
Justin
Edited to add: And since the argument falls apart, you and PureX can dance around this argument forever without reaching resolution. PureX may be innocent of your accusation, or he may be as guilty as you say, but as human beings, you and I cannot know the truth of the matter. According to your beliefs, that is solely in the hands of God.
J