"TC said:
Maybe. But the number of double negatives is growing alarmingly, I'm
not sure that I follow them now!
Ah but that is just the point about non-existence, it is an
instantiation of a bottomless series of double negatives,
providing only that the number - in most circumstances - are odd.
When I said "good point", I was really just trying to be polite.
That's ok. you are polite. There is no doubt. A mensch! I am sure
this will all end well.
I still contend, that if someone wanted to argue that it was *not* a
good point, they should have argued that to the person who actually
made that point. That was the other person - not me!
On this I am afraid you would have great difficulty in providing
an argument.
Think of the wider ramifications: often someone will say
something that is not right, this is understandable. But another
person who has not just let the wrong thought leap out of his
mind, one who has had time to reflect on another's thought, is a
quite valid target of objection. The general point is that it is
not at all obvious why the person who agrees with a false opinion
should not be the object of objection. After all, who knows where
most false opinions first arise, in most cases it is their later
promoters that are properly to be addressed. There is rarely need
to try to track down the earliest advocate of something false in
order to lodge an objection. What I am saying is not that you are
plain wrong, but rather that your contention is not obvious by
simple inspection.
(Not, of course, in this case, but there is nothing more
infuriating in some cases than someone agreeing with a false
opinion - which shows that it is not always the originator of
the opinion that should be tackled. I am talking general
principles here.)
