(04-06-2025, 04:56 PM)copycat Wrote:

(04-06-2025, 03:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: I don't know better than everyone.
I'm just using logic more rigorously than anyone else in this thread at this time. 
I invite you to join me.  
Copycat called me a liar because in one place I said 90% and in another place I said "more than 90%"
I'm trying to explain to copycat, I'm not lying.  But like most things with rigorous logic, there are steps. 
Start at the beginning, and this is just one possible scenario: 

The meme clearly stated “nearly 90%”.  

You stated a flat 90%, which was an exaggeration and with anyone else I would have ignored it for what it was, rounding up and a slight exaggeration.  Since you deal in absolutes though I called you out.

Next you doubled down and stated the good doctor said more than 90% of his patients were liberals.  That was an absolute lie, do you deny it?  

Then there was that weird justification of he spoke to more than 90% so therefore logically you weren’t lying?  

Where did I gone explainer of baby step logic?

Ok, "nearly 90%" is a range of possible numbers, sure.
This wont change my point, but I'll play along.  
Tell me if you disagree:
84% is not "nearly 90%".  If the true value was 84%, he would have said "over 80%", to avoid deception.
But 85% is "nearly 90%". So is 89%.  But not 90%. A number isn't nearly itself.  
So he could have meant any number between 85% and 89%.  Do you disagree?

---