Reading can be defined as the interpretation of signs, including visual signs like drawings.
That's as may be, but my argument was as follows:
1) The definition of reading excludes pictures.
2) This book is comprised of pictures.
3) One cannot read this book.
Attacking statement 1 doesn't mean there was a tautology inherent in the statement.
We have managed to move completely away from the original topic and started arguing syllogisms. Only on RAFO.
"We feel safe when we read what we recognise, what does not challenge our way of thinking.... a steady acceptance of pre-arranged patterns leads to the inability to question what we are told."
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
Would you read this book?
- 02/06/2011 01:32:11 AM
1208 Views
No, because by definition one cannot read pictures.
- 02/06/2011 01:39:12 AM
798 Views
That depends entirely on your definition of reading *NM*
- 02/06/2011 03:28:30 PM
317 Views
I hope you realize how tautological that was. *NM*
- 02/06/2011 06:50:54 PM
295 Views
*NM*
- 02/06/2011 06:50:54 PM
295 Views
I merely made the tautology explicit. It was already there in your claim.
- 02/06/2011 09:23:28 PM
784 Views
How was it there in my claim?
- 03/06/2011 01:41:47 AM
774 Views
I wouldn't go out of my way to do so.
- 02/06/2011 03:01:43 AM
699 Views
how often have you read a book that you haven't gone out of your way to do so?
- 02/06/2011 02:59:37 PM
752 Views
That looks like Jonah without the whale. Or maybe I'm just weird that way.
- 02/06/2011 09:15:42 AM
848 Views
- 02/06/2011 09:15:42 AM
848 Views