Pants-of-dog wrote: 1. People can have differing opinions about book interpretations. There is no single correct interpretation.
Under that view, one could argue there is no correct interpretation of any human writing, including things like, lets say, gun statistics?
That is an
ad-reductio argument, besides the fact that the author himself was explicit with his views and what he intended to convey in this work.
If you want to argue by an appeal to literary relativism, then Marx was clearly an Anarcho-Capitalist. That is my interpretation after all and its just as valid as yours.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Your implied argument in the linked thread was shown to be incorrect.
Your expressed argument in this thread was shown to be incorrect, and we are in this thread after all, not that one.
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Your incorrect opinion about my stance in gun control is irrelevant.
Correct, not unlike your opinion of what I said in an entirely different thread, which was the point.
Pants-of-dog wrote:4. You ignored my only topical claim.
That is because I was addressing you point about
Starship Troopers, and pretty well nothing else.
Pants-of-dog wrote:You may now go back to talking about me instead of making an argument.
I haven't been discussing you, i've been discussing your arguments.
Don't let your delusions of grandeur cloud whats going on here. You presented bad arguments, were refuted, and are trying to deflect with a red-herring distraction about another thread.
Time to pick up your toys and go home pants.