If someone has to write a long, detailed explanation of "well, yeah, you didn't really do this but here is why I feel justified in claiming it anyway", it's not ignorance. It's a rationalized lie.
That makes a lot of sense. That is not how this unfolded. You disagreed with Eden's "belief" that you had "insisted". In your initial reaction to Eden you asked him to explain in detail. But, you did not leave it there, you attacked "the believer" questioning whether anyone should trust another word he says, that every word was suspect as he had "already lied". You did that before he answered your request with a detailed explanation. You can disagree with his explanation, but don't reconstruct the order of events.
As you said, at best it could have been ignorance. Why, prior to Eden going on a protracted defense did you call into question his integrity? This has been done to you several times, it is wrong. I find it entirely illustrative of the OP, of attacking the believer instead of the belief.
See, you're doing it now as well. Using a synonym of a synonym of a kinda close idea to link a word that doesn't at all mean what you're now claiming it does. Shame is in no way a synonym of "insist". Using such lazy thinking, saying "dinner's ready" is insisting someone eat.
Fair point. Words can have fuzzy boundaries. I have tied a dictionary definition of insist, namely "press", and demonstrated how repeating a request indirectly and using shame is a form of pressing. It is fuzzy, even, as you say, lazy. It is not precise language. That is not the question, though. The question is whether it is a lie. It is vernacular usage despite your insistence "it isn't". Further, the question is whether it is justified to immediately launch into an attack on a "liar" and the entire integrity of a poster based upon this expression.
Your example of "dinner's ready" to illustrate my lazy thinking is an irrelevant counter. It neither repeats the request indirectly nor uses shame as a form of press. My two examples did.
We are on topic. Some people believe it's sometimes justified to rationalize a lie if they can connect enough words together, apparently.
Absolutely agree we are on topic. And, for those still following, Viviane has only gone after my ideas and beliefs by countering my thinking as lazy and justifying a lie. That is all fair play. I concede that using insist this way is, at worse, imprecise. It is not a lie. Your post pressed Eden to answer at risk of being labeled discourteous. I submit that seizing upon a common colloquial expression used in a common colloquial manner as the foundation to call a person a liar and to call into question every word a poster writes is entirely illustrative of attacking the person and not the belief, point, or idea.
