I wasn't trying to prove anything, yet I was simply casually contributing to the conversation by giving the idea out that this treatment is not a vaccine, which once again, I did fine in. I also don't know how many times I've said this, yet I never gave out a false definition of what a vaccine is. Yes, I didn't give out the right definition antidote, but that was barely relevant to what I said.
You implied that this treatment is an antidote, which it is clearly not. I think it's fully relevant to what you were saying.
...My idea was solid, I just mixed up the definition of "antidote" with something else.
No, it was a false statement which, coincidentally, happened to have one member which was true: "this is not a vaccine."
Well, after looking up the definition of antidote, I've discovered the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antidote1. a medicine or other remedy for counteracting the effects of poison, disease, etc.
That's right, jackass. Call me an idiot, call my ideas idiotic, and call my reasoning fallible, when you don't even know what you're talking about. And don't say anything like "don't be too cocky now," because you brought this upon yourself by being an ass to me for making a mistake. I feel it's only right to return the same hospitality.
That's exactly what I was saying, and most people would consider that habit to be a huge flaw in a person's character.
I don't care (nor do I think I should care) about your completely subjective view of what you or anyone else consider "good" in a person's character.
Which is another flaw. If you don't consider anyone else's opinion on a subject, you'll never improve some of the areas that could need improvement.
