The snake wasn’t lying when he said he wasn’t poisonous, so the rat had no reason to correct him. The snake also didn’t mean “venomous”, since we learned that he was saying “poisonous” on purpose. So, the snake’s assertion that he wasn’t poisonous was true, while the rat’s statement that the snake meant “venomous” was a lie.
So, if it works every time, then every time, he’s eating critters who are incorrectly trying to correct someone and say that something true that they said was actually false.
If the rat was only stupid for correcting somebody just to feel the superiority of correcting them, then I think, “Eh, a snake’s got to eat.” But combining that with the rat’s hypocrisy of correcting something true into something false, then I think, “This snake is a fucking hero.”
First off, the rat’s statement wasn’t a lie, only a falsehood. For a lie the rat would have to intentionally attempted deception rather than just being wrong.
Second, the snake’s statement about not being poisonous was directly connected to “don’t be afraid” with an implied “because”. While technically true, he was definitely attempting a deception. Maybe not by means of a lie, but not in any way less harmful. That would normally be grounds for chopping his hand off, so he’s also abusing the fact that he doesn’t have arms.
That said, the rat was fucking stupid because I the scenario would probably end the same way whether the snake was venomous or not.
How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though? The sentence structures are the same. He was meant to say “I’m not venomous!” if the intent was to lie. But the intent was of course to trigger the symantics Nazi.
How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though?
Since the snake did not describe himself as poisonous, I don’t understand the relevance. The grammar is just twisty enough that I could imagine that I’m misunderstanding it, or I could imagine that there’s a typo.
Neither of us would be eaten by the snake, but only because the snake just ate that rat, and it’s not hungry.
The snake wasn’t lying when he said he wasn’t poisonous, so the rat had no reason to correct him. The snake also didn’t mean “venomous”, since we learned that he was saying “poisonous” on purpose. So, the snake’s assertion that he wasn’t poisonous was true, while the rat’s statement that the snake meant “venomous” was a lie.
So, if it works every time, then every time, he’s eating critters who are incorrectly trying to correct someone and say that something true that they said was actually false.
If the rat was only stupid for correcting somebody just to feel the superiority of correcting them, then I think, “Eh, a snake’s got to eat.” But combining that with the rat’s hypocrisy of correcting something true into something false, then I think, “This snake is a fucking hero.”
First off, the rat’s statement wasn’t a lie, only a falsehood. For a lie the rat would have to intentionally attempted deception rather than just being wrong.
Second, the snake’s statement about not being poisonous was directly connected to “don’t be afraid” with an implied “because”. While technically true, he was definitely attempting a deception. Maybe not by means of a lie, but not in any way less harmful. That would normally be grounds for chopping his hand off, so he’s also abusing the fact that he doesn’t have arms.
That said, the rat was fucking stupid because I the scenario would probably end the same way whether the snake was venomous or not.
username checks out.
How else could he intentionally describe himself incorrectly as poisonous and mean venomous though? The sentence structures are the same. He was meant to say “I’m not venomous!” if the intent was to lie. But the intent was of course to trigger the symantics Nazi.
We’ve both been eaten by the snake, by the way.
Since the snake did not describe himself as poisonous, I don’t understand the relevance. The grammar is just twisty enough that I could imagine that I’m misunderstanding it, or I could imagine that there’s a typo.
Neither of us would be eaten by the snake, but only because the snake just ate that rat, and it’s not hungry.
Very true good sir. We must thank that rat for our lives.