I had my suspicions, after a Google search turned up nothing lol

If something could be a Deez Nuts joke, then it probably is?

Poe’s law hits hard

This will be fantastic during the apocalypse and we lose Internet.
Too bad I’ll have lost the Internet so I won’t be able to learn how to get the equipment and set it up, until it’s too late

Look here, pedantry is my business.

I didn’t mean literally mad. I mean people are telling me something that I’m wrong for something that I didn’t say, and that I went out of my way to make clear I wasn’t saying, and they’re doing it in a belittling way. So yes, my feelings are hurt.

But meanwhile I still didn’t say it, and I made clear I wasn’t saying it, and you’re still being belittling and telling me that’s what I said.

Maybe the problem isn’t that I’m wrong about what a fruit is, and the problem is that you (and whoever else) misread what I wrote. In which case, why are you still telling me I’m wrong about what a fruit is? And if that’s not what you’re doing, then what are you doing?

I didn’t make my argument clear, for sure.
The initial person called the dry fruit a seed.
Then the other person countered with an example of a fruit with a single seed where you don’t call the whole fruit the seed. But importantly they didn’t establish why the first person should consider those two things the same. The first person simply didn’t accept that the dry fruit was a fruit in the first place, so using another, typical, fruit for example isn’t going to help.

My example was trying (ineffectively) to show that it appears as an apples/orange comparison unless you already understand.

But now, despite explicitly saying I know that a strawberry isn’t a berry in my original reply, I’m being told that I’m disagreeing with science, rather than with their example.

You’re having a different discussion than what I’m trying to make.

Im aware of the difference between botanical and culinary definition. Im aware a strawberry isn’t botanically a berry. Im aware a pumpkin is a berry. I’m aware that raspberries are accessory fruits, that peanuts aren’t nuts, etc.

I’m saying that your peach example isn’t going to illustrate that difference to someone who doesn’t already get it.

I can admit my feelings get hurt when someone gets mad at me for something I didn’t say.

Can you admit your failure in reading comprehension?
Can you at least point out where you think I said that strawberry “seeds” aren’t the actual fruit, so that I can know how I was unclear about it?

Apologizing doesn’t affect their guilt or lack thereof.

Canadians are allowed self defense within reason

That’d be a really great point, if that was even anywhere close to what I said in the comment that got down voted.

So what am I to take from this reply? That people on Lemmy are functionally illiterate? That they can’t distinguish between criticism of an example with criticism of an argument?

Ah I see. That makes a bit more sense.

But I still don’t think that’s a great company the example, because I believe what they were actually saying was that just because it contains a see doesn’t make it a fruit, in the same way that if you see a shelled peanut with the husk on, you wouldn’t call it a whole fruit.

I know they’re wrong, but I don’t think that your counter example addressed what their confusion was.

Not admitting guilt doesn’t make you not guilty

An apple contains many seeds, but you don’t call each seed a fruit.

I mean, I knew a strawberry wasn’t a berry, but your counterexample was completely irrelevant.

Edit:
When people downvote but nobody responds, I have no idea what people are downvoting about.
Nothing I said was inaccurate, and it illustrated why their example was inapplicable, so what do downvotes mean here?

I think you missed my point.
Also idk how serious you’re being.

It’s about expectation management. If you’re taught to expect that you can turn struggle into strength and obstacles into opportunity, then when you’re unable to then you’ll feel like something is wrong with you, and when society expects it of others then it becomes a moral failing.
But the times where it’s feasible to transform those negatives into positives are rare and fleeting, so we’re setting ourselves and others up for failure with messages like this.
And equally important, this effectively absolves responsibility from those with the power to help.

So I don’t believe it’s healthy to take that “positive” perspective, because I don’t really believe it’s positive, any more than the belief you can fly is.

Lol I’m not sure which of the perspectives that’d fall under, but I’m not sure that’s a great long term strategy either in the current job market.

Reality and ideality (is that a word?) are unfortunately pretty divergent

You’re placing the onus on the wrong party. If you tell someone that they just need to take control of a situation in which they have no control, what psychological impact do you think that’ll have on them when they’re inevitably unable to?

This advice is dangerously naive at best, and victim blaming to support existing power structures at worst.

Do you see how delusionally optimistic you are?

Pick an average job like mechanic and an average obstacle like access to mental healthcare. How do you think a garage is going to spin off a mental healthcare business? Why do you think they’d want to? Why do think their boss would even listen to them, let alone appreciate the pitch?
So not at work then, how do you think a mechanic would get access to the knowledge of running a business? Where do you think they’d get the connections to raise capital with the average person’s credit?

If you work somewhere that you could pitch your own obstacle to your boss as a business opportunity, you’re in the 1% access to opportunities.
If you have the ability to start your own business to solve your own obstacle, then you’re in the 1% access to opportunities.

The advice just doesn’t apply to the vast majority of obstacles for the vast majority of people, and telling people that their inability to capitalize is a moral failing is evil, and actively helps evil people.

But that’s not a reasonable expectation.

It only becomes an opportunity if you’re in a position to start a brand new business. I’m not in a position to start one business, let alone one for each of my obstacles.
And even if I pitched it to the business i work for, why would they listen to me? And even if they did why do you think I’d get any credit? Now I’ve just got a other monthly bill.

And it’s a very bold assumption to think that every non-unique obstacle can be monetized, or that it’s ethical to monetize. Maybe a charity, but even then it can get pretty sketchy.

They’re not telling you to go seek or make opportunities, they’re telling you to consider your obstacles as opportunities.

Its like saying being robbed is an opportunity to make as much wealth as you previously had.