09-22-2015, 10:14 AM
(09-21-2015, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll just take this as a lack of reading comprehension. Where have I said it cannot be genetic if the trait is not shared by the parents? If you cannot show me that then your analogy makes no sense.
Okay, rocket surgeon . . . Lemme "dumb it down" for you as you stated.
"Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic. Good work."
Your above quote is sarcasm. Sarcasm involves the use of irony. Irony involves conveying a meaning opposite of the literal meaning. When you make a sarcastic comment your intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning. Therefore, when you wrote "not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic" you mean not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is not genetic. Parents are relatives, correct? Yes, correct. So you sent the message not sharing traits with parents is more proof something is not genetic. I can't believe I have to explain this. (See, that is sarcasm because I'm not surprised I have to explain this to you.) But, you think because I can't show you a verbatim quote you didn't send that message. Once again, you're incorrect. You're getting as bad as Rugby with the "I didn't say that" crap.
Quote:I just found the assertion amusing that the fact that it is not shared is more proof that it is genetic. Do you agree with that assertion or not?
I agree with Pat's explanation.
