AfP : blurry results, blurry texts. Please help

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, αℓƒяє∂ said:

Perhaps, but since it’s impossible to have physically poor eyesight without also being visually impaired it’s still tautological!

Since it is possible to be visually impaired yet still have physically excellent eyesight, why would you consider this to be tautological? Not to nitpick this to death, but would you agree that at least logically, a subset is not necessarily the same thing as its superset?

This is not unlike the "pixel is a pixel" fallacy.

33 minutes ago, toltec said:

Would calling someone a nitpicking pedantic be tautological ? 

What about pointing out that an adjective was used where grammatically a noun should be? 

[Alfred]

40 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Since it is possible to be visually impaired yet still have physically excellent eyesight, why would you consider this to be tautological? Not to nitpick this to death, but would you agree that at least logically, a subset is not necessarily the same thing as its superset?

This is not unlike the "pixel is a pixel" fallacy.

What about pointing out that an adjective was used where grammatically a noun should be? 

The point, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is that if you describe people as having physically poor eyesight then it’s redundant to also state that they are visually impaired. As for treating the word ‘pedantic’ as a noun, the less said about that the better!

 

[toltec]

1 hour ago, αℓƒяє∂ said:

The point, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is that if you describe people as having physically poor eyesight then it’s redundant to also state that they are visually impaired. As for treating the word ‘pedantic’ as a noun, the less said about that the better!

 

Bear in mind that English is not my first language.

Gibberish came first 

[Alfred]

1 minute ago, toltec said:

Bear in mind that English is not my first language.

Gibberish came first 

Ditto. And ditto!