mkrnhr said:Yes, and it's not sure if they do it on purpose. There is a clear cognitive dissonance in this subject. I've read many papers were the authors describe something, just to conclude on the total opposite. Sometimes the reader doubts itself, and reading those twisted texts is draining.
I remember Fundie preachers doing that; they would read a Bible text and then preach an entire sermon on the OPPOSITE of what it said. I would sit there listening and wondering if there was something wrong with me, like had the rules of grammar changed so much since I was in school or did I get all those answers on tests right even though I didn't understand a word of it? I mean, a subject is a subject and the verb is the verb and they are clearly defined in terms of relationship and function. When it says "do NOT" do such and such, it can't mean DO it!