Yes, you can infer anything in anything, it doesn't mean it's true or correct but you know, infer away. But nice to see you finally admit that I never called you a liar.
Just want to interject that there's a logical fallacy here, specifically the implication that all speech is either "truth" or a lie. Much speech is opinion, inference, misinterpretation, inaccurate belief, etc. Any of those can be both "hate speech" and also not a lie.
I don't think I disagree. But I did not say anything, I think you interjected about. I said, Truth can not be Hate speech. Opinion sure can, intended or not. Where I might have erred is in logical deductions, not the truths which are verifiable. If I did then the logical deduction might then be reduced to opinion which might be invalid. I don't thinks so though. However, sure would listen to a logical argument.
As I quoted, you claimed that calling something hate speech is implicitly calling it a lie, because truth cannot be hate speech. This is, as I said, a logical fallacy, because something can be not necessarily true, but also not necessarily a lie.
Not something, But specifically what I said is the issue. An this I said was verifiable truth. Followed by sound logic base on the truth.
Not sure what 'verifying information' you mean, but in any case it's irrelevant. When you start with false assumptions, then it doesn't matter what your argument is. I can prove the world will end tomorrow, if I get to start with the assumption that the entire planet is an enormous alien bomb set to go off at beer:30 tomorrow. barfo
