Than directly quoting you and then quoting the part where you say you didn’t say the thing you said?
It’s gonna be challenging, I’ll tell you that.
You just can’t admit you said something which isn’t true.
No, I am just still wondering if your reading comprehension can get any worse.
So by saying “OBJECTIVELY, depression is just in your head” you actually meant “well, depression isn’t just in your head, it encompasses the whole body and we all understand about how mind-body dualism is a naive concept and everything in your body affects your mind and the other way around. depression creates inflammation through-out the body, robbing it of vital functionality required to maintain proper homeostasis, leading to a feedback loop worsening the situation”?
That’s quite a lot of subtext for something that’s prescriptively opposite of the comment.
Are you sure you’re not just lying because you’re ashamed of having said something incorrect? Because to me, that seems much more simple of an explanation.
Imagine me writing “the earth is flat” and then arguing that if you read that as if I thought the earth was flat, you’re a moron, since I “obviously” meant that the Earth is of course actually an oblate spheroid. That would seem a tad silly, wouldn’t it?