Kermit, you're engaging in some extremely bizarre mental gymnastics in your attempt justify an indefensible position. This is what sometimes happens when someone has a logical contradiction or inconsistency in their argument exposed; because it can feel uncomfortable. Some people find it easier to double down, then triple down, then quadruple down on their original fallacy, rather than reevaluate their conclusion or re-form their argument. In doing so they tend to resort to increasingly extreme and unusual methods in an attempt to justify their original, now demonstrated as broken, logic. This is what you're doing by flailing around discussing historical events as though they're somehow relevant to any of this, while completely hand-waving away the core of your broken reasoning. You'll notice that I'm not engaging with you from an actual debating point of view right now. The reason for that is because there is nothing left to debate on it; the principles of logic have been broken in your position; so it's no longer defensible. What you appear to be doing now is attempting to redefine reality and language, to suit your view, as opposed to adjusting your views to match the fact that your argument was trivially demonstrated to be logically contradictory. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. You're right of course, but there's a part of me that is so incredibly taken aback at witnessing this kind of incredibly tenacious mental squirming first hand; that it's almost impressive to me; or at least interesting.