I am going to have to use your mom jokes.
The word "require" in the same time is the opposite of flexible.
I was very serious when I used the word "adaptation" and I am still serious when I say that there's nothing flexible about it and I could argue the direct opposite.
The word require and the word flexible aren't opposites:
For something to require flexibility is not contradictory, it's merely rigid in one respect and flexible in another.
Require and flexible are opposites:
In the way that something cannot be called both true and false or existent and non-existent.
Require and flexible are both opposite and not opposite,
Require and flexible are neither opposite nor not-opposite:
Something flexible doesn't require a particular form.
Something rigid requires that the form not be flexible.
But we can't talk about either without implying the other.
And that's how reality works. Big deal. That bullshit aside, you've made no effort to actually support the assertion that Hitchens was a deeply moral man, you've just been offensive. I didn't question the seriousness of your statement. I just asked you to, you know, contribute to the discussion rather than trying clumsily to quash it by insulting other people.
