That also largely depends on if they are being wilfully obtuse, or lack the basic comprehension skills involved with recognising wider context beyond the level of single sentences, which seem to be the main two areas of confusion here so far.
So many unnecessary arguments crop up on this forum because of selective, incomplete reading of comments and misinterpretation.
If commenters took a minute to think about other potential meanings before going off on some misinformed rant it might make for a more productive debate.
"It seems to me that the parlous semi-free market state of the US healthcare system is in fact a perfect demonstration of the dangers we'd encounter if we moved to a completely free market. Claims that "oh no it's not actually free enough" are merely handwaving"
I think that (or something like it) would have been a much clearer approach.
You are very clearly, and unambiguously declaring that as long as there are six people somewhere in the world who misunderstand, then whoever made the original point is at fault for not making it universally easy to understand, and impossible to twist or edit to fit the prejudices of the reader?
At what point does the number of people who correctly understand it come into play? If 6 people don't get it, but 6 people do, is it still the fault of the author? What about 60, 600, 6000, 6bn?
Surely if only six people out of the entire population of the world misinterpret a point, and everyone else gets it, then it must be the due to the prejudices or poor comprehension skills of those six.
On the contrary, if a half-dozen different people don't misinterpret your point on a widely-read Internet forum, you probably didn't say anything worthwhile.
