It’s not a “natural humidifier” why are you clumping those two words into a singular item?

I don’t think I called it a “natural humidifier” anywhere. I called it a “natural dehumidifier,” the same as you did in your original comment.

Also…

The definition and example you’ve chosen addresses an expected reaction. An air conditioner is a dehumidifier. In your chosen example given in that definition on dictionary.com, your original comment would be more akin to saying, “When the fist landed forcefully on his face, it was natural that he was punched in the face.”

You really are intentionally obtuse, you literally explained how an ac naturally dehumidifies that air, but dance around using the proper term since you’ve got it in your head that it was misused, even so far as to ignore a dictionary definition.

I want to either take responsibility for or deny whatever it is you’re saying here, but I’m not sure what you’re saying. This isn’t me trying to throw in a burn by personally attacking you and saying that you don’t know how to communicate. I think I’m just confused by the wording. There are probably millions of other people to whom this makes sense, but I’m probably misreading what you wrote. I believe you’re saying that I’m explaining that an ac “naturally” dehumidifies the air, but I’m avoiding using the word “naturally” because I believe that your use of “naturally” was improper, so much so that I’m willing to ignore the definition of the word naturally. But I don’t want to misconstrue your words because any argument I’d make would be about using a word to define that same word, which doesn’t progress our discourse.

Edit, here’s another

“Without special help or intervention” with the example of “naturally curly hair” is literally describing part of nature: the way that hair grows. If someone wore a curly wig, I don’t think that they’d tell you they have naturally curly hair. When you say that an air conditioner is naturally a humidifier, it sounds the same to me as someone saying that a lever naturally can be used for leverage—yes, that’s why it’s called what it is, because it does what it does. Is an automobile naturally a cart that moves without a horse pushing or pulling it? No, that’s literally what it is. That’s why it’s called an automobile. An air conditioner is called that because it itself is a dehumidifier. It’s not “naturally” a dehumidifier, it was designed to be a dehumidifier. The argument you’re trying to make is the same as Futurama’s joke about Wireless Joe and Pitch-o-mat 5000 being literal versus figurative blernsball machines.

Nothing to do with nature or anything else

What a thought-terminating argument. Nothing to do with nature or anything else! Are you arguing that your words mean what you intended because you said them? Slow down there, Veruca Salts.

but bloviate dude

I don’t know why you’re trying to turn this argument personal, but very well. That’s a good one dollar word! And you used this one correctly, way to go! If you wanted to sound fancy in the first place and the correct word, “literally,” seemed too pedestrian, you could instead substitute “ipso facto.” Since an ac, by the fact of being an air conditioner is itself a dehumidifier.

I normally try not to be so challenging about people misusing words, but you’re just stubborn and self-righteous enough to remind me of my father and that’s gotten under my skin.

Anyway, it’s obvious that neither of us is a linguist not enough of an expert to split hairs like this, since we can’t agree on the meaning of definitions of words. If anyone with some knowledge wants to weigh in and tell me I’m being pedantic, I’ll begrudgingly eat crow.