[011011100]

>No one reads anything with 100% comprehension, and the assertion that such a thing as perfect understanding exists is absurd. Real meaning of words is fleeting and there certainly isn't any universal truth to every written work.

"meaning of words is fleeting"

Maybe over long periods of time words change their meaning. That doesn't mean you can't fully comprehend SOME writing had you slowed down.

[colechristensen]

I think a core premise of the parent argument is the existence of '100% comprehension' when reading and believe arguments against this premise are very much not directed towards a strawman.

Sure the meaning of words flows with time, but more importantly our languages are imprecise and subject to much interpretation. How any one person translates the meaning of a word or passage into internal conscious and unconscious understanding is most certainly inconsistent. Ask any hundred academics the meaning of a passage of literature or a poem and you'll get 100 analyses. Ask 100 judges to make a determination of how the law applies to a case and you'll get 100 different judgements (even though the law is supposed to be very precise language by design).

My position is that complete comprehension is absurd therefore all comprehension is incomplete.

Given all comprehension is incomplete, arbitrarily setting limits on levels of comprehension based on tools and reading speed is absurd.

Any comprehension is useful, and doing things quickly is useful therefore a tool that provides some comprehension over meaningfully shorter periods of time for a given block of text has definite utility in some circumstances.

A person can be skeptical of the utility of a tool for their own purposes, but the absolutist opinion of the parent is a silly overstatement of that skepticism.