Comment on Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 3 months agoIt’s because you’re not reading the entire thing and stopped paying attention when they used the word “won.” Go back and reread the entire paragraph.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Okay, here is the entire paragraph. Please point out what I am missing:
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The rest of the paragraph?
Replace the word “won” with “got what he wanted from”
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 months ago
So if I change what was literally said, it means something else. Yes, that’s usually the case.
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What is your definition of won? Because that’s what it means.
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 3 months ago
The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:
Not ‘only valid’, not ‘we’. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Or “the best result” being that he is the “clear” winner.
Does that include statements like “they’re eating the dogs in Springfield” and “schools are forcing children to have gender reassignment surgery?”
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 3 months ago
Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.
In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn’t jump to declaring donald “the dumbest person alive” and/or “pro-immigrant executions” (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said “here is our evidence disproving that claim”, and that is more than enough.
Back to the point of this discussion, you’re jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the ‘still(?!) undecideds’ will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they’re idiots.