Comment on Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist

• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Okay, here is the entire paragraph. Please point out what I am missing:

  I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy won this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.

  source

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      So if I change what was literally said, it means something else. Yes, that’s usually the case.

      source

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        What is your definition of won? Because that’s what it means.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:

    the best result he could expect.

    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.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Or “the best result” being that he is the “clear” winner.

      it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.

      Does that include statements like “they’re eating the dogs in Springfield” and “schools are forcing children to have gender reassignment surgery?”

      source

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments