Comment on Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 month agoThe 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.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 month 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 1 month 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.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What ad hominems did I make to the OP? Please quote me.
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 month ago
You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.
This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.
As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian and Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me). That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.