View Post

[EricHiggin]

the-pi-guy said:

EricHiggin said:

Do you not see the point I was making?

Incoherent means confusing and unclear. You really think that everyone clearly understood everything Elon was saying in that tweet, and beyond that, the deeper meaning behind it?

It should also be apparent, based not only on how Trump speaks now compared to his past, and how other Presidents have spoken, that it's not coincidence that there's a pattern of shorter sentences with pauses in between, more often than not. It's been made clear by many, especially in this thread, that what a President says is about as meaningful as it get's. It's almost like whoever is President, would want to speak in that type of manner, to give them time to think things through, before saying something that will be seen as extremely unacceptable.

Before you point out what Trump always says is 'unacceptable', if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius, or would he get the same negative treatment he always does?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

I can't speak Chinese, but that doesn't make me think that everything Chinese people say is incoherent nonsense. Who's to say it's not though?

That's not what incoherence is about.  

It's not about understanding what is being said, it's about things like logical meaning behind what is being said.  Whether the logic and the grammar flow.  

> if Trump went around saying he thinks it's highly unlikely this is base reality, do you think the media and people in general would say it's because he's a genius

Smart people can say dumb things and dumb people can say smart things every once in a while.  The difference is you can look at their history. 

>Do you not see the point I was making?

You're trying to make the point that coherence is based off who is reading.  Person A might not be able to understand person C, but person B can understand.  So person C seems incoherent to A, but they make perfect sense to B.  

The problem is, you're basically arguing "hey, maybe neither of us can understand it, but someone out there could".  

And when you take that stance you're basically arguing by nullifying what words mean.  Because you can't call anything incoherent, unless you can show no one can understand something, and it's not possible to show that every person is incapable of understanding a statement.  

It's a ludicrous argument.  

So if two people have an understanding just by body language, like in a fight, but nobody else who's watching in the area does, is that communication incoherent or not? Is that fight nonsense because those others don't understand why it happened?

How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? How much positive vs negative pushed coverage is there of Musk vs Trump?

No they thought they understood something but were incorrect. Yet they keep arguing with me, even though they, or we, don't understand each other.

You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.

Want to guess who wins the argument?