the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:
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?
|
>You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.
It's pretty clear you still have no clue what you're talking about. Coherence has nothing to do with simply not understanding what is being said.
I can read what Trump is saying in his answer above. That doesn't mean it follows any kind of logic structure. It doesn't mean he doesn't go off on tangents.
>How much Musk history is available vs Trump history?
You only need a few minutes of each to understand their intelligence or lack thereof. Musk has plenty of negative coverage. Trump has plenty of positive coverage if you go back far enough.
Like usual, you're trying to argue through examples that you think are relevant, but they just show that you don't understand what issues are being brought up.
Trump isn't speaking Chinese. He's speaking English. The problem is he's jumping from thought to thought mid-sentence. Here's his most famous example.
Doesn't finish his thought about having Nuclear, even though that could be made into a couple of paragraphs worth of sentences.
He interjected that thought about how he has good genes because of his Uncle. And he interjects that thought with partisanship. Interjecting that thought with some very incomplete thoughts about his uncle. Interjecting again about how he has to give his credentials.
Almost looks like he's returning to his thoughts about the nuclear, only to interject about the prisoners.
This single sentence has like 40 different sentence fragments.
|
in·co·her·ent - 1. (of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
---
If Trumps history is positive, then how would looking at his history prove he's an idiot who says smart things sometimes? The media paints those things in a good light do they? Doesn't sound like the media and their coverage to me.
You suggested history was evidence, and then implied Trumps history is plenty positive, so why then suggest he's always been an idiot who says smart things at times?
---
Not sure what's so confusing about it. Based on your explanation of what he says, you understand what he's saying, you just don't like the way he's saying it, and you're unhappy you didn't get a full answer. Just because someone gives you an answer that isn't complete doesn't make it incoherent, it makes it incomplete.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 19 January 2020
