fatslob-:O said:
We can't because you simply won't allow that ... You always keep changing goal posts even when I prove your statements to be false. You had to desperately bring up two lies in order to continue this pathetic argument so that you could get this false sense of victory ... Frankly, I'm disappointed that you only proved my initial evaluation (months ago) of why I can't convince you when you have this deep and entrenched sense of prejudice against Trump ... I KNOW it's going to be a waste of time trying to argue with you when you CAN'T have a constructive discussion regarding Trump since you're just going to keep making up these asspulls to suit your argument ... You've got double standards, cognitive dissonance, lies, and most of all I'M TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT! (I don't even care if i get banned for this.) |
Except that I'm able to have rational conversations with a great many people. Not always, but a decent amount of time. I just can't if the other person isn't willing to be rational and thoughtful. And since I'm not going to simply make personal attacks, I'll actually explain what I mean.
If I tell my friend "save a seat for me, I need to go get popcorn", am I saying that popcorn is literally essential for my life? No, I'm saying I want to get popcorn. If an announcer says "Green Bay needs this touchdown", are they literally saying that the touchdown is necessary for Green Bay's survival? No, they're saying that Green Bay needs the touchdown if they want to win the game. When someone comes home and says "I need a drink" are they literally saying they'll expire if they don't have a shot of whiskey? No, they're saying they really want a drink. When Neil Young says "I need somebody to love me the whole night through" is he expressing a necessity? No he's expressing a desire. When a boxing announcer says "Mayweather has to keep his gloves up" does that mean Mayweather has no choice but to do so? No, he means that Mayweather should do so if he doesn't want to get hit in the face.
Obviously the word need does not always mean that something is absolutely required. In fact, we very rarely use the word need in that sense. So when I say that the president needs to know what's going on in the world, what an intelligent person interested in rational conversation should be thinking is "what usage of the word needs makes most sense in this context"? Instead, you decided that one usage of need was the correct one, and ignored the obvious context for the sake of proving something wrong on a technicality. Like I said earlier it's incredibly childish. "No, you didn't say go to sleep, you said go to bed." "No, you said stop tocuhing you. I'm not touching you, I'm touching your shirt!" "No, you said don't hit my sister. I'm kicking her". If you want to be a part of grown up discussions, you have to actually make an effort to understand the other person is conveying instead of trying to play petty little word games.
Now, if you were actually interested in defending Donald Trump, that was an opportunity for you to bring up something about his knowledge on international politics. For example, "IIIIITHE1IIIII" actually brought up his comments on the Iraq war. While that was a flawed example, it at least clearly showed he was trying to engage thoughtfully on the matter, and clearly understood the point. And that's why we were able to have an actual exchange of ideas.
If that was too complex for you, I'll simplify. The phrase "the president needs to know what the fuck is going on in the world" can mean "the president is literally required to know what is going on to be legally allowed to hold office". It could also mean "the president needs to know about foreign affairs to effectively do their job". As a person who is, in theory, trying to participate in an intelligent conversation, it is your job to try your best to discern which meaning makes more sense. Considering the context of the conversation was whether or not people should vote for Trump, and not whether or not Trump is legally allowed to run, I assumed your reading skills would be strong enough to figure out that the latter meaning is the only one that makes sense in this context. Since you either were being willfully ignorant, or you simply never learned how to use context clues, I corrected you when you misunderstood the obvious meaning. That is not "changing the goalposts".
And what exactly were you trying to prove? Let's say for argument's sake, you did prove that I was wrong on that point? Congratufuckinglations. How does that get us any closer to figuring out whether Trump would be a good candidate that should be supported? What is the point of doing that, except for your desire to be right on a technicality (which you didn't even succeed in)? Is that even a conversation you think is worth having? Is your goal to discuss whether or not Trump is a good candidate, or to argue about what "need" means? Is your goal to show me that Trump is indeed a worthwhile candidate, or just to say "HA I GOT YOU!!!"
