I see what you’re saying now, but that’s a different argument.
You’re saying now that if two things happen, and good and one bad, Trump assigns blame or praise depending on which one it is. I understand that one.
But you originally said that one thing, not two, whose only intention is to cause harm, does both good and bad. And that makes no sense.
If the difference is intention, then that’s like saying “You can’t go to the supermarket because a bunch of lions are intentionally blocking the front door. It follows that if you can go to the supermarket, it’s because the lions are intentionally blocking the front door.”
Again you are using an example where there isn’t human intelligence behind the action. Lions blocked the door so you can’t get in. But if someone else got all the groceries they wanted and extra to give away from the same grocery store without problems what does that say? Doesn’t it imply the lions let that person in? They have extra. The lions must have helped them.
I just want to say that this is a fun conversation somehow, and I appreciate you continuing responding.
Having said that, c’mon, man, you’re moving the goalpost again. First you said intention was missing. I added intention, and now you say that human intelligence is missing. What will be missing next? Quantum entanglement?
My point about intention was that a lion can be an unreasonable force of nature like a hurricane. So swapping a lion for a hurricane didn’t change your argument.
If you actually give the lion intention then you have lions that are blocking some people and helping others. I get your point that a policy can have only negative effects. But Trump’s scenario has some with negative effects (no money to donate) while others have a surplus of money to give away.
My point about intention was that a lion can be an unreasonable force of nature like a hurricane. So swapping a lion for a hurricane didn’t change your argument.
(I didn’t downvote you, by the way.)
A lion can have intentions. It can have the clear intention to eat you. Again, you didn’t say reasonable intention. You just said intention. But anyway, I know that’s not the point of the argument.
You are still insisting on a scenario in which there are two different actions (lions blocking some people and helping others), whereas the way I understood it is that just one action was the cause of two opposite consequences. I guess that can happen (a fire killing some animals but making others flee and flourish elsewhere), but Trump was only referring to one consequence (Nobody has money because Biden bad.)
Trump was only referring to one consequence (Nobody has money because Biden bad.)
But Trump didn’t say that nobody has money. He said some don’t have money because of Biden and therefore can’t donate. If we assume the default is some money but not extra to donate, that means those who can donate have extra money because of Biden.
No, not really. That just means one or more of three things:
Because Biden’s actions didn’t affect them at all. Like a tornado not destroying your house.
Because someone else helped them (e.g. Republican organizations handing out money - which is… fantasy)
Because in spite of Biden’s actions affecting everybody, those people still had some money left to donate. Like how during a recession many people lost their jobs, and some of those people lost their houses, but some others could still make their mortgage payments.
In the end, I understand what you’re saying, and even though we differ on how stupid Trump’s message is, we agree that it was a stupid (and false) thing to say.
I see what you’re saying now, but that’s a different argument.
You’re saying now that if two things happen, and good and one bad, Trump assigns blame or praise depending on which one it is. I understand that one.
But you originally said that one thing, not two, whose only intention is to cause harm, does both good and bad. And that makes no sense.
If the difference is intention, then that’s like saying “You can’t go to the supermarket because a bunch of lions are intentionally blocking the front door. It follows that if you can go to the supermarket, it’s because the lions are intentionally blocking the front door.”
Again you are using an example where there isn’t human intelligence behind the action. Lions blocked the door so you can’t get in. But if someone else got all the groceries they wanted and extra to give away from the same grocery store without problems what does that say? Doesn’t it imply the lions let that person in? They have extra. The lions must have helped them.
I just want to say that this is a fun conversation somehow, and I appreciate you continuing responding.
Having said that, c’mon, man, you’re moving the goalpost again. First you said intention was missing. I added intention, and now you say that human intelligence is missing. What will be missing next? Quantum entanglement?
I made it work with the lions.
My point about intention was that a lion can be an unreasonable force of nature like a hurricane. So swapping a lion for a hurricane didn’t change your argument.
If you actually give the lion intention then you have lions that are blocking some people and helping others. I get your point that a policy can have only negative effects. But Trump’s scenario has some with negative effects (no money to donate) while others have a surplus of money to give away.
(I didn’t downvote you, by the way.)
A lion can have intentions. It can have the clear intention to eat you. Again, you didn’t say reasonable intention. You just said intention. But anyway, I know that’s not the point of the argument.
You are still insisting on a scenario in which there are two different actions (lions blocking some people and helping others), whereas the way I understood it is that just one action was the cause of two opposite consequences. I guess that can happen (a fire killing some animals but making others flee and flourish elsewhere), but Trump was only referring to one consequence (Nobody has money because Biden bad.)
Yeah I’m not down voting either.
But Trump didn’t say that nobody has money. He said some don’t have money because of Biden and therefore can’t donate. If we assume the default is some money but not extra to donate, that means those who can donate have extra money because of Biden.
No, not really. That just means one or more of three things:
Because Biden’s actions didn’t affect them at all. Like a tornado not destroying your house.
Because someone else helped them (e.g. Republican organizations handing out money - which is… fantasy)
Because in spite of Biden’s actions affecting everybody, those people still had some money left to donate. Like how during a recession many people lost their jobs, and some of those people lost their houses, but some others could still make their mortgage payments.
In the end, I understand what you’re saying, and even though we differ on how stupid Trump’s message is, we agree that it was a stupid (and false) thing to say.