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 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.