this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
108 points (91.5% liked)

politics

19121 readers
3998 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
108
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by dogsnest@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.)

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not down voting either.

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.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

No, not really. That just means one or more of three things:

  1. Because Biden's actions didn't affect them at all. Like a tornado not destroying your house.

  2. Because someone else helped them (e.g. Republican organizations handing out money - which is.... fantasy)

  3. 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.