Did you know the Moon is part of Mars? According to Derpy Donny Dollhands it is!

[Road Warrior]

Trump has not been diagnosed with a mental illness so that is not a valid excuse.

....that you know of. Do you really think he or his family, I mean the WH staff, would admit it if he had been diagnosed with dementia or delusional disorder?

As it is, I have a choice: to believe he’s actually viciously malicious or that he’s completely clueless due to mental illness? I choose the latter as most likely given his behavior and age.

 

[Augustus]

If thats how English worked then editors would be out of a job because instead of clarity people can just have "good faith" and give an author the "benefit of a doubt."

Not at all.

Good faith relates to how one should act in situations where an ambiguity exists. It doesn't mean that clarity is not normatively desirable.

I find it remarkable that many people are arguing it is fine to purposely misunderstanding people if it scores your side some cheap points.

In discussions, would you prefer that people made their best effort to understand what you were trying to say, or that they went out of their way to twist your words to mean something contrary to your intentions?

 

[Augustus]

Yes.

Well studies have shown that people lose their ability to perform simple acts of reasoning on emotive political issues.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Well studies have shown that people lose their ability to perform simple acts of reasoning on emotive political issues.

That is a fair assessment of conservatives who continue to support Trump on every dumbass **** he tweets

 

[sun rise]

"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

In context it's talking about "bigger things we are doing" so going to the Moon is a part of going to Mars.

At least that's how I would interpret it as you need to give the speaker/writer the benefit of the doubt. Modern discourse relies far too much on people interpreting the words of those they don't like with bad faith, giving them the most negative spin possible and then using them as a weapon.

Everyone hates it when other people interpret their words with bad faith, or it is done to people they like. As such everyone, especially your 'enemies', should be given the benefit of the doubt if alternative interpretations are plausible.

The way this has been reported in certain media outlets doesn't reflect well on the state of modern journalism.

He said the moon was a goal not too long ago. Now he says it's not. He's babbling and very forgetful

 

[sun rise]

It was an extremely poorly written tweet. But it does not take much parsing to understand his intent. But you have a point. He has well paid speech writers. He should use them instead of constantly letting The Stupid out at night.

It reflects who he really is since he does not care what he sounds like.

 

[Augustus]

That is a fair assessment of conservatives who continue to support Trump on every dumbass **** he tweets

Then why ape their behaviour?

Lots of people on this thread seem to think that just because the other side do some dumb **** then they must do likewise.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Then why ape their behaviour?

Because I wish to emulate you, Augustus.

 

[Augustus]

Because I wish to emulate you, Augustus.

Unfortunately I'm not a Trump fan so your argument doesn't make much sense.

Modern politics in a nutshell though: noting the following apparently turns a non-Trump supporter into a fanatical partisan:

1. It is hardly cracking the enigma code to work out Trump didn't mean the Moon was part of Mars.
2. To communicate honestly, you should try your best to work out what people actually mean, rather than trying to deliberately misunderstand them to best fit your agenda.

I can guarantee if the second point was presented in a neutral context, (almost) nobody would be disagreeing with it. As soon as emotive politics comes into play though people lose the ability to think rationally.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I'm not a Trump fan so your argument doesn't make much sense.

You trying to make sense out of his asinine tweet is what doesn't make sense if you are not a Trump fan.

It is hardly cracking the enigma code to work out Trump didn't mean the Moon was part of Mars.

I know what my eyes read.

To communicate honestly, you should try your best to work out what people actually mean, rather than trying to deliberately misunderstand them to best fit your agenda.

You go first.

 

[Enoch07]

Learn how English grammar works and you'll see how this is not libel.

It is libel. Because it was intentional.

My knowledge of grammar is not perfect, but it's good enough. I corrected your error at least.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is libel. Because it was intentional.

Its not libel, because a 3rd grade English teacher can explain the grammar. We can diagram the Tweet and point out exactly why the tweet does say the moon is a part of Mars.

 

[Enoch07]

Its not libel, because a 3rd grade English teacher can explain the grammar. We can diagram the Tweet and point out exactly why the tweet does say the moon is a part of Mars.

What was the subject of the tweet?

A mission to Mars.

What did Trump say about the Moon?

(of which the Moon is apart of)

In other words the Moon is a part of the mission to Mars.

Simple as that.

It's only by looking at through a bias lensed do you see any different.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Technically Trump is right.

Just for information purposes . ...

These dusty young stars are changing the rules of planet-building

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What did Trump say about the Moon?

He said "not talking about going to the moon." And its also when he placed "of which the moon is a part of," which was placed in parentheses, does say the moon os a part of mars. You can't ignore the rest of it just because it doesn't fit your narrative. He said we've already been to the moon and instead need to go to mars. He didn't say going to the moon is a part of going to Mars.

 

[Enoch07]

He said "not talking about going to the moon." And its also when he placed "of which the moon is a part of," which was placed in parentheses, does say the moon os a part of mars. You can't ignore the rest of it just because it doesn't fit your narrative. He said we've already been to the moon and instead need to go to mars. He didn't say going to the moon is a part of going to Mars

Yes he did. It's clear as day.

The parenthesis refers to the idea preceding it.

What was that idea? A mission to Mars.

Not Mars all by itself. Had he been talking about Mars in general, and not a mission to Mars. You'd be right.

But you are intentionally ignoring the main subject which is the "mission to Mars". And focusing solely on the planet itself to suit your bias.

How do you use parentheses?

Rule #1: Use parentheses around nonessential information or abrupt changes in thought. When the words in parentheses form a complete sentence, place the period inside the closing parenthesis.

The reason he used parenthesis is because of the rule above.

He originally said, he didn't think NASA should focus solely on the moon.

He then added that NASA should focus on a mission to Mars (of which the Moon is a part of).

(Of which the Moon is a part of). Refers to the idea preceding it: A mission to Mars, and because it was an abrupt change of thought he threw it in parenthesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes he did. It's clear as day.

The parenthesis refers to the idea preceding it.

What was that idea? A mission to Mars.

Not Mars all by itself. Had he been talking about Mars in general, and not a mission to Mars. You'd be right.

But you are intentionally ignoring the main subject which is the "mission to Mars". And focusing solely on the planet itself to suit your bias.

How do you use parentheses?

Rule #1: Use parentheses around nonessential information or abrupt changes in thought. When the words in parentheses form a complete sentence, place the period inside the closing parenthesis.

The reason he used parenthesis is because of the rule above.

He originally said, he didn't think NASA should focus solely on the moon.

He then added that NASA should focus on a mission to Mars (of which the Moon is a part of).

(Of which the Moon is a part of). Refers to the idea preceding it: A mission to Mars, and because it was an abrupt change of thought he threw it in parenthesis.

That would work if proceedimg it wasnt " they shouldnt be talking about going to the moon - its been done before." We are assuming Trump means going to the moon is a part of going to Mars. It is, factually and of course, but he took a negative "no moon," amd added it to an affirmative "yes mars." At best, his statement is not clear, and vague enough that the moon is a part of mars.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

An example of why clarity is important and it's not the reader's job to assume.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The difference with us Democrats, I think, is that we feel we shouldn't have to fill in all the blanks for Trump. At some point, you just have to give up instead of glamorizing a person and their speech.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Here's the problem I face. Say I started "typene lyk dis" on RF in serious threads. I would much rather people gently help me through improving rather than coming to my aid and saying "he's an intelligent, sophisticated gentleman who knows his stuff". I won't grow otherwise. But let's say I'm someone who refuses all growth and thinks the other side should be "locked up" inciting "lock her up" chants - how would you even be able to help me? What is the solution? I'm just not sure.