So Many Facutal Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Follow the link. We are talking about categorisation and being open to an explanation of those categories by the people making the statements.
 
dvdjs said:
No, this is Humpty-Dumpty linguistics and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yes i agree that you have a closed mind on this even before any (potential) explanation by the speaker…
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Comments directed at me personally are inappropriate to teh forum.
If you have a cornet remark, I am open to it.
Click to expand...
If before you hear any explanation you are saying utter nonsense and Humpty Dumpty linguistics then of course you have a closed mind on this. That is ok, we all have closed minds on certain subjects.

It is part of being human.

Are you now telling me you have an open mind on Trumps use of language in his speech regarding the categorisation of ‘ships’, or ‘soon’ or ‘pay increases’?

If you are open then great. If not then by definition your mind is closed and on this subject, mine is open.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
If before you hear any explanation you
Click to expand...
I have heard from you the type of explanation you have in mind. It is Humpty-Dumpty linguistics. If Trump and company were to come up with something reasonable I would be happy to consider it. But I am not open to nonsense.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I have heard from you the type of explanation you have in mind. It is Humpty-Dumpty linguistics.If Trup and company were to come up with something reasonable I woudl be happy to entertain it. But I am not open to nonsense.
Click to expand...
I said straight at the start I don’t know the facts on this.
I said that Trumps team will have to respond for there to be a proper discussion.
I spoke of categorisations and Trump’s administration needing to explain their categories (if they thought it worthwhile).

None of that is nonsense.

Stop trying to win a stupid argument and listen. I am not giving the explanation. That is in your head.

It is Trumps explanation that is needed and it cannot be nonsense until it is spoken.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
None of that is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it is nonsensical to talk about the meaning of “ship” as though that could be ill-defined even while putting an exact number on it. It is nonsensical to wonder about about the inflation adjustment of pay increase - given that increases precede any inflation, and that the data for past years are readily available and make the comparison worse. It may be a wonderful thing for fans to consider that there is some other explanation that Trump could give to make all of his false statements true, but it doen’t make sense to expect that such explanations exist.
 
Last edited:
Yes, your mind is closed.

Well of course ships can mean different things

Are all of the ships owned by the government?
What about private support ships?
Are we talking about battle ships only?
If so what type of battle ships?
Are we including refueling ships, technical support ships, food ships. troop transports, submarines, patrol boats, mine sweepers, intercept vessels, armour transports etc.
Are we talking about ships in a state of readiness for battle
Are we talking about ships that are fully staffed?

etc etc.

Different categorisations of the use of the word ‘ship’ change the numbers and it is for the Trump administration to either say they were given a wrong briefing on numbers or explain where their numbers are derived from. .

The same is true for pay increases and budgeting.

I am pretty sure that the Trump administration will find it not worth responding to a C-Span internet page but in order to discuss this properly we need the official categorisations of the Trump speech.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The number is determined by counting the specific objects in the plan.
The category is the set of these objects.
Click to expand...
That is your thinking.

But which ‘specific objects’ in the use of the ‘ships’ categorisation was Trump referring to?
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
I spoke of categorisations and Trump’s administration needing to explain their categories (if they thought it worthwhile).
Click to expand...
I guess you have a point. Maybe, for President Trump, the word “ships” includes rubber dinghys, and in fairness we ought to give him the chance to explain that.

Okay, enough sarcasm. Seriously, I think he goes off script and tends to embellish the words his speechwriters wrote for him with whatever pops into his head. This is not always, strictly speaking, lying, but it’s not good, either. The entire world listens intently to every word the president utters, and slices and dices his words for meaning. He should know this.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
I said straight at the start I don’t know the facts on this.
I said that Trumps team will have to respond for there to be a proper discussion.
Click to expand...
It is unlikely that you will get the facts from Trump or from the denizens of his WH. If past behavior is indicative of future behavior, what you are most likely get from them is some malformed equivocation believable only to those who desperately want to believe.
 
abucs said:
Thanks for the extra information, but we are still talking categories. For there to be a proper discussion then the Trump administration will have to respond to how they categorise such terms as ships and pay increases, if they think it worth their time.
Click to expand...
For the President to go before a Navy audience and discuss Navy topics and not use agreed upon Navy categorizations and metrics is stupid and ignorant.

You are arguing that he is stupid and ignorant. Yep, I agree. It led him to lie, too.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
You are arguing that he is stupid and ignorant. Yep, I agree. It led him to lie, too
Click to expand...
No, in fact I said above that I would expect such a speech to be vetted by senior military personel before it being delivered. In such a case there would be agreed upon terms.

Just not agreed to by those now bashing the president.
 
Last edited:
HCTC said:
It is unlikely that you will get the facts from Trump or from the denizens of his WH. If past behavior is indicative of future behavior, what you are most likely get from them is some malformed equivocation believable only to those who desperately want to believe.
Click to expand...
Disagree but that goes to the level of credibility one gives to the President and his administration. I see no reason not to trust Donald Trump especially given the non stop delusion the media have had with regards to him collaborating with (sinister music) ‘the Russians’ to steal the election.

Of course you will have a different level of trust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top