Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[Silvanus]

Yes, it is comparable. Do the same sort of analysis of the first one, you'll find the same sorts of things. "After" can imply causation.

"After" implies connection. And the rising pricetag of oil is certainly affected by the frequent escalationary, hyper-aggressive statements of the President.

They made it read "he wants to take" when his comment said "we", so the accurate third person description would be that he "wants the US" to do something.

You have to be kidding with this one, it's so asinine.

"He wants to take", when referring to something the President says, very obviously already means "wants the US to take". What's the alternative?! You think the headline is implying Trump will personally go over and pick up the barrels!? Put a femtosecond's thought into it, please.

You can find all the same rhetorical issues AND the blatant obfuscation of context [...]

And yet when you tried, you actually couldn't. You've managed to manufacture a couple of non-issues, neither of which constitute deception, and both of which are just characteristics of normal English speech.

 

[Satinavian]

"He wants to take", when referring to something the President says, very obviously already means "wants the US to take". What's the alternative?! You think the headline is implying Trump will personally go over and pick up the barrels!? Put a femtosecond's thought into it, please.

Well he put the money from the stolen Venezuelan oil into some offshore account to get it out of reach of the US institutions outside of a small number of people in his administration.

 

[tstorm823]

And yet when you tried, you actually couldn't.

I did, you're just highly dedicated to being wrong. Human intelligence is at least as good at rationalizing falsehoods as finding truths, and you're putting that on full display.

Step back and imagine me putting in this sort of effort into defending a headline by like The Daily Wire. I like a lot of their content, but I'm not delusional to think they don't sensationalize in headlines. If you took issue with one, I'd probably agree that I see your point. You are so dedicated to never giving an inch, you have to know that you're inevitably defending falsehoods by being so stubborn.

 

[Silvanus]

Step back and imagine me putting in this sort of effort into defending a headline by like The Daily Wire.

You're putting more effort into defending a tweet from someone who has been making all manner of utterly unhinged, delusional rants over the past couple of weeks. Because it is politically uncomfortable for you to face up to just how insane and shoddy his communication has been.

Both of your complaints above were facile. "He" instead of "we" means they're implying he doesn't mean the US? That's facile. And the fact you chose to retreat back into abstraction and insult, rather than defend the substance of what you said, betrays that you know it is.

 

[tstorm823]

Both of your complaints above were facile. "He" instead of "we" means they're implying he doesn't mean the US? That's facile. And the fact you chose to retreat back into abstraction and insult, rather than defend the substance of what you said, betrays that you know it is.

Agema is insisting that acknowledging click bait is a blunder in reasoning.
You are arguing that words you happen to like have no ambiguity.

What substance do I have to defend? You've both gone completely off the deep end.

 

[Silvanus]

Agema is insisting that acknowledging click bait is a blunder in reasoning.

He's not, though. He's saying you can't tell the difference; you're classifying it as clickbait because you don't like what happened.

You are arguing that words you happen to like have no ambiguity.

Nope. Plenty of words have ambiguity! This doesn't mean that reporting the exact words someone uses is somehow "deceptive". Because that would be batshit.

What substance do I have to defend? You've both gone completely off the deep end.

You are currently arguing that when someone says, "take the oil", it is misleading to say he said "take the oil". You're so far off the deep end you're into 'there are five lights' territory: it's unacceptable to you to describe what he literally said.

 

[tstorm823]

it's unacceptable to... describe...

Silvanus Dodges Debate, Claiming "It's unacceptable to describe" issues

 

[Silvanus]

Silvanus Dodges Debate, Claiming "It's unacceptable to describe" issues

This would be very pithy, if the headline had actually edited out a section of the quote that materially changed the meaning. But they didn't: the wider context doesn't validate your interpretation.

I'm eager to hear how you square your interpretation with his later statement that they could "make a big profit" from taking the oil. How exactly does one "make a big profit" if they're just tactically occupying the oil?

 

[Gergar12]

I don't agree with all of these. IF your productive as a doctor you shouldn't be fired and deported. However Biden bringing them to the US was a mistake. Xi daughter also shouldn't be included as she likely married a Taiwanese guy according to this YouTube channel itself, whether that true I don't know but I think she's just a regular person, and she generally keeps a low profile.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't agree with all of these. IF your productive as a doctor you shouldn't be fired and deported. However Biden bringing them to the US was a mistake. Xi daughter also shouldn't be included as she likely married a Taiwanese guy according to this YouTube channel itself, whether that true I don't know but I think she's just a regular person, and she generally keeps a low profile.

it is bizarre to agree with any of these deportations, or to think they are in service of anything important.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm eager to hear how you square your interpretation with his later statement that they could "make a big profit" from taking the oil. How exactly does one "make a big profit" if they're just tactically occupying the oil?

You are referencing a Tweet that read:

"With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE. IT WOULD BE A ‘GUSHER’ FOR THE WORLD??? President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Not only is the oil referenced that which was blocked from navigating the straight, which is different than the oil in Iran, he also calls it a gusher for the world, suggesting that oil is going to other places. Most likely the meaning of this tweet is his suggestion that the US manage and charge for safe passage through, which is where the alleged fortune would come from. A stupid tweet, no doubt, but not one that says what your partial quote suggested.

 

[Satinavian]

So Vance has given up on the negotiations after only one day.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I don't agree with all of these. IF your productive as a doctor you shouldn't be fired and deported. However Biden bringing them to the US was a mistake. Xi daughter also shouldn't be included as she likely married a Taiwanese guy according to this YouTube channel itself, whether that true I don't know but I think she's just a regular person, and she generally keeps a low profile.

I really, really don't agree with giving Falun Gong affiliated media a platform here. They're a religious cult, not a journalistic enterprise. I don't think they deserve any more good will than the Moonies.

 

[Satinavian]

. They're a religious cult, not a journalistic enterprise.

They are incredibly partisan but i really don't think they have worse journalism than various others that get regularly linked here. It is one of those sites you would doublecheck on everything but where you primarily have to deal with spin, selectivity, omissions and exxagerations and not mostly fabrication.
So slightly above regular yellow press quality.

 

[Silvanus]

You are referencing a Tweet that read:

"With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE. IT WOULD BE A ‘GUSHER’ FOR THE WORLD??? President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Not only is the oil referenced that which was blocked from navigating the straight, which is different than the oil in Iran, he also calls it a gusher for the world, suggesting that oil is going to other places. Most likely the meaning of this tweet is his suggestion that the US manage and charge for safe passage through, which is where the alleged fortune would come from. A stupid tweet, no doubt, but not one that says what your partial quote suggested.

So here, your interpretation of the word "take" is... allow other countries to sell freely. So not "take" at all, then. And you think the "fortune" he's referring to is some sort of protection racket, but that's OK?

Are you unaware that you're mentally rewriting whatever he says to be as beneficial as possible, regardless of the actual words he uses?

 

[tstorm823]

Are you unaware that you're mentally rewriting whatever he says to be as beneficial as possible, regardless of the actual words he uses?

It is, at minimum, a greater jump to say that oil referenced is Iranian oil in the context of opening the straight. If you see no rewriting in your own interpretation, you are blind.

Words are not math, they are not often unambiguous outside of carefully crafted legalese. I am aware that I am interpreting what he wrote, doing so to try and best understand the meaning. You are also interpreting l, but instead to reach the conclusion you want.

 

[Seanchaidh]

How is this conversation still happening?

Words are not math, they are not often unambiguous outside of carefully crafted legalese. I am aware that I am interpreting what he wrote, doing so to try and best understand the meaning. You are also interpreting l, but instead to reach the conclusion you want.

The guy has a history of saying "we're gonna take the oil" in various contexts and actually meaning take.

 

[Satinavian]

An interesting video about the negotiation.


I must however say that i don't know anything about this channel, so can't vouch for accuracy.

 

[Silvanus]

It is, at minimum, a greater jump to say that oil referenced is Iranian oil in the context of opening the straight. If you see no rewriting in your own interpretation, you are blind.

Lol sure. Its a much greater jump to interpret "take" as meaning "take", rather than interpreting "take" to mean "allow to move freely with our protection and charge a fee". Ok.

 

[Agema]

You really can't handle not getting the last word...

The thing that's hilarious about your claims to genius is that you make statements like that without seeing the irony and hypocrisy. Like...

I did, you're just highly dedicated to being wrong. Human intelligence is at least as good at rationalizing falsehoods as finding truths, and you're putting that on full display.

Wow you're on a roll!

...even when you've given up any material argument.

The last material argument is me pointing out your circular reasoning. You have offered no meaningful response except a petty and feeble denial (#4,280).