Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
It wasn't necessarily a debate as much as pointing out that even a "rational" support for Trump isn't really all that rational, as his policies (whatever they might be--likely they would be formed more by Pence and the cabinet he's put together) are not likely going to be helpful for the people whose vote he's courting.
It's really hard to find any good reason to vote for Trump.
|
Just because something can be disputed (and invalidated) with counter-arguments doesn't mean it's not a rational argument... rational doesn't mean right. And actually I think it's fundamentally important that we understand the difference between the rational and irrational (emotional, ideological, etc.) arguments. Because if two people approach an argument saying "here's my rational reason for thinking this," then there's a hope that those people can have a meaningful discussion that results in someone's mind actually being changed. But a rush to invalidate tends to be counterproductive to that approach. Perhaps this is why so many people cling to emotional voting motives (and why Republicans in particular really embraced the message of how you feel over what you know...): rationality can be disputed, emotion cannot. That said, when we start to have discussions on rational levels, that's awesome... that's something that should be celebrated and used to create understanding, not something that should be used to try and crush the other side as swiftly as possible. Because when you do that, the other side is going to withdraw into an emotional bubble.
That said, I do agree in that any rational argument I can think of for Trump, I can think of better counter-arguments.