• barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Complete and total,” is what makes it idiotic, not simply endorsing two different people for one role.

    • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s nothing about “complete” or “total” that implies exclusivity. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, he was bound to stumble into a logically consistent position eventually.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I guess technically there is no implication, sure. Instead it is more like the literal definitions of “complete” or “total.”

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You are specifically choosing things that are not mutually exclusive in these contrived examples, come on.

            Of course this is stupid to argue about in the context of all the rapes and corruption he has done. You’re right that this line of discussion is dumb as heck. Get your last word in but I’m done. Thanks for snapping me out of it.

            • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Snapping out of it was all I wanted. This is nothing, even if I agree it is idiotic. There are much more important things to be talking about.

              That said, since you invited me to have the last word and because I enjoy having the last word: Contrived? Bruh. The salt and pepper was contrived, yes, as an underhand toss to get the idea of non-exclusion in without political charge. The other examples were specifically not contrived. Non-specific examples of the exact thing being examined. C’mon.