• @pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      Yup. I’m capable of figuring out what ambiguous sentences mean when only one interpretation makes sense.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        That’s an interesting euphemism for saying that you use sophistry to interpret clear statements in creative ways.

        • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          Okay, the verbatim remarks:

          I talked to my, um, number two adversary in the region, Russia, I mean I’ve got of course a lot of the countries Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua with Russia relationships but what I really look… and six other countries by the way so a total of nine that have Russian equipment in them and we’re working to replace that Russian equipment with United States equipment if those countries want to donate it to Ukraine or the cause that’s happening and be able to replace that with U.S. equipment.

          Obviously, this quote is a mess since it wasn’t from prepared remarks. People don’t form nice, neat sentences off the top of their heads.

          So what she is saying is:

          • Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are aligned with Russia
          • There are a total of nine countries with Russian equipment
          • There are six other countries with Russian equipment
          • The US is offering to replace that equipment with US equipment if the replaced equipment gets donated to Ukraine

          When used as a pronoun with a large scope like a 36 second clip, “that” can quickly become ambiguous. It is then left as an exercise to the reader/listener what “that” refers to using context clues. Sometimes that leads to genuine ambiguity or confusion. Other times that leaves an opening for a bad faith interpretation.

          Here there are two options for “that”. Either she is talking about “six other countries [with Russian equipment]” or “a total of nine that have Russian equipment” (including hostile countries). So tell me, which of those two options makes more sense? The quote itself leaves it ambiguous, but surely someone as skilled in geopolitics as yourself would be able to pick the correct answer.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Once again, she identifies 9 countries, including 3 countries that US has a highly antagonistic relationship with as potential suppliers of weapons. There would be no reason to even mention Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba if she did not believe there was a chance to get weapons from them. One has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.

                • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -31 year ago

                  Yup. I had to look it up, but no shame in a little research. Laura Richardson, commander of SOUTHCOM. She lives and breathes Latin American countries. Why would she not talk about both Russia aligned countries and other countries? Who’s to say this wasn’t an aside in broader conversation?

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 year ago

                    Why would she mention countries that US has been fucking over for many decades trying to overthrow their government and whose people US sanctions starve in the context of supplying their weapons to Ukraine?

                    You are making a baseless claim that is not supported by the context of what she said or anything she actually said. You’re trying to create some sort of ambiguity where none exists.

                    You are absolutely incapable of admitting being wrong. Every single discussion I’ve had with you goes the same. You float opinions on the topic you have no clue regarding, then when you’re presented with evidence contradicting your claims you just keep doubling down.

                    There is no shame in not knowing who Laura Richardson is, there is shame in writing comments on the subject you’re not familiar with and then wasting other people’s time arguing about the subject they know vastly more than you about.