Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,483 posts)
6. Yup.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 08:31 AM
Jun 2016

Numerous members of Mateen's mosque, including his father and ex-wife, reported him.

People can't speak clearly on either side. Trump mouths off routinely, so I have low expectations for him. But to reduce both sides to poor use of grammar in order to distort and mislead, that's just wrong.

However, in this case in particular it's particularly bad because unless you can show nobody knew Mateen was a possible risk and had gone over to the dark side of the force, then his ex-wife, father, mosque members, friends in "the community" failed to report him.

Muslim Americans report such things. Muslim Americans don't report such things.

Both are true statements and don't contradict each other. Both are false statements and do contradict each other. Because each is ambiguous and has at least two readings.

"Frequently Muslim Americans report such things. However, all too often Muslim Americans don't report such things." That's one way of reading the two statements, back to back. No contradiction.

"It's true that all Muslim Americans to report such things. It's true that no Muslim Americans reports such things." Nice contradiction there. And it's just as valid a reading, if we ignore context and likely speaker intent. In other words, if we show ill will and uncooperativeness in communication.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»U.S. officials say Americ...»Reply #6