Another – Better – Conversation About Trump:

My friend replied to my Facebook post where I mocked the premise of an op-ed article in The New York Times. I argued from its absurd premise to an absurd conclusion.

My conclusion: Rural Folks Voted for Trump Because He is BAD!

I do believe that some voted for Trump because he is bad, but not because bad people “need to be represented,” and that Trump “represented” them.

The gist of the conversation related to my post:

“The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,” said [J.C. Watts].

 “We are born bad,” he said and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly — they are born knowing how to do that.”

If this is true it explains a lot, but since I believe that people are fundamentally good, I find it terribly demoralizing.

On on lighter note … I recall a Reagan cabinet appointee …[perhaps] James Watt…. [M]y recollection was that he was defended as being representative of the mediocre, “who needed to be represented.”

So if we apply the analogy and realize how profoundly bad people need to be represented, we then understand why they voted for Donald Trump, their ultimate representative!

___________

His reply:

I find the logic of this more then a little shaky.
 
We start out with saying non city dwellers are bad, and therefore voted for Trump making him bad because they voted for him.

Or 

non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice.

Or

Non city dwellers have no morality, and voted for Trump because they didn’t know any better, or because he was bad.

Or

Non city dwellers are good, but voting for Trump made them bad.

Any way you cut this pie, non city dwellers are going to be offended and put off….

being that I know the object of this exercise is to bring people together for a concerted action,

I have to say Nice tongue in cheek piece, well done ! 

TNO

__________

My response:

Hi JP,

I address your reply below, point by point.

The article’s premise was that the rural-urban divide, his expression, was explained by the principles cited in a quote. My post was based on the absurd implications of that quote:

[The author] “Hearing Mr. Watts was an epiphany for me. For the first time I had a glimpse of where many of my conservative friends and neighbors were coming from…We live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles.”

Most of the article then gets into other issues involving the rural-urban divide, but he at the very end concludes:

“Given the philosophical premises Mr. Watts presented as the difference between Democrats and Republicans, reconciliation seems a long way off.”

I do believe that there are some who voted for Trump because they identify themselves with his character, but not on account of the premises of Watt’s quote:

[Watts] “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good”

I think that premise is ridiculous. My analysis is based on his silly premise – also, the premise of the author, by adoption – put forward by Baptist minister and former Republican Congressman, 1995 to 2003, J.C. Watts, who I have known of for a long time.

From absurd premises come absurd conclusions.

And to understand, without any ambiguity, where I am coming from:

“I profoundly believe that Donald Trump is a bad person, a breathtakingly bad person, and I DO conclude that voting for him while aware of his bad character, reflects very badly on those who voted for him.”

Your reply and my responses:

[JP] I find the logic of this more than a little shaky.

We start out with saying non city dwellers are bad – [Me] JC Watts says that they see themselves as being fundamentally bad, not me.

[JP] and therefore voted for Trump making him bad because they voted for him. – [Me] I nowhere say or imply that voting for Trump made him bad. He needs no help from anyone for that.

[JP] Or 

non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice. – [Me] I say that if they (profoundly) need their own character represented in the President, that he was for that purpose, their perfect choice.

The conclusion of my post was:

“So if we apply the analogy and realize how profoundly bad people need to be represented, we then understand why they voted for Donald Trump, their ultimate representative!”

I looked this over and at first thought I should have said “might understand” why they voted for Trump, but then I saw that I said “profound” need. (Note that earlier in my reply, I added profound in parentheses after having realized and written this later.)

So given a “profound need” and, for the purpose of argument, accepting JC Watt’s claim, I would agree with your accusation.

I AM saying that, [JP] “non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice.” – [Me] But I am not saying they voted for him because he was a bad choice, but because he is bad.

[JP] Or

Non city dwellers have no morality, and voted for Trump because they didn’t know any better – [Me] I said nothing about that –  [JP] or because he was bad. – [Me] Yes.

[JP] Or

Non city dwellers are good, but voting for Trump made them bad. – [Me] JC Watts would say, I speculate, that they are bad from birth. I infer “from birth,” from “fundamentally bad.” I said nothing about how they became good are bad.

[JP] Any way you cut this pie, non city dwellers are going to be offended and put off…. –  [Me] Yes.

[JP] being that I know the object of this exercise is to bring people together for a concerted action – [Me] The purpose was to express my response to an absurd remark made by J.C. Watts. (Consider: I believe, hardly anybody reads my stuff.)

[JP] I have to say Nice tongue in cheek piece, well done ! [Me] Thanks JP!

TNO

I hope this helps for us to understand one another better. I have tried my best to address your reply, point by point, as clearly and as honestly as I could.

__________

Before posting my reply to his comment I texted him:

Hi JP,

I have am going to post a detailed, point by point, response to your reply to my post. I greatly appreciated your approach which I feel set a tone that establishes the basis for a quiet friendly give and take on this explosive subject, or whatever the subject.

I tried my best to be completely non-inflammatory, as I felt you were, and apologize in advance for any shortcomings in that regard, or any regard.

Love!!!
Joe

__________

He responded:

Thanks,

We are two different people, experiencing the world in different ways but held together by our common love and respect for each other !!!!

TNO

To which I replied: Yes!

__________

See also the previous conversation:

I did not read all that he had written, after his first four words in response to my piece were, “Hit pieces, like this.”

Advertisements

About Ghoh

My name is Joe, but username Joe was already taken. I am interested in politics, religion and ideas that are off the beaten path, whatever the subject.
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Ethics, psychology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s