Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
What was Trump saying about the national anthem?
My conclusion was keep the protest out of the national anthem.
Is that not the same thing?
In your mind it may; I really can't say just now because I don't know you well enough. I can say that as you wrote your earlier remarks, they're not the same things.
You're earlier remarks were positive statements. The one quoted just above is a normative statement. I don't have anything to assert about your or anyone's bald normative remarks unless they supplement it with positive justifications. Barring their doing so, at best I'll have questions about one's normative remarks. In contrast, I may or may not care to say something about your or anyone else's positive assertions, or I may laugh at their inanity (or in some instances the speaker/author) as I did above. And what I have to say and/or whether I laugh at one's positive statements has nothing to do with whether I agree with them, but rather they make sense, whether they're well founded and germane.
Believe it or not, I'm very likely to agree with strong/cogent and/or sound arguments, regardless of how I feel about their conclusions. For inductive arguments, I may not like the conclusion, but if it's sound/cogent, I'll agree with it and in doing so say something like "much as I'd rather not, I have to agree." That happens all the time with all of us when my friends or colleagues and I discuss matters of all sorts.
Aside:
FWIW, though some of those folks make a living crafting and formally presenting arguments, most of us don't. For the rest of us, business cases and/or proposals represent the beginning and end of the arguments we present to anybody, other than ourselves when we are chatting about sociopolitical "stuff." Then again, we don't engage in debates about matters we don't understand well. For example, I don't "debate" my lawyer friends about the law. My lawyer friends don't "debate" me about business management or economics. Instead, we ask each other questions to further our understandings of things. We "debate" on matters whether our respective areas of expertise overlap.
Positive statements?
They were speech rebuttals.LHFM!
I'm asking because "positive statements" was hyperlinked and you've responded as though you don't understand what it means, in spite of the fact that what it means was explained on a website that targets tenth to twelfth graders. The first, second and fourth paragraphs there -- all of them can be read in about 15-30 seconds, total, and the first eleven words of the third paragraph make clear that it's, for this thread's context, skippable -- are all one needs to read to "get" what positive statements are.
- Do you notice that certain text in my posts have hyperlinks?
- When/if you do, do you click on them?
- If you click on them, do you so much as at least skim the content there so you understand what it means and why that content was hyperlinked?
Are you younger than a tenth grader? If you are, that would explain why you didn't understand what you found there, if you even clicked on the site and read the content on the linked page, and if you are younger than that, I would then understand and be far less frustrated with this conversation.
No I didn't click on it,because I was addressing something other than the rules of football.
