More strange and/or foul reactions

@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.

Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.

It's not much of a point if the policy is intended to be pro-USA.

jon-nyc

That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.

Horace

@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.

You can be specific about the pro-Russia policies you're referring to. If their intent is to support the usa, with an incidental side effect of being advantageous to Russia as compared to an opposing policy, then a framing that the policy is pro-russia, would be rhetorically disingenuous.

jon-nyc

I conceded your point and changed ‘being pro-Russia’ with ‘supporting pro-Russia policies’. The former implies motive the latter just effect.

Again the point stands.

Horace

Your implications serve your technically standing point, but they are not a generally accepted interpretation of how that language works. If a policy drafted by a politician is said to be "pro-something or other", the intent will fairly be inferred. Your point stands, as long as we limit the audience to people who don't make the common assumptions that topple it. Fair enough.

Renauda

Okay.

Policies that serve or play into the interests of (insert name of country) that are detrimental to US ______ interests.

Now, move along.

Horace

This post is deleted!

The New Coffee Room

More strange and/or foul reactions