3 ms·

The risk with Trump isn't so much that he might blow his top (which of course he very well might). It's that (if Joe Scarborough's not entirely substantiated d

The risk with Trump isn't so much that he might blow his top (which of course he very well might). It's that (if Joe Scarborough's not entirely substantiated disclosure -- he hasn't named the "foreign policy expert" he claimed to have heard this from, which is unfortunate) he apparently doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of what nuclear weapons are for, and what their limitations are -- or even we actually still had them: He said on his Morning Joe programme: “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. “And three times he [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks-about-nuclear-weapon-use http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696241/Donald-Trump-asks...

ars 10y ago
Presumably you'd be happier if he didn't ask? And he just assumed that he knew? I assume you think you know what they are for. How do you know you're right if you don't ask? I don't know the name of it, but there is a fallacy among some people that equates asking for more information with a lack of knowledge. But actually it's the opposite: Ignorant people tend not to ask for information, while those who actually understand ask a lot, because unlike the others they know what they don't know. Foolish people confuse this for ignorance.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  I'd be happiest if he didn't exist, quite frankly. But either way -- it's fine for him, as a human being, if he still needs to look up in an encyclopedia, or "ask an expert" what nuclear weapons are really useful for -- or whether the U.S. still has access to them. But if he's that far out on the "happy-ignorant-foolish" spectrum -- then I'd greatly, greatly prefer that he not be placed in charge of the disposition of such instruments. Are you with me on this?
  - ars 10y ago
    No, I am not. I'm not happy with everything he's said and done. But unlike you I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. If you are incapable of understanding why people act in a certain way when it differs from yours then that's your failure, not theirs. PS. It's clear from your reply that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous message, in fact you seemed to understand almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Is that my fault for not being clear? Or are you uninterested in understanding Trump any other way?
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. I'm quick to dismiss them in that way based on what they say and do -- for example, running or the office of President of the United states, whilst not possessing even a middle-school level knowledge of whether the country you wish to govern actually has nuclear weapons or not; let alone what they are actually useful for -- not because they "disagree with [me]".

ars 10y ago

Presumably you'd be happier if he didn't ask? And he just assumed that he knew? I assume you think you know what they are for. How do you know you're right if you don't ask? I don't know the name of it, but there is a fallacy among some people that equates asking for more information with a lack of knowledge. But actually it's the opposite: Ignorant people tend not to ask for information, while those who actually understand ask a lot, because unlike the others they know what they don't know. Foolish people confuse this for ignorance.

kafkaesq 10y ago
I'd be happiest if he didn't exist, quite frankly. But either way -- it's fine for him, as a human being, if he still needs to look up in an encyclopedia, or "ask an expert" what nuclear weapons are really useful for -- or whether the U.S. still has access to them. But if he's that far out on the "happy-ignorant-foolish" spectrum -- then I'd greatly, greatly prefer that he not be placed in charge of the disposition of such instruments. Are you with me on this?
- ars 10y ago
  No, I am not. I'm not happy with everything he's said and done. But unlike you I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. If you are incapable of understanding why people act in a certain way when it differs from yours then that's your failure, not theirs. PS. It's clear from your reply that you did not understand what I wrote in my previous message, in fact you seemed to understand almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. Is that my fault for not being clear? Or are you uninterested in understanding Trump any other way?
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    I'm not so quick to dismiss people as "happy-ignorant-foolish" just because they don't agree with me. I'm quick to dismiss them in that way based on what they say and do -- for example, running or the office of President of the United states, whilst not possessing even a middle-school level knowledge of whether the country you wish to govern actually has nuclear weapons or not; let alone what they are actually useful for -- not because they "disagree with [me]".