Two days after the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, a motive for the 20-year-old shooter’s actions has not been identified, the FBI said — but authorities are learning more about the suspected gunman, as well as the days and moments leading up to the shots being fired.
So what argument are you making when they are acting with insufficient information and there isn’t yet sufficient information to come to any actual conclusion? If it’s anything other than “we don’t know yet / I don’t know, and neither do you” that’s not grounded in reality. “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid statement, but it happens a lot that people favor something definitive if flawed. That’s a problem when “I don’t know” is ultimately accurate, not abandoning nuance, and using language that anybody can understand. But that is essentially what the comment you replied to was saying when you said nuance isn’t relevant.
I’m not saying anyone is too stupid to understand. I’m not using willful ignorance to imply an inability to understand, but rather that they simply don’t know, and don’t care to know.
You say, “I don’t know, but-” and then you talk about how, for example, there were a lot of guns in the shooter’s home and talk about American gun culture. You use it as a starting point.
Cool, so we’re adding additional information in order to come to a more nuanced understanding. I like where this is going.
Slightly more nuanced. Not so nuanced as what is given above and not so nuanced that “ignorant people” can’t understand it.
This back and forth is getting dangerously close to being overwrought. If we disagree by such minimal degrees I don’t really care to pursue this further. I think we’ve both made our point.
Peace to you. I’ll see you around.