As a collective, as in, you group both sides into one group of “democratic and republican politicians”, that group is made up of the worst scum human history has ever seen.
Now if you put the individual people in a scale, or break them into certain groups, some will be less bad/evil than others. But that doesn’t change the original statement.
Take the 400 wealthiest people in the world. They make 2 gangs, first one is made up of the top 200 richest and the second is made up of the 201-400 richest people.
The first group is the richest of the two. But the 2 groups, as a whole, are made up of the richest people in the world.
It doesn’t, because the ideas contradict each other. The top 200 is the richest. Of course other bigger groups contain it. The earth population is the best, and the worst at any metric.
So then let me ask you this. Why did you agree the top 200 are the richest? Why is 200 such a magic number? By your logic it would actually just be the top 100. No wait top 50. Oh wait no, literally only the richest person is the richest, because you can’t have a bigger group, or else you have to include the entire earth for some reason. Because a bigger group of the category “richest people” contains that single richest person.
So the Republican party isn’t the worst, because there’s a single member of it that is the actual worst. So whoever we vote for is the lesser evil, as long as we don’t vote for literally just the single guy that is the worst. Makes sense right?
Because the original argument didn’t have a number, was R vs D. If R are the most evil, I don’t care if D is the second most evil, it’s a clear choice.
They said both sides are made up of the worst. Not both sides are the worst.
The key difference between your interpretation and how it’s written is the mutual exclusivity. By stating ‘they are the worst’, then yes only one would be the worst. But to say “both are comprised of” doesn’t bring about the same exclusivity as the former.
Imagine there are two benches, if I say to you, both are made up of wood; you wouldn’t then turn around say only one bench could possibly be wood. The same is still true if I say ‘the two benches are made up of the worst wood’. Bench A is 95% worst wood, whereas bench B is 50% worst wood, Both are made up of the worst wood; but one is lesser worst wood, and the statement ‘both benches are made up of the worst wood’ is still true.
If it’s not your first language it’s confusing, try interpreting “the worst” as “evil”.
Makes perfect sense
Doesn’t make sense.
Hope that helps!
Both sides can be evil, both sides can’t be “the most” evil if one is the lesser evil.
As a collective, as in, you group both sides into one group of “democratic and republican politicians”, that group is made up of the worst scum human history has ever seen.
Now if you put the individual people in a scale, or break them into certain groups, some will be less bad/evil than others. But that doesn’t change the original statement.
It does. Either they are the most, or they aren’t.
Correct. The group, as a whole, are the most.
Maybe you need a different example to understand.
Take the 400 wealthiest people in the world. They make 2 gangs, first one is made up of the top 200 richest and the second is made up of the 201-400 richest people.
The first group is the richest of the two. But the 2 groups, as a whole, are made up of the richest people in the world.
Make sense?
It doesn’t, because the ideas contradict each other. The top 200 is the richest. Of course other bigger groups contain it. The earth population is the best, and the worst at any metric.
So then let me ask you this. Why did you agree the top 200 are the richest? Why is 200 such a magic number? By your logic it would actually just be the top 100. No wait top 50. Oh wait no, literally only the richest person is the richest, because you can’t have a bigger group, or else you have to include the entire earth for some reason. Because a bigger group of the category “richest people” contains that single richest person.
So the Republican party isn’t the worst, because there’s a single member of it that is the actual worst. So whoever we vote for is the lesser evil, as long as we don’t vote for literally just the single guy that is the worst. Makes sense right?
Because the original argument didn’t have a number, was R vs D. If R are the most evil, I don’t care if D is the second most evil, it’s a clear choice.
They said both sides are made up of the worst. Not both sides are the worst.
The key difference between your interpretation and how it’s written is the mutual exclusivity. By stating ‘they are the worst’, then yes only one would be the worst. But to say “both are comprised of” doesn’t bring about the same exclusivity as the former.
Imagine there are two benches, if I say to you, both are made up of wood; you wouldn’t then turn around say only one bench could possibly be wood. The same is still true if I say ‘the two benches are made up of the worst wood’. Bench A is 95% worst wood, whereas bench B is 50% worst wood, Both are made up of the worst wood; but one is lesser worst wood, and the statement ‘both benches are made up of the worst wood’ is still true.
Ah, you’re just being a pedant. My bad.