I can’t help but watch the news and be bombarded with details of this petty argument between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. Out of curiosity I decided to do a search for the video clips of their argument, and then determine who is at fault. I have come to the conclusion that both of them are acting juvenile, and should be publicly chastised as terrible examples on how one should argue. The major problem in this specific case involving prominent members of society is indicative of a larger problem, and that larger problem is people trying to win an argument through a force of their personality rather than the substance of their argument. The truly sad part is that this confrontation goes far beyond the bullying tactics of a Bill O’Reilly to the level that one would expect at a middle school playground.
It has been stated that Rosie O’Donnell is a comedian therefore she is permitted to argue in this fashion, whereas Donald Trump is a CEO of a major corporation and should behave in a much more dignified manner. This view is entirely plausible if Rosie O’Donnell was to say what she did at a comedy nightclub entertaining customers, but the View is supposed to be serious, and therefore she should act in the manner of a proper host and try to foster good discussion. I will outline the basics of their conversation, and then respond with what and how they should have stated their points.
It started on the View with Rosie O’Donnell commenting on the situation of Tara Conner and her “lewd” behavior, and whether she should retain her crown as Miss USA. She started by putting this in a proper perspective, albeit her tone was rather condescending, by stating that this girl is acting like a normal 20 year girl, and "partying like Paris or Lindsay". She then started to belittle the Miss USA pageant by stating in a dismissive manner “her crown”. She then made fun of her acts of contrition by stating what Tara Conner said by making weeping sounds. Then we get to the main part of her diatribe, which included her making fun of Donald Trump by flipping her hair to one side of her head, and then repeating his statements about people deserving a second chance by speaking in a tone that a dullard would use. The only substantive comment in the whole argument was whether Donald Trump is capable of being a moral authority. She states that he is not able to be a moral compass because of his prior acts of marital infidelity which she believed were more vicious because he had kids with both of these women. Then she ends with a verbal attack.
Now Donald Trump responds. Rather than dealing with the issue of the morality of giving Tara a second chance, he calls Rosie names like “disgusting”, “a slob”. He then takes a perverse pleasure in her bad fate by gloating over her failed ventures. He insults her again by calling her fat and unattractive, and ends by stating that he will have his friend steal her girlfriend.
This whole situation has been a circus. The fact that adults have behaved in this manner is atrocious. The way this should have been handled was by Rosie describing her behavior in a manner that is not condescending. She should then have stated respectfully that she does not believe he is qualified to be a moral authority due to his vices. That still doesn’t address the morality of his decision; it is true that immoral people can make moral choices. If she believed that he made a bad decision she should have given reasons why. Donald Trump should have responded by stating I am not going to respond to these ad hominems, but I will defend my judgment in allowing her to retain her crown. His reasoning seems to be utilitarian in that if she keeps her crown she will be a role model to other young girls in similar circumstances, and these other girls will have a person they can identify with, and thus have a motivating factor to overcome their adversity. This is what he should have said, not spouting childish insults.
Again, I wish to state that this specific situation is indicative of a larger issue, and that is people winning arguments through strength of personality rather than the substance of their arguments. Take a look at "the number one rated television show on cable news", and look at the host of it. This is a man who sees reality in a degree so black and white that it reminds me of 1980’s professional wrestling. He also leads the discussion to areas and phrases things in such a manner that anyone disagreeing with him will seem wicked. Case in point, he one time asked David Letterman if he wished that America would lose the war in Iraq, and David Letterman was hesitant with an answer. He stated that it is an easy question, just answer with a “yes or no”. David Letterman responded that he is not a simple person, and that things are inherently complex. Bear in mind, that I am stating this all from memory, so I could be unintentionally altering the details a bit. A valid response could have been that I have different motivating factors which I both believe to be based upon good reasons, but which conflict as far as the final decision is concerned. From the perspective of world civilization, I wish that Iraq will become a stable democracy which will then cause a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. Though from the perspective of Bush's hubris, a loss will only serve as good punishment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment