In other news

If there’s an argument then the argument should just be rendered. That was my point. It could be that I’m wrong but multiple people telling me so doesn’t even offer inductive reasons to believe I’m wrong.

What's the prior probability of multiple people misrepresenting you on the internet on a controversial topic? Or that they will confidently claim that you're wrong about something that you're right about?

I think the prior should be of you being right and I have no idea what it is.

Will you first even admit that you were straw manning? Nobody said you were wrong because people disagreed with you. But you made up and knocked down a weak argument that they were. That was far more of a "logical fallacy" than the ones you accused others of.

I think I provided ample argument to show why I didn’t strawman. And I never said anyone except for corpus made the fallacious argument. He’s the one that explicitly said I’m probably wrong because multiple people said I’m wrong. I provided you evidence of this which you didn’t respond to. You also didn’t even understand what my analogy was trying to show or explain why it was disanalogous to the situation, despite me providing you with a criteria for proving that I was making a bad analogy.

By the way, I don’t really appreciate the bad faith posturing of “will you even admit”, because I already made multiple replies that I think show why your objections don’t make any sense. So on my view there’s nothing to admit.

Nah. I originally said this
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

To which you replied with this
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

You're the one who misc0onstrued the word "misconstrued" with "wrong".
Stop lying, it's not a good look for you.

Even if that’s the case, do you think that I accused other people other than you of making a fallacious argument? That is what the bolded passage was saying right, that I only accused you of making a fallacious argument?

And I thought it was pretty clear from that post and from others that you didn’t actually think I was being misconstrued. You thought that the assessment of me both-sidesing colonialism was the correct assessment. Which you confirmed in a later post by saying that I was wrong and I should consider believing I’m wrong because multiple people were telling me that I’m wrong.

So no, I’m tracking what’s going on here properly, and me relaying that I only accused you of a logical fallacy is true. So you calling me a liar based on the bolded passage is demonstrably false, unless you can show somewhere else where I accused someone of making a bandwagon fallacy.

I see check raise in draw has met the bad faith leftist argument squad

can we just all agree that murano beads are pretty dope even today

https://www.originalmuranoglass.com

You’re even worse at spelling his user name than he is.

Luciom's view on ultra-rich capitalists is largely that they are Randian heroes: Brilliant masters of their own destiny, pillars of mankind and possessing qualities we should all aspire to. Taxing them or hindering their accumulation of wealth is therefore in his eyes only done out of ignorance, jealousy, socialism or any combination thereof.

for those who made their billions themselves yes.

but the main problem is much bigger, it is that you don't end up taxing them anyway for anything that remotely makes the difference to pay for the programs lefties have in mind, and we have the receipts proving that.

so if the message that passes is "redistribution is a moral necessity, and the state ought to do it to a large extent, violently (IE even against the opposition of those who are paying for most of it)", what happens is the upper middle class get butchered, not the billionaires.

and again we can prove it with facts, with real life.

we have billionaires in Europe.

Some countries even have more billionaires per million people than the USA (!!!!).

what's insanely harder to achieve is the 300k-500k-1m/year American lifestyle unless you inherit.

instead of it being within grasp of everyone with a top 20% talent (doesn't mean 20% will achieve it, but among those with top quintile talent e those who will put in insane efforts can guarantee that outcome unless very unlucky), it is in the grasp only of the top1% at best.

the most taxed (fiscal revenue as a % OF GDP) country is France these days, outside actual communist countries where different criteria apply.

Arnault , Pinot, Bettencourt have 100bln+ each iirc. many others have 1-10 billions.

what's soul crushing though is how you live if you are a good physician, a good engineer, a good CFO of a mid size company, and so on.

you live in 150 SQ meters if lucky if you want to live in a decent area of an expensive city and you have a hard time buying a 100k car.

you have a lot of vacation days but you can't actually go to Seychelles a month anyway because it's too expensive.

you can't buy a house for each of your children without that making a big dent in your net worth. you can't have permanent house help.

the median Nvidia american employee hired before 2020 can do all of the above.

the push against billionaires in the USA is a tool to expand the tax base toward violating the upper middle class more and more.

it doesn't stop with the billionaires and it can't stop there because even if you tax the billionaires more you don't pay for the social expenses the lefties want anyway. it's not enough.

Speaking for myself only, when what I've written has been misconstrued, it is almost always because of poor exposition on my part.

lol I missed this. I have no idea why anyone would ever think this was a smart thing to say. I don’t even care what the policy was, part of your job is to be able to explain policies in non-racist and crappy ways.

https://www.newsweek.com/zohran-mamdani-...

Luciom, how do billionaires existing improves your existence?
Please explain.

Racially profiled tax regulation is certainly an interesting policy proposal.

wtf???
What world do you live in lol?
You are so detached from reality this is comical.

Arnault had a nice headstart and bettencourt literally inherited the fortune.
Pinot is the only one self made (so it seems).

Man, u must have a high opinion of the feudal system …..
I’m sorry for you it ended .

the issue is most new yorkers are in a bubble and it's not uncommon for people to talk about the struggle of living off of less than 100k a year while sitting in a restaurant staffed by people who all commute in from new jersey because they can't afford to live there for an $22 an hour they make but it's worth the commute because they can only get $17 for the same work across the Hudson

mamdani is very open about taxing the rich, and since there's over 300k millionaires in nyc, very few, even the millionaires consider themselves rich because no matter how well you are doing, you are regularly bumping into people with and objects of desire that you either can't afford or are not practical to own due to the costs

as you can see from the map, the two places where cuomo had the most support where the places on either side of the park - which are some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city

so there's a lot of people living in areas like tribeca that assume he's talking about the billionaires at central park west and upper east side, he couldn't be talking about their measley 4 million dollar apartment etc etc

i think as we get closer to the general election, a lot more new yorkers are going to realize mamdani was actually talking about the rich on a nationwide scale, not a nyc scale and a lot of his initial support will erode

yes so what happens is you make it almost impossible for new people to make a fortune while billionaires keep existing with similar proportions.

ossifying society at the very top, quite a different outcome than the purported redistribution to the poors.

the redistribution can happen anyway but it isn't Arnault paying the fat welfare state, it's physicians, engineers, lawyers paying for the bottom quintile of society (rest of workers closer to the middle get a lot of welfare, pay a lot of taxes, are approx breakeven with that, then ofc locally within sectors and privileges you have pockets of people who won the redistribution game others that lost).

which part of that sounds "comical" to you? 150 SQ meters in nice parts of Milan is 2m (more in Paris) and only 1% of Italians have a take at home pay over 100k/year lol.

I literally know people making 70k/year in Paris (way over Parisian average) who are paying 2500/month mortgage for 50 sqmeter.

in 20 years with good career they will be on the top 1-2% of French society with 150-200k net take home pay and wont still be able to afford more than 120-150 SQ meters in good parts of Paris.

almost all innovation of products I use and my family uses comes from ideas/executions of people who are now billionaires (or the heirs of billionaires).

my existence is improved every day by them having existed , yours as well.

what if the explicit anti white racism brings him votes?