In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
But you have been given arguments on why you're wrong. You just choose to respond with a straw man claiming that the argument is you must be wrong because people disagree with you when in actuality you are wrong because you're wrong and people disagreeing with you is a clue that you should think about this more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 t
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.
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 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
Right. If you can't even admit or genuinely don't understand you were straw manning I'm not sure anything else I can say would get through to you. So i'm not going to bother. If you could at least see that I would have continued.
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.
The problem is that Luciom wants to affirm that capitalism is beneficial to society while denying that there is any meaningful way of measuring societal benefit, but there’s just not going to be a good way of keeping those two ideas consistent that isn’t arbitrary or ad hoc. He wants to say that having more stuff is intuitively better because it can be measured, but
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.
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.
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.
New York City's Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has said he wants to "shift the tax burden" to "richer and whiter neighborhoods" if he secures election in November.
A housing policy document on Mamdani's official website includes a pledge to "shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods."
Newsweek contacted the Mamdani campaign for comment via email on Friday outside of regular office hours.
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.
wtf???
What world do you live in lol?
You are so detached from reality this is comical.
Arnault, Pinot, Bettencourt have 100bln+ each iirc. many others have 1-10 billions.
Arnault had a nice headstart and bettencourt literally inherited the fortune.
Pinot is the only one self made (so it seems).
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.
Man, u must have a high opinion of the feudal system …..
I’m sorry for you it ended .
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.
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
Arnault had a nice headstart and bettencourt literally inherited the fortune.
Pinot is the only one self made (so it seems).
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.
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.
what if the explicit anti white racism brings him votes?
