@BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish • 3 months agoFrench artists, DJs and musicians unite to fight threat of far-right governmentwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square32fedilinkarrow-up1343arrow-down19
arrow-up1334arrow-down1external-linkFrench artists, DJs and musicians unite to fight threat of far-right governmentwww.theguardian.com@BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish • 3 months agomessage-square32fedilink
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•3 months agoYou are making assumptions here, ie that they become that away after they got the money… This a basic logical fallacy
minus-square@2484345508@lemy.lollinkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoIf that’s how you’d like to end the conversation, that’s fine by me.
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•3 months agoYour entire thesis here rests on a logical fallacy… How else would you end it?
minus-square@2484345508@lemy.lollinkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoI end it when people stop the conversation by pointing out that they don’t like the argument style, instead of engaging. Clearly this topic upsets you, and I don’t wish to upset you. Let’s agree to disagree.
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•edit-23 months ago Clearly this topic upsets you, and I don’t wish to upset you. You are making shit up lol This not agree or disagree issue. You were passing a trust me bro as some sort of fact and got called on it. Just take the L with dignity, boomer
minus-square@2484345508@lemy.lollinkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoYou just don’t like that I’m suggesting that if you were rich and powerful, you would inevitably be corrupted. My point was eventually to arrive at how people should not be allowed to become too rich or powerful. Please, my dude, accept the L with dignity.
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•3 months agoYou are assuming that people become corrupted after they obtain wealth instead When there is another example that is just as feasible, ie they obtained wealth because they are corrupt. There is really no way to know which one is true either. So passing one or the other as a maxim is disingenuous. While I do agree with final conclusion, the premise you lead with doesn’t hold to scrutiny.
You are making assumptions here, ie that they become that away after they got the money… This a basic logical fallacy
If that’s how you’d like to end the conversation, that’s fine by me.
Your entire thesis here rests on a logical fallacy… How else would you end it?
I end it when people stop the conversation by pointing out that they don’t like the argument style, instead of engaging. Clearly this topic upsets you, and I don’t wish to upset you.
Let’s agree to disagree.
You are making shit up lol
This not agree or disagree issue. You were passing a trust me bro as some sort of fact and got called on it. Just take the L with dignity, boomer
You just don’t like that I’m suggesting that if you were rich and powerful, you would inevitably be corrupted.
My point was eventually to arrive at how people should not be allowed to become too rich or powerful.
Please, my dude, accept the L with dignity.
You are assuming that people become corrupted after they obtain wealth instead
When there is another example that is just as feasible, ie they obtained wealth because they are corrupt.
There is really no way to know which one is true either. So passing one or the other as a maxim is disingenuous.
While I do agree with final conclusion, the premise you lead with doesn’t hold to scrutiny.
Okay boomer.