Topic: Trump responds to SCROTUM ruling, raises tariffs to 15% globally.
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 weeks ago #133,191
These niggas keep playing and hes gonna raise it to 20%. 😲
Guess these entitled libs have to pay a living wage now! boo hoo! 🥺
Guess these entitled libs have to pay a living wage now! boo hoo! 🥺
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,419,771
How do people like you have the audacity to say that Africans have low IQs and then you write stuff like this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,772
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,773
@previous (A)
Right, that means the government taxes you 15% on anything you buy from Africa.
Africans don’t pay anything.
Right, that means the government taxes you 15% on anything you buy from Africa.
Africans don’t pay anything.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,774
All these years weren’t republicans the ones advocating for capitalism? I’m just explaining tariffs are taxes, trade can be mutually beneficial, and taxes reduce economic efficiency. I’m just arguing for the benefits of the free market here.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,775
Have you ever heard the expression, "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" That’s what the tariff stupidity is.
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,776
Also, the world economy is a game with more than two players, right? America is 4% of the population. Maybe you hate Africans or whatever so you think if we increase the price American citizens have to pay for anything produced in Africa, that hurts Africa more than it hurts us, but it doesn’t. If Americans don’t trade with Africa because it’s too expensive, then Africans will trade more with China than they trade with the United States. It doesn’t strengthen our position in any meaningful way, it’s stupid any way you look at it.
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,777
And I’m just saying Africa because that’s who we were talking about, the Europeans and the Canadians and the South Korean have all been making the same calculation.
The tariffs advantage China more than any other country.
The tariffs advantage China more than any other country.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,778
Trump is a failed entrepreneur. He is successful at defrauding investors and his base.
I’m not sure he knows how tariffs work.
Slick Willy signed an entire GOP agenda into law and was impeached for a blowjob. Could you imagine how the GOP would have dealt with a Democrat Trump? Tariffs, masked federal law enforcement harassing and killing citizens, manufacturing and agricultural turmoil, personal bribery deals with UAE and Qatar, emoluments out the ass, DOGE’s failures …
I’m not sure he knows how tariffs work.
Slick Willy signed an entire GOP agenda into law and was impeached for a blowjob. Could you imagine how the GOP would have dealt with a Democrat Trump? Tariffs, masked federal law enforcement harassing and killing citizens, manufacturing and agricultural turmoil, personal bribery deals with UAE and Qatar, emoluments out the ass, DOGE’s failures …
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,779
@1,419,774 (B)
> weren’t republicans the ones advocating for capitalism?
Maybe but Donald Drumpf is definitely doing it for HIMSELF ONLY.
> weren’t republicans the ones advocating for capitalism?
Maybe but Donald Drumpf is definitely doing it for HIMSELF ONLY.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,785
@1,419,773 (B)
It means corporations won't be offshoring jobs, and if they do its their American (See? I agreed!) customers who choose to buy slave wage goods that pay the price.
You keep acting like I said someone else pays it, but I never did. Always pointed out its to protect workers. Try responding to what I actually said next time, instead of rehashing strawman arguments I already said we agree on multiple times.
It means corporations won't be offshoring jobs, and if they do its their American (See? I agreed!) customers who choose to buy slave wage goods that pay the price.
You keep acting like I said someone else pays it, but I never did. Always pointed out its to protect workers. Try responding to what I actually said next time, instead of rehashing strawman arguments I already said we agree on multiple times.
Donald Trump joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,787
@1,419,779 (D)
You aren’t going to believe how stupid the real story is. The real story is Donald Trump searched for a book on economic policy on Amazon, the first book that came up was called Death by China which was written by a guy called Peter Navarro. Now Peter Navarro made his argument in the book by citing a source named Ron Vara. Ron Vara isn’t a real person, it’s an anagram of Navarro.
Trump didn’t read the book, he made Peter Navarro a White House advisor, and some people believe that the formula for Trump’s tariff policies may have been created by ChatGPT.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser-peter-navarro-calls-fictional-alter-ego-an-inside-joke
You aren’t going to believe how stupid the real story is. The real story is Donald Trump searched for a book on economic policy on Amazon, the first book that came up was called Death by China which was written by a guy called Peter Navarro. Now Peter Navarro made his argument in the book by citing a source named Ron Vara. Ron Vara isn’t a real person, it’s an anagram of Navarro.
Trump didn’t read the book, he made Peter Navarro a White House advisor, and some people believe that the formula for Trump’s tariff policies may have been created by ChatGPT.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser-peter-navarro-calls-fictional-alter-ego-an-inside-joke
Donald Trump double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,788
I wish I was joking, but I’m not.
Donald Trump triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,789
Although it wasn’t literally Trump that searched for it, it was one of his sons, I forget if it was Eric or Donald Trump Jr.
Donald Trump quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,791
I googled it, it was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,792
@1,419,774 (B)
> All these years weren’t republicans the ones advocating for capitalism?
Both parties break the stereotype on this issue, so why are you ignoring that the democrats (who ostensibly don't want unregulated capitalism hurting workers) want to continue the status quo?
The democrats have no solution of their own to offshoring. If they ever passed their minimum wage increases, this would be an even more enticing loophole too.
Plus, the democrats constantly call Republicans fascist, but fascists are neither capitalist nor communist, and follow a "third position" economically.. So suggesting they are also capitalist and must fit into that mold contradicts what democrats say the other half the time.
> All these years weren’t republicans the ones advocating for capitalism?
Both parties break the stereotype on this issue, so why are you ignoring that the democrats (who ostensibly don't want unregulated capitalism hurting workers) want to continue the status quo?
The democrats have no solution of their own to offshoring. If they ever passed their minimum wage increases, this would be an even more enticing loophole too.
Plus, the democrats constantly call Republicans fascist, but fascists are neither capitalist nor communist, and follow a "third position" economically.. So suggesting they are also capitalist and must fit into that mold contradicts what democrats say the other half the time.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,793
@previous (A)
Okay, so I hear you. Now I only have one question: how does any of that make Trump smart?
Okay, so I hear you. Now I only have one question: how does any of that make Trump smart?
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,794
Why is the republican response to any criticism of Trump being an idiot, "what about the democrats?" Either way, Trump is still an idiot, it doesn’t make Trump any less stupid. It’s not a valid argument. "Trump’s economic policy doesn’t make any sense." “What about the democrats? They call Trump a fascist!" Okay, Trump’s economic policy is still stupid.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,802
@1,419,793 (F)
The parties not fitting economic stereotypes doesn't say anything about Trump's intelligence, which is why I never claimed it did.
@previous (F)
> Why is the republican response to any criticism of Trump being an idiot, "what about the democrats?"
I never said "what about democrats" or anything like that, I pointed out that Anon Bs preconceptions about the parties doesnt match either parties positions on this issue.
You appear to be incapable of understanding the worss you are reading.
The parties not fitting economic stereotypes doesn't say anything about Trump's intelligence, which is why I never claimed it did.
@previous (F)
> Why is the republican response to any criticism of Trump being an idiot, "what about the democrats?"
I never said "what about democrats" or anything like that, I pointed out that Anon Bs preconceptions about the parties doesnt match either parties positions on this issue.
You appear to be incapable of understanding the worss you are reading.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,804
@previous (A)
> You appear to be incapable of understanding the worss you are reading.
Average Trump cultist.
> You appear to be incapable of understanding the worss you are reading.
Average Trump cultist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,830
@previous (G)
I typed s instead of d.
Instead of refuting anything I said, your entire point is that I pressed a button slightly to the left.
All leftist rhetoric is trivial like this. If it's not focusing on a typo it's name calling, strawmanning, or making up reasons for why they won't address the meat of the argument.
I typed s instead of d.
Instead of refuting anything I said, your entire point is that I pressed a button slightly to the left.
All leftist rhetoric is trivial like this. If it's not focusing on a typo it's name calling, strawmanning, or making up reasons for why they won't address the meat of the argument.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,831
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,832
This is my argument essentially:
Tariff (noun):
A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.
Your argument is: tariffs are good because liberals bad.
I’m pretty secure with myself that my argument is much better.
Tariff (noun):
A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.
Your argument is: tariffs are good because liberals bad.
I’m pretty secure with myself that my argument is much better.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,833
It’s really just as simple as tariffs are taxes and taxes cause deadweight losses and decrease consumer surplus. You don’t really have a counter argument to that, because it’s not possible to come up with a counter argument to that, because it’s just true. Tariffs are defined as a type of tax, and taxes just decrease consumer surplus. There’s no way around that. I’m just right. lol
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,834
The data even shows exactly what I said would happen: counties found other trading partners.
https://youtu.be/33wLMzaJwC4
https://youtu.be/33wLMzaJwC4
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,859
@1,419,832 (H)
> This is my argument essentially:
>
> Tariff (noun):
> A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.
That's not an argument.
> Your argument is: tariffs are good because liberals bad.
The most blatant strawman yet.
> This is my argument essentially:
>
> Tariff (noun):
> A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.
That's not an argument.
> Your argument is: tariffs are good because liberals bad.
The most blatant strawman yet.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,894
@previous (A)
1 + 1 = 2 isn’t an argument either. It doesn’t matter what fallacious arguments I make against your argument that 2 + 2 is 3. You’re still wrong.
This is why debate is pointless and I don’t believe in your idiotic ideology.
1 + 1 = 2 isn’t an argument either. It doesn’t matter what fallacious arguments I make against your argument that 2 + 2 is 3. You’re still wrong.
This is why debate is pointless and I don’t believe in your idiotic ideology.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,895
You see, essentially what you are, is you’re a stubborn ideologue and you think that means you’re smarter than everybody else because everyone else always fails to change your mind. When really everyone else can see you’re just stupid.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,897
@1,419,894 (J)
> 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t an argument either. It doesn’t matter what fallacious arguments I make against your argument that 2 + 2 is 3. You’re still wrong.
And now you're confusing "not an argument" with "a fallacious argument".
> This is why debate is pointless and I don’t believe in your idiotic ideology.
Debate is pointless because you don't understand what an argument is.
> 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t an argument either. It doesn’t matter what fallacious arguments I make against your argument that 2 + 2 is 3. You’re still wrong.
And now you're confusing "not an argument" with "a fallacious argument".
> This is why debate is pointless and I don’t believe in your idiotic ideology.
Debate is pointless because you don't understand what an argument is.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,900
@previous (A)
It doesn’t matter what argument you make, reality stays the same regardless of whatever we say about it. You got too caught up in rhetoric to the point you forgot objective reality exists and it doesn’t agree with you.
It doesn’t matter what argument you make, reality stays the same regardless of whatever we say about it. You got too caught up in rhetoric to the point you forgot objective reality exists and it doesn’t agree with you.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,901
The moon orbits the Earth because Earth has people on it and God made Earth the center of the universe because we were created in his image.
That’s a bad argument, a fallacious argument. But does that mean that the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth? No.
Debate is an idiots idea of being intelligent. A debate is a contest to see who the best liar is, nothing more.
That’s a bad argument, a fallacious argument. But does that mean that the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth? No.
Debate is an idiots idea of being intelligent. A debate is a contest to see who the best liar is, nothing more.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,902
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,903
@previous (A)
I’m more logical than you are. You can be both logically consistent and completely wrong at the same time if you base your beliefs off of false premises. Most of your beliefs are based off of things that are demonstrably false just because those lies make you feel good about yourself. Like the whole race and IQ thing, that’s a load of nonsense, but you’re so narcissistic you’ll literally accept your own baseless conjecture about biology over facts. You don’t even understand genetics or evolution or human diversity at the most fundamental level.
I’m more logical than you are. You can be both logically consistent and completely wrong at the same time if you base your beliefs off of false premises. Most of your beliefs are based off of things that are demonstrably false just because those lies make you feel good about yourself. Like the whole race and IQ thing, that’s a load of nonsense, but you’re so narcissistic you’ll literally accept your own baseless conjecture about biology over facts. You don’t even understand genetics or evolution or human diversity at the most fundamental level.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,904
Your problem is you don’t know anything, when someone tells you something that you didn’t know, you reject it because you figure that things should work a certain way based on nothing other than your own opinion, and you deflect any logical explanation somebody else gives as to why your wrong and change the subject and blabber on about unrelated things and accuse the other person of random logical fallacies you don’t even know the definition of. Because of this, you’re incapable of ever progressing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,905
@1,419,903 (J)
> I’m more logical than you are.
You can't claim to be logical when you don't even know what an argument is.
> I’m more logical than you are.
You can't claim to be logical when you don't even know what an argument is.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,906
I mean, I literally fucking explained to you why genetics prove that race is a social construct and there are not neatly defined races, then you accused me of being a Marxist because I don’t believe in genetics. You’re just a liar, you don’t have any interest in the truth.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,907
@1,419,905 (A)
Logic doesn’t revolve around arguments, arguments revolve around logic. You can use logic without using arguments. You’re getting logic and rhetoric confused.
Logic doesn’t revolve around arguments, arguments revolve around logic. You can use logic without using arguments. You’re getting logic and rhetoric confused.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,908
@previous (J)
> Logic doesn’t revolve around arguments, arguments revolve around logic.
Either way, you clearly don't know what an argument is because you defined a term and called that an argument lol
> You can use logic without using arguments.
How would you know if that's true if you don't even know what an argument is?
> Logic doesn’t revolve around arguments, arguments revolve around logic.
Either way, you clearly don't know what an argument is because you defined a term and called that an argument lol
> You can use logic without using arguments.
How would you know if that's true if you don't even know what an argument is?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,909
@previous (A)
You’re such a moron. None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes. It literally does not matter what argument you or I make, because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect. It doesn’t matter what arguments we make. Why can’t you understand that?
You’re such a moron. None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes. It literally does not matter what argument you or I make, because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect. It doesn’t matter what arguments we make. Why can’t you understand that?
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,911
You have to be one of the most moronic people I’ve ever talked to.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,912
All you know how to do is rhetoric and you’re not even good at using rhetoric, you’re just stubborn. You’re not clever, you’re not smart, you don’t come up with good arguments, you aren’t knowledgeable, you just always refuse to concede no matter how stupid it makes you look.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,913
@1,419,909 (J)
> None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes.
Every time I agree they are taxes, every time I say its American who pay for them, and then every time you pretend that I disagreed.
What's the point in trying with you when you will keep insisting that I disagreed no matter how many times I point out I didnt, and say that I know they are taxes paid by Americans?
> It literally does not matter what argument you or I make
How would you know if it matters if you don't even know what an argument is?
> because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect.
Pretending I said they weren't taxes is a strawman.
> It doesn’t matter what arguments we make. Why can’t you understand that?
You don't even know what an argument is!
> None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes.
Every time I agree they are taxes, every time I say its American who pay for them, and then every time you pretend that I disagreed.
What's the point in trying with you when you will keep insisting that I disagreed no matter how many times I point out I didnt, and say that I know they are taxes paid by Americans?
> It literally does not matter what argument you or I make
How would you know if it matters if you don't even know what an argument is?
> because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect.
Pretending I said they weren't taxes is a strawman.
> It doesn’t matter what arguments we make. Why can’t you understand that?
You don't even know what an argument is!
boof joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,914
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,915
@1,419,912 (J)
> You don’t come up with good arguments
How can you know if it's a good or bad argument is if you don't know what an argument is?
> You don’t come up with good arguments
How can you know if it's a good or bad argument is if you don't know what an argument is?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,916
@1,419,913 (A)
If something is true, then every argument that claims that it is false is false.
Tariffs are defined as taxes, taxes reduce consumer surplus and cause deadweight loss in the economy.
It doesn’t matter what argument you made, economics is based on mathematical relationships between supply and demand, you can’t make an argument that makes math work differently.
If something is true, then every argument that claims that it is false is false.
Tariffs are defined as taxes, taxes reduce consumer surplus and cause deadweight loss in the economy.
It doesn’t matter what argument you made, economics is based on mathematical relationships between supply and demand, you can’t make an argument that makes math work differently.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,917
@previous (J)
> If something is true, then every argument that claims that it is false is false.
Sure, but that's no excuse for not knowing what an argument is in the first place.
> Tariffs are defined as taxes
We've been over this many times. I already said they were taxes, and then after that you keep insisting I said the opposite.
> It doesn’t matter what argument you made, economics is based on mathematical relationships between supply and demand, you can’t make an argument that makes math work differently.
Seriously, learn what an argument is before you start using the word.
> If something is true, then every argument that claims that it is false is false.
Sure, but that's no excuse for not knowing what an argument is in the first place.
> Tariffs are defined as taxes
We've been over this many times. I already said they were taxes, and then after that you keep insisting I said the opposite.
> It doesn’t matter what argument you made, economics is based on mathematical relationships between supply and demand, you can’t make an argument that makes math work differently.
Seriously, learn what an argument is before you start using the word.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,918
Now if you’re trying to make an argument that tariffs are not taxes, that’s impossible because tariffs are just defined as a type of tax, there is no way around that.
If you want to argue that taxes don’t decrease consumer surplus, I’m sorry, that’s literally impossible. How consumer surplus works is say I value something at $10, I’m willing to pay $10 for something. Say I buy it for $5. By definition, I have a consumer surplus of $5. Say you put $2 in taxes on that item and I buy it for $7 instead, now I only have a consumer surplus of $3.
Like, you can’t make an argument against what I’m saying, you’d have to redefine words to mean things they don’t mean or you’d have to redefine subtraction. It’s just not something that can be argued for.
If you want to argue that taxes don’t decrease consumer surplus, I’m sorry, that’s literally impossible. How consumer surplus works is say I value something at $10, I’m willing to pay $10 for something. Say I buy it for $5. By definition, I have a consumer surplus of $5. Say you put $2 in taxes on that item and I buy it for $7 instead, now I only have a consumer surplus of $3.
Like, you can’t make an argument against what I’m saying, you’d have to redefine words to mean things they don’t mean or you’d have to redefine subtraction. It’s just not something that can be argued for.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,919
@previous (J)
> Now if you’re trying to make an argument that tariffs are not taxes, that’s impossible because tariffs are just defined as a type of tax, there is no way around that.
Are you trying to play this off as trolling to distract from the fact that you just showed you don't understand what an argument is?
> Now if you’re trying to make an argument that tariffs are not taxes, that’s impossible because tariffs are just defined as a type of tax, there is no way around that.
Are you trying to play this off as trolling to distract from the fact that you just showed you don't understand what an argument is?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,920
@previous (A)
I’m saying what I’m saying. I’m not entertaining your question because it’s literally irrelevant. Even if I didn’t know what an argument was, my claim about tariffs would still be correct. So why should I even bother answering your question? It’s a stupid question.
I’m saying what I’m saying. I’m not entertaining your question because it’s literally irrelevant. Even if I didn’t know what an argument was, my claim about tariffs would still be correct. So why should I even bother answering your question? It’s a stupid question.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,921
@previous (J)
What you should bother doing is learning the basics of logic.
There's no point in talking about tarrifs when you keep repeating the same strawman where you pretend I said they werent taxes.
There's no point in discussing anything with you when you don't even know what an argument is.
What you should bother doing is learning the basics of logic.
There's no point in talking about tarrifs when you keep repeating the same strawman where you pretend I said they werent taxes.
There's no point in discussing anything with you when you don't even know what an argument is.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,922
@previous (A)
I’m not repeating a strawman, I’m repeating my same argument over and over and over again as to why tariffs are bad and you have no counter argument so you’re accusing me of claiming your counter argument is the opposite of my argument which is fucking stupid.
I’m not repeating a strawman, I’m repeating my same argument over and over and over again as to why tariffs are bad and you have no counter argument so you’re accusing me of claiming your counter argument is the opposite of my argument which is fucking stupid.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,923
Your claim is that tariffs are good for the economy, I keep explaining over and over and over again why they’re not good for the economy, and you’re blabbering about rhetoric because you can’t make an economic argument because firstly you don’t know anything about economics and because secondly, if you did you would agree with me.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,924
And the thing you keep repeating saying I don’t know what an argument is, you’re doing that, because my argument is a statement of fact, and you’re trying to argue against a fact by saying that a fact isn’t an argument. My point is, who fucking cares, a fact is a fact and if I’m stating a fact then I’m stating a fact so you can’t be correct if you’re arguing against facts.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,925
@1,419,922 (J)
> I’m not repeating a strawman
Every time you act like I said they weren't taxes you are making the same strawman.
> I’m repeating my same argument over and over and over again
How would you even know if its an argument? You showed that you don't know what an argument is.
There's a difference between reitterating your argument, and repeatedly insisting I said they weren't taxes.
> you’re accusing me of claiming your counter argument is the opposite of my argument which is fucking stupid.
No, I never said that, what I actually said was that you're making up a fake argument on my behalf (strawmanning).
> I’m not repeating a strawman
Every time you act like I said they weren't taxes you are making the same strawman.
> I’m repeating my same argument over and over and over again
How would you even know if its an argument? You showed that you don't know what an argument is.
There's a difference between reitterating your argument, and repeatedly insisting I said they weren't taxes.
> you’re accusing me of claiming your counter argument is the opposite of my argument which is fucking stupid.
No, I never said that, what I actually said was that you're making up a fake argument on my behalf (strawmanning).
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,926
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,927
…because I’m not wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,928
@1,419,924 (J)
> my argument is a statement of fact
Now you are confusing a claim with an argument
> and you’re trying to argue against a fact by saying that a fact isn’t an argument.
Even if it were factual and true, that doesn't make it argument! lol
Once again you are proving you don't understand this elementary term in logic.
> My point is, who fucking cares, a fact is a fact and if I’m stating a fact then I’m stating a fact so you can’t be correct if you’re arguing against facts.
Basic logic matters lol. You clearly have learned a lot of much less important things, but you can't be bothered to spend a little time learning logic101??
> my argument is a statement of fact
Now you are confusing a claim with an argument
> and you’re trying to argue against a fact by saying that a fact isn’t an argument.
Even if it were factual and true, that doesn't make it argument! lol
Once again you are proving you don't understand this elementary term in logic.
> My point is, who fucking cares, a fact is a fact and if I’m stating a fact then I’m stating a fact so you can’t be correct if you’re arguing against facts.
Basic logic matters lol. You clearly have learned a lot of much less important things, but you can't be bothered to spend a little time learning logic101??
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,929
@1,419,926 (J)
What's the point in trying to convince you when you don't know what an argument is, and you try to deflect by strawmanning every time?
What's the point in trying to convince you when you don't know what an argument is, and you try to deflect by strawmanning every time?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,930
@1,419,928 (A)
What does any of this have to do with economics? You’re just blabbering on about how I don’t understand what an argument is when you literally don’t have any counter argument to my argument that tariffs are bad for the economy. You suck at debate. How are you this slow?
What does any of this have to do with economics? You’re just blabbering on about how I don’t understand what an argument is when you literally don’t have any counter argument to my argument that tariffs are bad for the economy. You suck at debate. How are you this slow?
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,931
@1,419,929 (A)
That really just sounds like an excuse because you don’t know anything about economics so you’re incapable of coming up with a counter argument.
That really just sounds like an excuse because you don’t know anything about economics so you’re incapable of coming up with a counter argument.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,932
You haven’t even made any economic arguments. Write something with economics terms like consumer surplus, producer surplus, tariffs, taxes, supply, demand, economic efficiency, etc. Make an actual argument as to why I’m wrong about economics.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,933
@1,419,930 (J)
> What does any of this have to do with economics?
Logic is necessary for discussing any discipline.
You may as well ask why literacy or arithmitec is necessary for discussing economics.
> You’re just blabbering on about how I don’t understand what an argument is when you literally don’t have any counter argument to my argument that tariffs are bad for the economy.
How would you know if I have a counter argument when you don't know what an argument is??
> You suck at debate.
You literally pretend I said things I didn't to avoid addressing what I actually said. You do this every time. If you were competant, you could respond to the actual things I said instead of making up strawmen.
> What does any of this have to do with economics?
Logic is necessary for discussing any discipline.
You may as well ask why literacy or arithmitec is necessary for discussing economics.
> You’re just blabbering on about how I don’t understand what an argument is when you literally don’t have any counter argument to my argument that tariffs are bad for the economy.
How would you know if I have a counter argument when you don't know what an argument is??
> You suck at debate.
You literally pretend I said things I didn't to avoid addressing what I actually said. You do this every time. If you were competant, you could respond to the actual things I said instead of making up strawmen.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,934
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,935
For the record: the vast majority of economists believe that tariffs are bad for the economy. So if you want to do a bit of research on this, you won’t just have to prove me wrong, you’ll have to prove economics as a science as wrong. So have fun with that!
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,936
@1,419,934 (A)
Stop being a coward and make your argument.
@1,419,932 (J)
> You haven’t even made any economic arguments. Write something with economics terms like consumer surplus, producer surplus, tariffs, taxes, supply, demand, economic efficiency, etc. Make an actual argument as to why I’m wrong about economics.
Stop being a coward and make your argument.
@1,419,932 (J)
> You haven’t even made any economic arguments. Write something with economics terms like consumer surplus, producer surplus, tariffs, taxes, supply, demand, economic efficiency, etc. Make an actual argument as to why I’m wrong about economics.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,937
@previous (J)
> Stop being a coward and make your argument.
What's the point when you ignore it and make up a replacement argument for me? You can do that without me being involved.
Until you stop strawmanning, there's no point in writing out arguments you will ignore.
> > You haven’t even made any economic arguments. Write something with economics terms like consumer surplus, producer surplus, tariffs, taxes, supply, demand, economic efficiency, etc. Make an actual argument as to why I’m wrong about economics.
You need basic prerequisites to discuss economics like: literacy, numeracy, and logic. Since you don't have those, there's really no point.
> Stop being a coward and make your argument.
What's the point when you ignore it and make up a replacement argument for me? You can do that without me being involved.
Until you stop strawmanning, there's no point in writing out arguments you will ignore.
> > You haven’t even made any economic arguments. Write something with economics terms like consumer surplus, producer surplus, tariffs, taxes, supply, demand, economic efficiency, etc. Make an actual argument as to why I’m wrong about economics.
You need basic prerequisites to discuss economics like: literacy, numeracy, and logic. Since you don't have those, there's really no point.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,938
@previous (A)
You aren’t making an argument because you don’t know economics, so you’re trying to distract me with an argument about rhetoric that has nothing to do with economics.
You aren’t making an argument because you don’t know economics, so you’re trying to distract me with an argument about rhetoric that has nothing to do with economics.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,939
If you were being honest you’d tell me that you’re not making an argument about economics because you don’t know why I’m wrong so you can’t tell me anything.
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,940
The entire reason you’re making this argument is because you like Trump and Trump likes tariffs and you don’t want to admit you’re wrong because that would be embarrassing for you. But you’re just wrong about this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,941
@1,419,938 (J)
I'm saying you need basic logic before you can settle a disagreement.
@1,419,939 (J)
What's the point when you have proven over and over again you will make up a strawman to get out of addressing whatever argument I do make?
You can't use cheap tricks and expect to be taken seriously.
Every time you make strawman arguments, and then repeat the same strawman arguments after being called out.
You did it here already, and you do it each time we talk about something new.
I'm saying you need basic logic before you can settle a disagreement.
@1,419,939 (J)
What's the point when you have proven over and over again you will make up a strawman to get out of addressing whatever argument I do make?
You can't use cheap tricks and expect to be taken seriously.
Every time you make strawman arguments, and then repeat the same strawman arguments after being called out.
You did it here already, and you do it each time we talk about something new.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,942
@previous (A)
You’re such a low IQ doofus. You can’t tell me why I’m wrong and acting like you’re superior for it. It’s so pathetic.
You’re such a low IQ doofus. You can’t tell me why I’m wrong and acting like you’re superior for it. It’s so pathetic.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,943
If you’re trying to argue that I’m wrong that tariffs are bad for the economy, you’d think you’d tell me why tariffs are good for the economy. But you can’t do that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,944
@1,419,942 (J)
What's the point when you always strawman, and never take accountability or even just stop when you're called out?
@previous (J)
I'm saying there's no point in writing out an argument when you always strawman.
And I'm saying there's no point in trying to reason with someone who doesn't know the basics of logic.
What's the point when you always strawman, and never take accountability or even just stop when you're called out?
@previous (J)
I'm saying there's no point in writing out an argument when you always strawman.
And I'm saying there's no point in trying to reason with someone who doesn't know the basics of logic.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,945
@previous (A)
There’s no point in writing out an argument when you know that you’re just going to embarrass yourself by showing everyone I know more about economics than you.
There’s no point in writing out an argument when you know that you’re just going to embarrass yourself by showing everyone I know more about economics than you.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,946
The only question I have is if you’re a pathological liar and you really believe this shit you’re telling me or if you have the self awareness to be conscious that you’re lying to me right now. That’s the only thing on my mind.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,948
@1,419,945 (J)
You've repeated the same strawman multiple times in this thread (insisting I said tarrifs weren't taxes, when I never did) and never awknowledged it.
If I try to play chess 20 times with someone, and each time they prove they don't understand what the pieces are called or how they move, what's the use trying again?
When you can prove you know what an argument is, and why it matters maybe we can keep going. And when you can awknowledge why making strawman arguments is a problem.
If you still don't understand the problem strawmanning, I'm not playing. Sorry bud!
You've repeated the same strawman multiple times in this thread (insisting I said tarrifs weren't taxes, when I never did) and never awknowledged it.
If I try to play chess 20 times with someone, and each time they prove they don't understand what the pieces are called or how they move, what's the use trying again?
When you can prove you know what an argument is, and why it matters maybe we can keep going. And when you can awknowledge why making strawman arguments is a problem.
If you still don't understand the problem strawmanning, I'm not playing. Sorry bud!
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,949
@previous (A)
You’re accusing me of repeating a strawman when I’m just asking you over and over again to explain to me why I’m wrong, but you keep refusing to explain to me why I’m wrong. You’re just being a coward and it’s super obvious.
You’re accusing me of repeating a strawman when I’m just asking you over and over again to explain to me why I’m wrong, but you keep refusing to explain to me why I’m wrong. You’re just being a coward and it’s super obvious.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,950
@previous (J)
> You’re accusing me of repeating a strawman when I’m just asking you over and over again to explain to me why I’m wrong
I'm accusing you of using strawman arguments multiple times in this thread, which you did do, and never awknowledging that you did it or that its a problem.
If you still don't understand why it's a problem you aren't ready to discuss anything you disagree about. This goes way beyond economics.
> but you keep refusing to explain to me why I’m wrong. Your just being a coward and it’s super obvious.
It's pointless when you don't know what arguments are, or why strawmanning is a problem.
> You’re accusing me of repeating a strawman when I’m just asking you over and over again to explain to me why I’m wrong
I'm accusing you of using strawman arguments multiple times in this thread, which you did do, and never awknowledging that you did it or that its a problem.
If you still don't understand why it's a problem you aren't ready to discuss anything you disagree about. This goes way beyond economics.
> but you keep refusing to explain to me why I’m wrong. Your just being a coward and it’s super obvious.
It's pointless when you don't know what arguments are, or why strawmanning is a problem.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,951
And honestly, the strawman accusation you always make is an act of cowardice. Whenever you make a stupid argument, I explain 10 reasons why you’re wrong you can just say, "Oh you’re stawmanning me that wasn’t what I was arguing." You do it every single time, you say something, I tell you why you’re wrong because you’re not very smart and it’s really easy to do, then you act like a coward and pretend that you were really making a different argument. The real thing that’s going on is that I’m way more intelligent than you are, but you’re too narcissistic to believe that.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,952
And now it’s gotten to the point where you don’t even want to make an argument because you’re so afraid of me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,953
@1,419,951 (J)
> And honestly, the strawman accusation you always make is an act of cowardice. Whenever you make a stupid argument, I explain 10 reasons why you’re wrong you can just say, "Oh you’re stawmanning me that wasn’t what I was arguing."
You don't explain why my argument is wrong, you ignore my argument and make up a strawman which you argue against.
Even after I reitterate that I didn't make the claim you're pretending I did (like when you insist I said tarrifs aren't taxes) you continue to pretend I did.
I'm not defending the made up argument you create, and I'm not writing out my actual argument when you just strawman.
> You do it every single time
The reason I accuse you of strawmanning each time, is because are strawmanning each time.
Do you think I'm just going to stop calling you out because you did it so many times?
> you say something, I tell you why you’re wrong because you’re not very smart and it’s really easy to do, then you act like a coward and pretend that you were really making a different argument. The real thing that’s going on is that I’m way more intelligent than you are, but you’re too narcissistic to believe that.
If you're smart, why do you argue against things I didn't say rather than things I actually said?
> And honestly, the strawman accusation you always make is an act of cowardice. Whenever you make a stupid argument, I explain 10 reasons why you’re wrong you can just say, "Oh you’re stawmanning me that wasn’t what I was arguing."
You don't explain why my argument is wrong, you ignore my argument and make up a strawman which you argue against.
Even after I reitterate that I didn't make the claim you're pretending I did (like when you insist I said tarrifs aren't taxes) you continue to pretend I did.
I'm not defending the made up argument you create, and I'm not writing out my actual argument when you just strawman.
> You do it every single time
The reason I accuse you of strawmanning each time, is because are strawmanning each time.
Do you think I'm just going to stop calling you out because you did it so many times?
> you say something, I tell you why you’re wrong because you’re not very smart and it’s really easy to do, then you act like a coward and pretend that you were really making a different argument. The real thing that’s going on is that I’m way more intelligent than you are, but you’re too narcissistic to believe that.
If you're smart, why do you argue against things I didn't say rather than things I actually said?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,954
@previous (A)
I don’t argue against things you didn’t say, you’re just not very smart so whenever I say something you think I’m accusing you of saying the opposite. But that’s not how any reasonable person interprets English.
I don’t argue against things you didn’t say, you’re just not very smart so whenever I say something you think I’m accusing you of saying the opposite. But that’s not how any reasonable person interprets English.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,955
For example, I might say "tariffs are taxes."
Then you say, "That’s a strawman I didn’t say tariffs aren’t taxes."
Which is actually a strawman because I never said you said that.
Then you say, "That’s a strawman I didn’t say tariffs aren’t taxes."
Which is actually a strawman because I never said you said that.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,956
The thing that bothers me about you, is you think that this is smart for some reason, when it’s really just a sign that you’re very very stupid.
Anonymous J quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,957
And it’s stupid because you won’t let me make an argument because whenever I make an argument you just say I’m making a strawman because you assume that whenever I say anything about anything I’m accusing you of saying the opposite. But that’s not how it works, I can come up with my own line of reasoning completely independent of yours.
Anonymous J quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,958
And even when I said that if you wanted to prove me wrong you would have to explain how tariffs aren’t taxes or you would have to explain how taxes aren’t bad for the economy, that’s not a strawman either, because those are hypothetical cases.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,959
@1,419,955 (J)
Look how you phrased it here:
@1,419,909 (J)
> None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes. It literally does not matter what argument you or I make, because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect.
You didn't just say tarrifs are taxes, you acted like I was arguing otherwise.
Look how you phrased it here:
@1,419,909 (J)
> None of this changes the fact that tariffs are taxes. It literally does not matter what argument you or I make, because tariffs are defined as taxes. I’m correct and you’re incorrect.
You didn't just say tarrifs are taxes, you acted like I was arguing otherwise.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,960
@previous (A)
Well, you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy. I told you why tariffs are bad for the economy. In order for me to be incorrect, something has to be wrong with my line of reasoning and my line of reasoning has two parts: the definition of what a tariff is and the effects of taxation. You have to prove one or both of those incorrect in order to prove me wrong. So I never said that you said either of those things, I simply said that both of those two parts to my reasoning are infallible, therefore if you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy, you must be wrong because those are two things you can’t possibly argued against.
Well, you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy. I told you why tariffs are bad for the economy. In order for me to be incorrect, something has to be wrong with my line of reasoning and my line of reasoning has two parts: the definition of what a tariff is and the effects of taxation. You have to prove one or both of those incorrect in order to prove me wrong. So I never said that you said either of those things, I simply said that both of those two parts to my reasoning are infallible, therefore if you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy, you must be wrong because those are two things you can’t possibly argued against.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,961
@1,419,957 (J)
> And it’s stupid because you won’t let me make an argument because whenever I make an argument you just say I’m making a strawman because you assume that whenever I say anything about anything I’m accusing you of saying the opposite. But that’s not how it works, I can come up with my own line of reasoning completely independent of yours.
You aren't refuting my claims in any of these threads, you're repeating canned refutations of arguments that no one has said.
It's like you heard a fallacious argument, heard a refutation, came here to repeat it but then when I say something else (that you aren't prepared for) you just repeat the now irrlevant point instead of addressing what I said.
> And it’s stupid because you won’t let me make an argument because whenever I make an argument you just say I’m making a strawman because you assume that whenever I say anything about anything I’m accusing you of saying the opposite. But that’s not how it works, I can come up with my own line of reasoning completely independent of yours.
You aren't refuting my claims in any of these threads, you're repeating canned refutations of arguments that no one has said.
It's like you heard a fallacious argument, heard a refutation, came here to repeat it but then when I say something else (that you aren't prepared for) you just repeat the now irrlevant point instead of addressing what I said.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,962
@1,419,960 (J)
> Well, you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy.
Here's a clear example of a claim you attributing to me.
Just so we can solidly show that this isn't a strawman, quote the exact text where I said "tarrifs aren't bad for the economy".
If you can't so that, this is a strawman argument.
> Well, you’re saying tariffs aren’t bad for the economy.
Here's a clear example of a claim you attributing to me.
Just so we can solidly show that this isn't a strawman, quote the exact text where I said "tarrifs aren't bad for the economy".
If you can't so that, this is a strawman argument.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,963
It’s sort of like saying, any integer multiplied by two is even, and any integer plus one is odd.
Say my claim is that 2x + 1, where x is an integer is an odd number.
There are only two ways you could possibly prove 2x + 1 isn’t odd, there’s a case where an even integer plus one is an even number, or there is a case where an integer multiplied by two is an odd number.
Neither of those two cases can be proven, therefore 2x + 1 must be odd no matter what argument you come up with.
It’s the same thing.
Say my claim is that 2x + 1, where x is an integer is an odd number.
There are only two ways you could possibly prove 2x + 1 isn’t odd, there’s a case where an even integer plus one is an even number, or there is a case where an integer multiplied by two is an odd number.
Neither of those two cases can be proven, therefore 2x + 1 must be odd no matter what argument you come up with.
It’s the same thing.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,964
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,965
@previous (J)
Sometimes tarrifs can be bad for the economy overall, yes.
But the much more important thing to note here is that you decided I had made a claim, even though I never said that thing.
It may seem like a small oversight here, but you do this constantly in every thread and then act like you have no awareness that you're doing it.
Sometimes tarrifs can be bad for the economy overall, yes.
But the much more important thing to note here is that you decided I had made a claim, even though I never said that thing.
It may seem like a small oversight here, but you do this constantly in every thread and then act like you have no awareness that you're doing it.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,966
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,967
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,968
@1,419,785 (A)
> It means corporations won't be offshoring jobs, and if they do its their American (See? I agreed!) customers who choose to buy slave wage goods that pay the price.
>
> You keep acting like I said someone else pays it, but I never did. Always pointed out its to protect workers. Try responding to what I actually said next time, instead of rehashing strawman arguments I already said we agree on multiple times.
You agree with me that tariffs are bad for the economy.
> It means corporations won't be offshoring jobs, and if they do its their American (See? I agreed!) customers who choose to buy slave wage goods that pay the price.
>
> You keep acting like I said someone else pays it, but I never did. Always pointed out its to protect workers. Try responding to what I actually said next time, instead of rehashing strawman arguments I already said we agree on multiple times.
You agree with me that tariffs are bad for the economy.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,969
@1,419,967 (A)
> I said sometimes they are.
So I wasn’t making a strawman argument because you don’t really agree with me that tariffs are bad for the economy.
> I said sometimes they are.
So I wasn’t making a strawman argument because you don’t really agree with me that tariffs are bad for the economy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,971
@previous (J)
You were making a strawman argument when you kept acting like I said tarrifs weren't taxes. Since I never disagreed that tarrifs are taxes, pretending I did was a strawman.
You were making a strawman argument when you kept acting like I said tarrifs weren't taxes. Since I never disagreed that tarrifs are taxes, pretending I did was a strawman.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,972
@previous (A)
I already explained to you that I never said that you said tariffs aren’t taxes. I only said you would have to either explain to me how tariffs aren’t taxes or explain to me how taxes are good for the economy to prove that tariffs are good for the economy. I have already explained this.
I already explained to you that I never said that you said tariffs aren’t taxes. I only said you would have to either explain to me how tariffs aren’t taxes or explain to me how taxes are good for the economy to prove that tariffs are good for the economy. I have already explained this.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,973
If you don’t agree with my reasoning, there are only three ways you can prove me wrong: prove that tariffs are not taxes, prove that taxes are good for the economy, or both.
Since you seem to have a problem with being accused of thinking that tariffs are taxes, via process of elimination, that only leaves you believing that taxes are good for the economy.
Do you want to explain why taxes benefit the economy?
Since you seem to have a problem with being accused of thinking that tariffs are taxes, via process of elimination, that only leaves you believing that taxes are good for the economy.
Do you want to explain why taxes benefit the economy?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,974
@1,419,972 (J)
When you say tarrifs are taxes, tell me it doesn't matter what I say because they'll always be taxes, and state I'm incorrect that's clearly phrased to imply I said tarrifs aren't taxes.
Even if we chock that up to a misunderstanding it doesn't change the fact that you've demonstrated you don't know what an argument in general even is.
You need to know basic terms like what an argument is to have a rational discussion.
When you say tarrifs are taxes, tell me it doesn't matter what I say because they'll always be taxes, and state I'm incorrect that's clearly phrased to imply I said tarrifs aren't taxes.
Even if we chock that up to a misunderstanding it doesn't change the fact that you've demonstrated you don't know what an argument in general even is.
You need to know basic terms like what an argument is to have a rational discussion.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,975
@previous (A)
Taxes are bad for the economy, tariffs are taxes, therefore tariffs are bad for the economy.
My most fundamental premise here is that taxes are bad for the economy. If I keep saying tariffs are taxes, you could explain to me how taxes are good for the economy to prove me wrong.
Taxes are bad for the economy, tariffs are taxes, therefore tariffs are bad for the economy.
My most fundamental premise here is that taxes are bad for the economy. If I keep saying tariffs are taxes, you could explain to me how taxes are good for the economy to prove me wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,976
@1,419,973 (J)
I've made arguments already in this thread and others showing the benefits of using tarrifs, but you ignored them and started talking about other things.
I'd be willing to get back into it, but not if you continue to insist that knowing what an argument is doesn't matter.
If you aren't at a bare minimum of logic, then using logic to convince you is clearly pointless.
I've made arguments already in this thread and others showing the benefits of using tarrifs, but you ignored them and started talking about other things.
I'd be willing to get back into it, but not if you continue to insist that knowing what an argument is doesn't matter.
If you aren't at a bare minimum of logic, then using logic to convince you is clearly pointless.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,977
Now there is an argument that could be made that taxes are good for the economy, but the argument relies on wealth redistribution and valuing economic equality over economic efficiency, which is essentially a socialist argument, and maybe I’m wrong but you don’t strike me as a socialist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,978
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,979
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,980
@1,419,977 (J)
Define argument in logic, and then tell me if this post:
@1,419,832 (H)
where you give the definition of tarrif is an argument.
Define argument in logic, and then tell me if this post:
@1,419,832 (H)
where you give the definition of tarrif is an argument.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,981
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,982
@1,419,980 (A)
Well, is my post wrong? My argument hinges on the fact that tariffs are taxes and taxes are not good for the economy. There are two premises: tariffs are taxes, taxes are bad for the economy. There’s also a conclusion: tariffs are bad for the economy.
I don’t know, it really seems like I’m making an argument here.
Well, is my post wrong? My argument hinges on the fact that tariffs are taxes and taxes are not good for the economy. There are two premises: tariffs are taxes, taxes are bad for the economy. There’s also a conclusion: tariffs are bad for the economy.
I don’t know, it really seems like I’m making an argument here.
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,983
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,984
You see, I accept that logic works. However, I am not a rationalist, I don’t believe that we can come to conclusions using logic and nothing more. This is because a logically consistent argument can have a false conclusion if the assumptions made in its premises are false. This is why I believe that empiricism is important in discovering truth, you actually need facts and observations to base your logic off of.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,985
@1,419,983 (J)
No, a strawman is if I say/imply you made an argument you didn't, which is going to be hard to understand if you don't know what an argument is to begin with.
You said multiple times "it doesn't matter what argument you make".
The point of studying logic is to make sound arguments, so if you don't think arguments matter, you clearly don't believe in logic.
No, a strawman is if I say/imply you made an argument you didn't, which is going to be hard to understand if you don't know what an argument is to begin with.
You said multiple times "it doesn't matter what argument you make".
The point of studying logic is to make sound arguments, so if you don't think arguments matter, you clearly don't believe in logic.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,986
@1,419,982 (J)
I'm asking you to define argument, since you clearly confused defining a term with an actual argument before.
I'm asking you to define argument, since you clearly confused defining a term with an actual argument before.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,987
@1,419,985 (A)
Yes, that’s a true statement, it really doesn’t matter what argument you make. A consistent argument can be false.
Yes, that’s a true statement, it really doesn’t matter what argument you make. A consistent argument can be false.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 0 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,988
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,989
@1,419,987 (J)
A consistent argument can be false, but an inconsistent argument is always false.
That's why it always matters that your argument is consistent.
I need wheels on my car to drive. It's not the only thing (I also need my keys, and gas in the tank) but I will always need wheels.
When you say the argument doesn't matter because it can be wrong anyway, that's like saying it doesn't matter if the wheels are on the car because there's other things you need too.
But you always need wheels. You always need rational arguments.
A consistent argument can be false, but an inconsistent argument is always false.
That's why it always matters that your argument is consistent.
I need wheels on my car to drive. It's not the only thing (I also need my keys, and gas in the tank) but I will always need wheels.
When you say the argument doesn't matter because it can be wrong anyway, that's like saying it doesn't matter if the wheels are on the car because there's other things you need too.
But you always need wheels. You always need rational arguments.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,990
Anonymous J double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,991
Debate is pointless.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous J triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,992
It’s really simple, the entire thing is complete bullshit, but nobody wants to admit it.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,419,993
You know, actually, true and false do not exist. They’re abstract concepts. Binary isn’t fundamental, it’s an abstraction. Voltages are not binary.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,016
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,024
@1,419,990 (J)
Yes, and you should have a higher standard then making fallacious arguments and being right by coincidence.
@1,419,991 (J)
Civilized logical discussions can get everyone closer to the truth. The only reason to reject logic is that you know your arguments are fallacious.
@1,419,993 (L)
Epistemic relativism and bringing up off-topic electronics topics again.
Yes, and you should have a higher standard then making fallacious arguments and being right by coincidence.
@1,419,991 (J)
Civilized logical discussions can get everyone closer to the truth. The only reason to reject logic is that you know your arguments are fallacious.
@1,419,993 (L)
Epistemic relativism and bringing up off-topic electronics topics again.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,025
Anonymous N double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,026
You have a very narrow idea of what logic even is in the first place. You think debate is logic, it’s not. There’s more than one consistent system of logic. Not all systems of logic use true and false. There are also probabilistic models of logic like fuzzy logic. Our universe at a fundamental level is probabilistic not deterministic. True and false are just abstract concepts. They’re not actually real.
Anonymous N triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,030
If you think about 1 as true and 0 and false and everything between 0 and 1 as probabilities of how truthful a statement is, you can take the formulas from probability P(a and b) = P(a) * P(b) and P(not a) = 1 - a to come up with a function for a NAND b f(a, b) = 1 - ab. Then since NAND is functionally complete you can use combinations of that to get any other logical connective.
For example "a or b" is 1-(1-aa)(1-bb).
For example "a or b" is 1-(1-aa)(1-bb).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,031
@1,420,025 (N)
You just said true and false don't exist.
This is the root of all problems in leftism: rejection of truth.
You're always going to be wrong if you don't even know there is a right answer.
You just said true and false don't exist.
This is the root of all problems in leftism: rejection of truth.
You're always going to be wrong if you don't even know there is a right answer.
Anonymous N replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,032
Which is useful because say P(a) = 0.9 and P(b) = 0.3 and you want to calculate P(a or b)
1-(1-0.9*0.9)(1-0.3*0.3) = 0.8271
Which is a decent approximation of the probability function P(a or b) = P(a) + P(b) - P(a and b) which would get 0.93
So you can make decisions off of degrees that something is true. You don’t need to think of logic in terms of rhetoric or in terms of true and false, you can also think about it mathematically in terms of probabilities.
1-(1-0.9*0.9)(1-0.3*0.3) = 0.8271
Which is a decent approximation of the probability function P(a or b) = P(a) + P(b) - P(a and b) which would get 0.93
So you can make decisions off of degrees that something is true. You don’t need to think of logic in terms of rhetoric or in terms of true and false, you can also think about it mathematically in terms of probabilities.
Anonymous N double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,034
The if you tried finding "a or b" with two probabilities below 50% say say P(a) = 0.2 and P(b) = 0.1 and you want to calculate P(a or b)
1-(1-0.2*0.2)(1-0.1*0.1) = 0.0496
So you can see that you actually can objectively make logical decisions based on "vibes" of how true something is.
1-(1-0.2*0.2)(1-0.1*0.1) = 0.0496
So you can see that you actually can objectively make logical decisions based on "vibes" of how true something is.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,035
@1,420,026 (N)
> You have a very narrow idea of what logic even is in the first place. You think debate is logic, it’s not.
No, and putting words in my mouth is again a strawman.
> There’s more than one consistent system of logic. Not all systems of logic use true and false. There are also probabilistic models of logic like fuzzy logic.
Never denied that those exist.
> True and false are just abstract concepts.
True and False are abstract, and that doesn't change the fact that they matter a lot.
Leftism is built upon the idea that they don't, which is why leftists all end up becoming delusional and self-destructive.
> They’re not actually real.
Numbers are abstract, but if you dismiss them because "they are not actually real" how is life going to go for you? Well, it's the same for truth.
> You have a very narrow idea of what logic even is in the first place. You think debate is logic, it’s not.
No, and putting words in my mouth is again a strawman.
> There’s more than one consistent system of logic. Not all systems of logic use true and false. There are also probabilistic models of logic like fuzzy logic.
Never denied that those exist.
> True and false are just abstract concepts.
True and False are abstract, and that doesn't change the fact that they matter a lot.
Leftism is built upon the idea that they don't, which is why leftists all end up becoming delusional and self-destructive.
> They’re not actually real.
Numbers are abstract, but if you dismiss them because "they are not actually real" how is life going to go for you? Well, it's the same for truth.
Anonymous M replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,036
niggers and their delusions.pdf
Anonymous N replied with this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,037
@1,420,035 (A)
It’s weird you’re accusing me of leftism when I was just arguing for the free market. It’s almost like that’s a rhetorical crutch you have.
It’s weird you’re accusing me of leftism when I was just arguing for the free market. It’s almost like that’s a rhetorical crutch you have.
Anonymous N double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,039
Anyway, I think nuance is important, and you seem to lack nuance. Nuance isn’t irrational or illogical, you can reduce probabilistic truth values down to a mathematical process and get an objective answer out. If I don’t feel like going with your own narrow rigid idea of things that doesn’t make me wrong. If anything, it’s actually more precise.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,041
Combining logic and probability actually makes a lot of sense because logic and probability can both be defined by set theory, and if you actually draw out the venn diagrams for probability functions and logical connectives, it will become apparent that logic and probability are actually exactly the same thing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,047
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,420,048
@1,420,041 (O)
On what proposition, specifically, should we be considering probability?
On what proposition, specifically, should we be considering probability?
(Edited 10 seconds later.)