As I said, in your mind, you reduce a nuanced argument to what you claim it to be, then claim that that was the argument made.
For instance, this claim here:
When once again, the only one that made the argument you claim is the deluded version in your head.
I’ve never met a despicable human being that wasn’t quite proud of how despicable they are. Shame doesn’t work on people like @DemonTree.
Does anyone know how to purchase straw in a commodities market? At the rate DemonTree is using it up for his construction projects, I predict severe shortages soon.
This is what you actually said. You didn’t say that forcing stores to sell something is socialism, you said that dictating what private companies do is socialism:
If you can’t say what you fucking mean, that is your problem. You despicable lying sack of shit.
False. There is nothing extraordinary about explaining how the concept of utilities work. It is claiming that Amazon can be made into a utility that is the extraordinary claim. Such a thing has literally never happened in the history of the United States. You are the one claiming something is possible without providing any evidence.
You are also stating things that are clearly false. I did in fact provide an argument to prove my point. I did it again in the post replying to you, and I will again in this one. You have provided no reason why that argument is incorrect. You have just used the fallacy of the appeal to incredulity. So the argument stands.
The thing is, if an argument is actually so obviously bad, then it is easier to provide a counterargument. The fact that you keep refusing to do so is actually evidence that your claim is false. That’s why this tactic is so pointless–you’re effectively refuting yourself.
I’ve made my argument. It’s a fairly simple one. Companies cannot be turned into utilities like LHOD proposes. Only the products they sell can be turned into utilities. So any restrictions put on the products would have to apply to everyone who sells those products. Every other company that sold what Amazon sells, which is basically everything, would have the same restrictions as Amazon.
If you can refute this—if you can argue that companies can be made into a utility—I welcome the correction. But continued bloviating is not welcome. If you can’t argue in a rational manner, there’s no point in us engaging.
Hell, that’s the reason I pitted @DemonTree and put her on ignore. I was willing to actually talk about trans issues with her until I noticed how dishonest she was in her tactics.
Dictating what companies do is not mere regulation. It is a command economy, where the govt dictates what companies do.
There is a difference there, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I used to think that maybe you were just ignorant, but that’s no longer possible. You might be stupid, but I don’t think that’s the case.
What is left is that you are a lying hateful piece of shit.
Until you are ready to admit the plain meaning of words on a page, I’m done with you.
Maybe just provide a list for us of which companies the government should be running, so that your personal sensibilities are not offended.
You mean accept your made up definitions for them? No thanks.
But thank you for playing.
Do you have a cite for anyone saying, “They are women, so they should play with other women.” without any other argument. That that is the only argument that they made, as you claimed?
Unless you do, then you are simply a liar.
ETA: in fact, your claim is that “many” have done this, so you really need to have several cites that that is the only argument that a poster made.
I’m not refusing to acknowledge the difference. I showed you an example of the government dictating what companies do, and you admit that it is such. You can that say one instance is justified and the other not, but instead you’re lying about what another poster said in the face of blatant evidence you are wrong.
If you admit that Atamasama did say what I quoted, and I was responding to a real argument (even if it wasn’t what he intended to say, it’s what he did say), then I’ll put the effort in to find you evidence.
Otherwise why the fuck should I bother, when you’ve just shown you’re going to ignore whatever evidence I show you and double down on lying about me?
You are talking around and around the one sentence of yours that I highlighted. That one sentence is an extraordinary claim and not one of the words in all this verbiage has remotely addressed this claim. You can accuse me of whatever you want but until you are ready to address the one sentence I commented on without casting around ar every adjacent issue, I am happy to ignore all this huffing and puffing.
You shouldn’t. You should stop posting. You make the board worse by your presence and aren’t wanted.
Should’ve remembered the advice:
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Advice for you would be:
Don’t try to fuck a pig in public and then deny knowing the pig. And saying “anyway, it was ugly, and a bad fuck.”
I would say that dictating that a private housing developer must provide affordable housing is certainly a form of command economy. It may justified when the alternative is people being homeless, but it absolutely is far more govt intervention than simple regulations that tell a company that it can’t make its houses out of napalm.
I tried looking into your claim here, actually, and I’m not sure exactly where you got it. I’m not sure why I took your claim at face value, do you think that you could cite the law that you are talking about?
All I can see is that cities and municipalities need to set aside zoning for development of affordable housing, I see a little bit about subsidies and tax credits that builders can claim if they build affordable housing. I don’t see anything simply demanding that builders provide affordable housing. Could you clarify what you are talking about here?
Atamasama did say what was quoted, and you did respond. I just don’t think that you responded to what was actually said, and rather, responded to what you want to have been said in order for you to be right.
I mean, I’m sure that if you find “evidence” of your claim that:
I will probably put it into the context that that was not their whole argument, and continue to call you out on your lies.
…is what every person who tries to “debate” you ends up asking themselves.
I was talking about the law in the UK, or maybe just England. It was you (I think) who said it was also the case in the US. I can try and find a reference for the UK if you want.
I responded to what I understood him to be saying, ie the plain meaning of the sentence I quoted. And I understood you to be denying that he ever said it, which is not a good faith thing to do. And since you never responded to my quote showing that he did in fact say it, I assumed that you realised you were wrong and just wouldn’t admit it.
So, I don’t know. In order to have a debate there has to be a certain amount of assumption of good faith on both sides. In light of this post I guess I’m willing to extend that to you, but only if you will agree to extend it to me.
That distinction still doesn’t make a lot of sense, because third-party sellers are still using Amazon as their marketplace to sell their items. If Amazon decides not to be involved with the sale of a particular item, then it has to refuse to sell it or market it for any of its suppliers/sellers.
That’s not restricting what another company may do in choosing or selling its inventory. It’s simply restricting what Amazon is willing to do for them.
The third-party seller can sell it on another platform. Amazon isn’t “banning” them from doing anything.
This whole kerfuffle is further illuminating widespread conservative confusion and hypocrisy about issues of censorship.
For example, the annual promotion of “Banned Books Week” by an international coalition of organizations highlights not only government censorship worldwide but also challenges or removals of books in school library systems. Conservative organizations have been complaining about this wording for decades because most of the books on the annual top “Banned and Challenged Books List” aren’t actually “banned”.
But when some publishers and retailers make a decision not to continue issuing or selling a book that they consider inappropriate material, conservatives are falling all over themselves to denounce this as a “ban” and/or “censorship”.