undergroundoverground @ undergroundoverground @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

518

Joined

1 yr. ago

I understood them to be talking about cavalry, in that sentence.

Too low wage and the government will top up those being underpaid by their employer, effectively passing on part of the burden of pay to the tax payer.

If wages rise too high, the government will always step in to make sure it doesn't continue.

Its highly externally regulated and ultra manipulated by the people who buy labour and own for their money. Sadly, some people still beleive in the "invisible hand" blessed be its name story.

Gotcha, you're only used to arguing with people dumb enough to fall for your cheap tricks and poor, invalid arguments. If that's all I had, I'd run away too.

You also!

Its only a special military operation. Why would they need to escalate?

I'm not asking to buy your trust though. Even then, I don't have to trust you. I only have to trust the effect money will have on you.

In terms of its effect in the real world, what would the difference be between you doing that and you genuinely convincing you it was true? To me, the importance of money and the real world effect it had on your choice to do the above dwarfs anything else. I mean, I'd do it too obviously. We all know people don't really love their jobs and they're just lying but who cares? They all turn up to work and bust their arse just the same. Money was important enough for you to publicly deny your own mind.

I'm not saying you have to replace trust.

How much money would it take to change your mind? I'm sure we could find a number.

Oh, sorry, I WAS TALKING ABOUT MONEY.

Not to someone who's determined to deny it, no matter the cost, and engage in any manner of fallacious, underhanded, side stepping nonsense they believe will further their cause.

Unfortunately, it would take some intellectual integrity from you and you've shown yourself to be utterly devoid of any, over and over again.

I mean, you can't even prove the assertion you originally made. Instead you claim I have to prove you wrong, burden of proof fallacy, even after your argument of "you can't prove a negative" falls to pieces.

So, you can't prove trump isn't a racist, despite claiming the media is lying about him being racist? In fact, even worse, you won't even attempt to demonstrate the claim you made to be true.

Here's one, from what does money derive its value?

I mean, its the most important thing in our society. You'd think that they would make sure it was really hammered home.

Now, you'll be told that it has value simply because we believe it does which isn't untrue. Theyll say, you know, it's like gold that doesn't actually hold any value. We just believe it really hard.

The problem is, we value that gold is shiny, imperishable and we can make pretty things out of it. We didn't have a big meeting and just randomly decide that gold would be valuable.

Another problem is that money is an iou. Except its, apparently, an iou that isn't own to anyone and doesn't have to be repaid, making it fall short of the criteria for it being an iou.

Tbf our economists dont really need to think about that, as, due to how money is created and destroyed, the position nets off due to the debt being repaid, despite the above. Theres no need to consider the non hypothetical part.

What if the underlying asset was human labour? You know, like how cotton, sugar and steel used to be used as currency in Virginia, the west indies and Sheffield respectfully. Its just that we live in human labour farm and you're living capital. To me, considering modern monetary policy, its the only thing that makes sense.

Again, nice try but 'you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.

I'll add that one to your long list of invalid arguments shall I?

I'll take that as a "no, I've suddenly decided I no longer like the rules I failed to impose on you." I've only ever seen cult members use as many fallacious arguments as you do. You didn't even attempt to argue that trump wasn't a racists despite claiming it to be thus and such, without a shred of evidence. Youre happy to believe it despite your own false claim that you can prove a negative.

Sorry but youre going to have to do a lot better than invalid arguments and sealioning. I can't even blame you for it, as it must work on people.

Well of course, if anywhere wed be sending them to Rwanda right guys? You like sending people you don't like there isn't it?

I love how you keep doubling down on the presumptive arrogance.

As strange as it may sound to you, I actually don't need to prove what I know myself to have seen, to your personal satisfaction, in order to maintain that belief. Its just bizzare that you think that plus the inevitable burden of proof fallacy you plan on using is going to work here. I mean, you've worked your way through a good list of invalid arguments, in an attempt to make me refute the evidence of my eyes and ears. I don't know what to say to you really.

This is the internet, not a criminal court of law where I'm the state and you're the defendant. If anything, its on you to disprove the commonly accepted consensus. As if you think you can assign homework to people you disagree with.

You made the claim that the media is wrong about trump being a racist. I said but he is.

You own logic puts the burden on you. Let me guess, you don't like your own rules anymore?

Good, make Britain unsafe for facsists again

I'll take that as a "yes, I did expect you to justify your feelings to my personal satisfaction."

He is racist. In fact, his first election campaign was just racism and a magical wall that paid for itself. He acts exactly like a modern "strongman" facsist leader and his policies and attempts to overthrow and circumvent American democracy, such as it is, speaks for themselves. I don't think he's as bad as hitler. At least we can agree on that. Although, I haven't seen any news reports try to make him out to be as bad as hitler.

Wow, for someone not on either side, you sure went to that one real fast.

Let me get this straight, you think I have to justify what I think of someone to your satisfaction before deciding if my reasons for me choosing them are good enough for me?

Is that how you see this going?

I don't disagree that they lie. I disagree that they can make trump out to be worse than he is.

No, sorry, you're here being as culty as anyone else.

I see, so you take issue with him being lied about but you don't care that he lied about them researching injecting people with disinfectant?

Tell me more about how im in a cult and you're not....

Thats wild, thanks!

Tbh, I remember people saying disinfectant at the time.

"A tiny, near insignificant detail seems to have been over exaggerated. Therefore the media always lies about trump."

Yeah, good luck with that.