Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemmaā¦ by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least thatās a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees arenāt trees.
Itās like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
Iām carrying on the conversation because itās hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. Iām dying to see what comes next.
I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didnāt not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.
I said essentially āI see this, I choose thatā
Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.
Thatās not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.
A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say Iām entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You canāt say Iām throttling your ability to choose things. I didnāt ask you anything, I didnāt present you with any options.
Iām myself am not ādying to seeā what comes next. I replied to you because Iām bored and Iām right. Thatās all.
It is funny to me you canāt see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.
The sky isnāt transparent itās translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees arenāt grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They arenāt trees.
yes. Now itās dark blue. The sky isnāt transparent. It isnāt clear. Itās translucent which scatters light and blurs it.
that wasnāt the question. Is Chicago in America? Yes. Are there Chicagoās not in America ? Also yes.
so the answer would be āfalseā they are not trees. They arent technically grass either just closer to grass. The answer remains the same. Palm trees arenāt trees.
do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.
You have exactly 2 options. You have a decision to make. You can keep chatting with me or stop chatting with me. Choose. Option a or option b.
I donāt think there is any reason to think that those are the choices we will actually end up with. Those are just the choices being presented. I believe there are are other choices available that donāt involve me having to trust a band of thieves that have done nothing but show me they canāt be trusted at every opportunity, but they donāt want to present those choices because they would result in them having a lower concentration of wealth and power.
For example, in the USA where I am from, we once had a hybrid capitalist model with a graduated taxation system that essentially limited the maximum individual wealth by taxing all earnings over a certain amount at near 100%, making it functionally impossible to accumulate much more wealth than that. This resulted in wealthy individuals and businesses reinvesting their excess profits in themselves, their people, and their communities because they would not get to keep those profits anyway. That then created one of the most robust economies and largest per-capita middle classes in the planetās history.
This is something that we already know for a fact will work because we have already tested it, and it is but one of probably thousands of possible economic models not being presented to the public.
Reimplementing that system or many of the other ones that donāt involve giving the thieves all the money and trusting them to divvy it up fairly are less likely to go wrong. We then need to make sure they are more resistant to being dismantled than previous systems were, so they donāt get destroyed like those were.
And that worked extremely well exclusively for white men in that great society you mentioned. It leaves out ālessersā living in that society. The ones who struggled to scrape by because their homes were redlined and valueless and they just took down your neighborhood to build another toll road.
The fact is that perfect time was only perfect for those in the chosen class. Boo.
The people that were societally oppressed in the USA during the middle class boom were in their bad situation due to other societal ills, not the taxation structure.
Iām not saying that the entirety of US policy was good then. Clearly there were many societal ills, including widespread gender and racial discrimination in housing and hiring, terrible literacy rates and targeted violence against ethnic minorities in the rural south that persist to this day, and religious bigotry was widely accepted. The economic structure, though, successfully allowed for personal wealth while limiting it, and created an undeniably huge middle class. The fact that many citizens didnāt get to participate in it was due to those other non-economic social problems freezing them out.
Also, mid-20th century USA is a single example of a system that was brought up to illustrate the point that there were more than the false dichotomy of choices presented. Surely there are way more ideas out there than status quo or status quo + UBI.
UBI has no precedent for working, and I, some rando online, have already identified a potentially disastrous problem that undermines it that Iāve never heard any convincing solutions for.
I love gaming out problems and solutions, but it is important not to fall in love with our ideas. Getting upset when holes are poked in them or ignoring these weaknesses arenāt going to prevent our opponents from exploiting them. If a plan has intractable problems, there is no shame in making new plans that may avoid those problems.
Well if my choices are
A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and donāt value me at all
Or
B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and donāt value me at all but I have money for foodā¦
Man thatās a tough choice. Iāll go with B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Really? Because youāre living in that false dilemma and and humans always have lived in that false dilemma.
So itās not all that false
If you only present 2 options then it is a false dilemma.
The sky is blue. True or false?
Is Chicago in America or not?
Are palm trees a tree , yes or no?
You need to revisit the dictionary. Not every a or b choice is a false dilemma.
Dude, you donāt even know the difference between a decision and a question.
And, just for fun.
The sky is transparent
Chicago is in Kwekwe
Palm trees are a grass.
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemmaā¦ by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least thatās a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees arenāt trees.
Itās like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
Iām carrying on the conversation because itās hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. Iām dying to see what comes next.
I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didnāt not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.
I said essentially āI see this, I choose thatā
Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.
Thatās not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.
A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say Iām entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You canāt say Iām throttling your ability to choose things. I didnāt ask you anything, I didnāt present you with any options.
Iām myself am not ādying to seeā what comes next. I replied to you because Iām bored and Iām right. Thatās all.
It is funny to me you canāt see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.
The sky isnāt transparent itās translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees arenāt grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They arenāt trees.
Dictionary. Buy one.
Wait until night. Is the sky blue?
You can be in chicago and not in America.
Apart from their size, palm trees are nothing like trees.
These questions have absolutely no relationship with the topic of false dilemmas.
yes. Now itās dark blue. The sky isnāt transparent. It isnāt clear. Itās translucent which scatters light and blurs it.
that wasnāt the question. Is Chicago in America? Yes. Are there Chicagoās not in America ? Also yes.
so the answer would be āfalseā they are not trees. They arent technically grass either just closer to grass. The answer remains the same. Palm trees arenāt trees.
do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.
You have exactly 2 options. You have a decision to make. You can keep chatting with me or stop chatting with me. Choose. Option a or option b.
I donāt think there is any reason to think that those are the choices we will actually end up with. Those are just the choices being presented. I believe there are are other choices available that donāt involve me having to trust a band of thieves that have done nothing but show me they canāt be trusted at every opportunity, but they donāt want to present those choices because they would result in them having a lower concentration of wealth and power.
For example, in the USA where I am from, we once had a hybrid capitalist model with a graduated taxation system that essentially limited the maximum individual wealth by taxing all earnings over a certain amount at near 100%, making it functionally impossible to accumulate much more wealth than that. This resulted in wealthy individuals and businesses reinvesting their excess profits in themselves, their people, and their communities because they would not get to keep those profits anyway. That then created one of the most robust economies and largest per-capita middle classes in the planetās history.
This is something that we already know for a fact will work because we have already tested it, and it is but one of probably thousands of possible economic models not being presented to the public.
Reimplementing that system or many of the other ones that donāt involve giving the thieves all the money and trusting them to divvy it up fairly are less likely to go wrong. We then need to make sure they are more resistant to being dismantled than previous systems were, so they donāt get destroyed like those were.
And that worked extremely well exclusively for white men in that great society you mentioned. It leaves out ālessersā living in that society. The ones who struggled to scrape by because their homes were redlined and valueless and they just took down your neighborhood to build another toll road.
The fact is that perfect time was only perfect for those in the chosen class. Boo.
I think we can do better than that.
Go read āthe power brokerā good book.
The people that were societally oppressed in the USA during the middle class boom were in their bad situation due to other societal ills, not the taxation structure.
Iām not saying that the entirety of US policy was good then. Clearly there were many societal ills, including widespread gender and racial discrimination in housing and hiring, terrible literacy rates and targeted violence against ethnic minorities in the rural south that persist to this day, and religious bigotry was widely accepted. The economic structure, though, successfully allowed for personal wealth while limiting it, and created an undeniably huge middle class. The fact that many citizens didnāt get to participate in it was due to those other non-economic social problems freezing them out.
Also, mid-20th century USA is a single example of a system that was brought up to illustrate the point that there were more than the false dichotomy of choices presented. Surely there are way more ideas out there than status quo or status quo + UBI.
UBI has no precedent for working, and I, some rando online, have already identified a potentially disastrous problem that undermines it that Iāve never heard any convincing solutions for.
I love gaming out problems and solutions, but it is important not to fall in love with our ideas. Getting upset when holes are poked in them or ignoring these weaknesses arenāt going to prevent our opponents from exploiting them. If a plan has intractable problems, there is no shame in making new plans that may avoid those problems.