Yes, in the original post I made the distinction of social interactions, then someone brought up the need for compensation in this case, of which I stated briefly that it would be getting compensation from the wrong people as wealth can't be passed down, for 200 years (I should mention that this was an estimate, you are taking it too literally). At which point you didn't challenge the social aspect of my post, you decided to go after the economic aspects. Which has more to do with law, than philosophy, so you can't use philosophical criteria to debate for something philosophy has no control over. It's like trying to use a pickaxe to pick apples, it doesn't work philosophical debate structures aren't meant for economic problems.You'll note that the person who talked about compensation isn't me.
Ok come on dude, you've got to be kidding me, certain words have certain weights, connotations, double meanings, jests, and gestures. I mean "Why not?" Has a challenging and disagreeable tone to it, especially when applying it to the context of an argument. Plus, you confirm this by showing disagreement in later stages of our argument, so show evidence. So you made a claim, a political statement of disagreement with that gesture or phrase.It also means exactly what those words mean.
I'm going to approach this in two ways:
Data, statistics, experiments, they don't mean anything without interpretation. Statistics are essentially trial and error.
For example - If I survey 10 people and they all tell me their favorite color is red, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that all people like red until I come across that one person that likes green or blue. In that same way, I looked at three people with slave owning ancestry, and reasonably concluded: " These people had rich slave owning ancestry, but despite that, they still lived a middle-class life, with no portion of that money to speak of." (They were also shocked that their ancestors had owned slaves, to get an inheritance, I'm pretty sure you need to know where it comes from.) 3 out of 3 don't have slave money, that's 100 %. Therefore as far as my statistics go 100% of the people surveyed didn't receive slave money inheritance, the point was proven. You need to provide a 4th person that did, just one, and I'll concede the point. (Provided it's solid, of course)
Don't you think you are misconstruing the argument just a little bit? Context matters here I said that in the case of slavery, that wealth can't be passed down. And even then, I'm pretty sure that unless you are the royal family or the (Illuminati) Rothchilds (I'm kidding), then you are not getting a 200 hundred-year-old check
That makes show more difficult and expensive to produce and impacts team morale. Will their romance eventually make the show fall apart of just the opposite, makes the show more interesting?
I admit to ad hominem attacks, but not logical fallacies. If I didn't respond to it, then I likely didn't look at it.SilverishGoldNova said:@Coveny Wait, are you admitting to using fallacies? Atleast you're honest this time. By the way I almost forgot about your "rebuttal" to my argument. Did you even look at the article I sent you?