@[email protected] to World NewsEnglish • 2 months agoFrench artists, DJs and musicians unite to fight threat of far-right governmentwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square23fedilinkarrow-up1343arrow-down19
arrow-up1334arrow-down1external-linkFrench artists, DJs and musicians unite to fight threat of far-right governmentwww.theguardian.com@[email protected] to World NewsEnglish • 2 months agomessage-square23fedilink
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink-1•2 months agoThis ain’t about income… This is about people who own everything. If you work for money to live, you ain’t part of the club.
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•2 months agoYou are making assumptions here, ie that they become that away after they got the money… This a basic logical fallacy
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•2 months agoYour entire thesis here rests on a logical fallacy… How else would you end it?
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•edit-22 months ago Clearly this topic upsets you, and I don’t wish to upset you. You are making shit up lol This not agree or disagree issue. You were passing a trust me bro as some sort of fact and got called on it. Just take the L with dignity, boomer
minus-squaresunzulinkfedilink1•2 months agoYou are assuming that people become corrupted after they obtain wealth instead When there is another example that is just as feasible, ie they obtained wealth because they are corrupt. There is really no way to know which one is true either. So passing one or the other as a maxim is disingenuous. While I do agree with final conclusion, the premise you lead with doesn’t hold to scrutiny.
This ain’t about income… This is about people who own everything.
If you work for money to live, you ain’t part of the club.
Removed by mod
You are making assumptions here, ie that they become that away after they got the money… This a basic logical fallacy
Removed by mod
Your entire thesis here rests on a logical fallacy… How else would you end it?
Removed by mod
You are making shit up lol
This not agree or disagree issue. You were passing a trust me bro as some sort of fact and got called on it. Just take the L with dignity, boomer
Removed by mod
You are assuming that people become corrupted after they obtain wealth instead
When there is another example that is just as feasible, ie they obtained wealth because they are corrupt.
There is really no way to know which one is true either. So passing one or the other as a maxim is disingenuous.
While I do agree with final conclusion, the premise you lead with doesn’t hold to scrutiny.