Cant imagine making 30 k a year and having to pay even 1600 in taxes. This is saying it will increase that much.

    • @Rhoeri
      1•2 days ago

      “Animals resort to violence”

      “Whatabout allies soldiers?”

      Yes it is.

      • @AlexanderTheDead
        0•2 days ago

        Here, I know it’s confusing if you haven’t read about what the “whatabout” logical fallacy means, so I’ll post it for you here.

        “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”

        Unfortunately, you are objectively wrong about this. Feel free to try and change the meaning, if you want, but currently that is not what a “whatabout” is. In this case, calling it a “whatabout” is being used to deflect from facts that you cannot reckon with because they challenge your beliefs.

        I hope you’re able to take this information in and accept it. Good luck. Pacifism is virtuous.

        • @Rhoeri
          1•2 days ago

          You know, in a way, depending on perspective, you’re right. However the way I see it is-

          Instead of actually arguing against my point, you’re using another completely unrelated point to prove it wrong. Meaning that allied wartime forces were not engaging in acts of violence because they couldn’t solve their disputes. They were doing their job.

          One could argue that the military commanders were guilty of this- and I’d see the logic in that argument, but…

          In my opinion, ALL things can be resolved without violence. Only, the problem with that is, people generally don’t like the option to solve things peacefully because it usually requires either compromise or hard work. And since we’re an all-or-nothing society now, peaceful compromise is just too much effort.

          So yeah. Maybe your right that it’s not what whataboutism, but it’s definitely a false eloquence-

          A false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences. This sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.

          …which in my perspective, is far worse. Because in your example, you’re insulting the men and women who served to protect us by using them to illustrate the idea that they’re incapable of solving their issues without violence.

          I hope you’re able to take this information and accept it. Good luck. Violence is animalistic.

          • @AlexanderTheDead
            0•2 days ago

            You were arguing with a different person, I just don’t like it when pseudo intellectuals try to deflect valid criticism by incorrectly citing logical fallacies.

            Don’t care enough to argue with you about the rights and wrongs of violence. But I do care enough to point out that it’s also not a false equivalence.

            You are very clearly stating that violence ALWAYS wrong. That’s what you said, I think verbatim?

            They are giving you a scenario where they think violence was not wrong.

            You are better off not talking about logical fallacies, it’s making you seem dumber than I am sure you actually are.

            • @Rhoeri
              1•2 days ago

              And you’re better off not accusing others of pseudo intellectualism with a comment history that reads like a cautionary tale on how not to be aggressively obnoxious.

              How do you like them apples?

              • @AlexanderTheDead
                0•23 hours ago

                I mean, you’ve misused two logical fallacies.

                I’m not claiming to be an intellectual, I am also a pseudo intellectual.

                I like being snide. I like being obnoxious. It’s fun to take people down a peg when they think they’re smarter than they are.

                “How do you like them apples?” 😭

                Grow up. You lost the factual argument, and you’re embarassing yourself by perpetuating an emotional argument with a stranger on the internet. Me? I don’t care how losers see me.

                Sometimes, I will double down when I’m wrong, even if I know I’m wrong. It’s pretty fucking pathetic to be honest.

                See, I like being an asshole, and I hate myself for it. There’s nothing you can say that will affect me beyond provoking me into a tirade.

                And now, I’ve already won, but I like having the last laugh. Any time you respond to me from now on, I’m just going to respond “lol”. Your best bet is to realize that we both suck, and if you want to improve, you should simply block me/ignore me and self-reflect.

                Have some self-respect. I don’t, and look at where I am.

                • @Rhoeri
                  1•17 hours ago

                  I mean, No I haven’t.

                  And- lol… what an absolute disaster of a response that was.

                  Thanks for admitting you’re a waste of effort though…. It saves a lot of time.