If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.
I’m talking about risk. The workers don’t saddle the risk.
And just because you haven’t said it yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
So we can only talk about one thing?
That’s a ridiculous position.
If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.
I said that billionaires produce something many people want.
I didn’t specifically say they work harder.
And part of the rain why they are paid more is because they have a higher risk element than the average worker.
It’s an especially part of the conversation.
I’m not just going to exclude it just to make you right.
It’s part of the reason why they should be rewarded with higher payments, because they took the higher risk.