Elon Musk says he is "kind of pro-China," claims country is on "team humanity" when it...

[waclark]

It is, by defintion, because you did not argue with what I said, but what you said.

I absolutely argued what you said. You said, "because with a lot of money it's always easy to make more." And I proved your dead wrong on that point.

 

[waclark]

Like when you say someone is "in the 'I hate Musk' camp"? And that when that person didn't even present his personal preference or judgement, but directly pointed you (linked) to a piece of factual evidence? Really? Pot calling the kettle black?

My opinion is not based on a single post. You can do the research or not, I don't care. So far you haven't made a valid point in this discussion. At least I'm having a debate with Wiyosaya.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm more of a neutral on Musk. I think he has done some good things and I applaud his desire to explore space, bring alternative fuel vehicles to fruition and find innovative ways to improve mass transit (hyperloop/boring etc). Twitter was a ****-show of censorship and government collusion to supress free speech. Whether Musk can reverse that or fix it remains to be seen.

But hating the man because he's wealthy, well, I can't see the justification for that.

As I see it, Musk is a fraud.

There are other billionaires out there that don't suffer my ire - not, I'm sure, that it makes any difference to them.

 

[waclark]

As I see it, Musk is a fraud.

There are other billionaires out there that don't suffer my ire - not, I'm sure, that it makes any difference to them.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Who would those others be?

 

[FF222]

My opinion is not based on a single post.

Aaaand.. you've committed another logical fallacy, called red herring. Because my point was not what your opinion is based on, or what it is for that matter, but that you complain about others engaging in what you call "name calling" (which in fact is merely someone stating your obvious bias towards Musk's actions), when in fact you've been doing the very same thing, in the very same manner to others.

 

[FF222]

I absolutely argued what you said. You said, "because with a lot of money it's always easy to make more." And I proved your dead wrong on that point.

No. For one you not only did not, but could not have even just possibly proven me wrong just by stating the opposite of what you think I said. You just made an opposing claim (to your own false interpretation of what I said), which however is not a proof of the opposite. It's just a claim of the opposite.

Also, what you argued was - as a supposed opposition to what I said was - that "Just having a lot of money doesn't guarantee that you can keep it or make more" which is not the opposite of "because with a lot of money it's always easy to make more" - which was that I actually said.

You really need to consult the dictionary, or even just 3rd grade English to learn what's the difference between something being "easy" and something being "guaranteed".

So, what you proved is not only that you argued with your own straw man, but that you don't even know the meaning of basic English words. And that instead of posting actual arguments all you can do is commit new and new logical fallacies repeatedly.

Congralutations on that. You saved me a lot of effort.

 

[waclark]

No. For one you not only did not, but could not have even just possibly proven me wrong just by stating the opposite of what you think I said. You just made an opposing claim (to your own false interpretation of what I said), which however is not a proof of the opposite. It's just a claim of the opposite.

Also, what you argued was - as a supposed opposition to what I said was - that "Just having a lot of money doesn't guarantee that you can keep it or make more" which is not the opposite of "because with a lot of money it's always easy to make more" - which was that I actually said.

You really need to consult the dictionary, or even just 3rd grade English to learn what's the difference between something being "easy" and something being "guaranteed".

So, what you proved is not only that you argued with your own straw man, but that you don't even know the meaning of basic English words. And that instead of posting actual arguments all you can do is commit new and new logical fallacies repeatedly.

Congralutations on that. You saved me a lot of effort.

I proved your wrong. Period. Just because you have money it is not easy to make more. If it were "easy" as you say, then every lottery winner would have billions. But, they don't now, do they? Keep insulting me, it makes you look so smart.

 

[FF222]

I proved your wrong.

No. You only proved yourself wrong (and that you don't understand basic English). Period. Congratulations on that, again!

 

[neeyik]

@FF222 @waclark -- take it to private messages, please.