Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[TheDemonLord]

To Graystone - Further to the Incel discussion:



So this was from a Podcast today, predating anything you or I have said - but I want to focus on Joe's Sentiment:

"They have to become Men"

And I think Joe is talking about the traditionally Masculine virtues as to what constitutes Men, He's talking about competence and confidence, and how Women find that attractive.

I think it's interesting that we both have reached the same conclusion, based on our separate perspectives on things.

[Graystone]

What's the one exception to the Argument from Authority?

When the person being cited is a recognized Authority on the subject. A PHD in that field would qualify someone to be regarded as an authority. 15 years as the Governor of the RBNZ further qualifies him as an Authority.

So no, it's the exact definition of the EXCEPTION to the fallacy. Like I've told you on numerous occasions and you still have yet to use it correctly.



Again - when you demonstrate you actually understand basic Economics (and logical fallacies for that matter) I will take you up on that.



Lol, So it's the next field over then...

When you are asking a question about an individual, then you complain it's a small sample size....



Did you miss the part about Social Stigma?



Except - it was only ever you that brought one gender up AS A REWARD...



Do any of your theories have proven Causality attached?

They don't?

Oh Dear...

The point being is that neither of us have the relevant data to prove absolute Causality - and so on that basis we are both arguing from a position what is more highly correlated.

There is no exception to it. That's kind of the point, the whole idea is that nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.

Basic economics like understanding what capital income is? I'll give you a hint, it is income generated by capital assets.

I mean the sample size of people who didn't get that stuff done, there could be a myriad of other reasons and confounding factors. Hell, some of them could have been insufferable cunts; you're not even at correlation stage and still claiming causation!

There's plenty of social stigma about being a hate filled piece of shit too... They choice their rules/games/etc, just as they choose to be incels. You were right in one part though, social stigma does prevent some choices, so lets social stigma the fuck out of these incel pieces of shit so the world is a nicer place

"Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion." That'd be you bringing up one gender as a reward. If there is no expectation of the reward then your entire argument following that falls flat, what right do incels have to be angry about not getting a companion if they did not expect it as a reward for their actions?

I never tried to provided a burden of proof for mine. That's the key, please stop overstating your drivel as anything more than an opinion; it doesn't fly.

[TheDemonLord]

There is no exception to it. That's kind of the point, the whole idea is that nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.

There is an exception to it, which is if the Authority being cited is regarded by their peers as being an authority on the subject.

From Wikipedia:

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.

Don Brash is objectively an expert on the NZ Economy because of his years as the Governor of the RBNZ.

For the 99th time, learn how to use the fallacy properly.

Basic economics like understanding what capital income is? I'll give you a hint, it is income generated by capital assets.

Except your link never said "Capital income", did it? That's what you deliberately misinterpreted it as (to form a false a priori position, in order to bolster your argument that capital gains is a form of income therefore should be taxed as income). So, I'll give you a hint - ah fuck it, I've already given you multiple ones and you still can't get it right...

I mean the sample size of people who didn't get that stuff done, there could be a myriad of other reasons and confounding factors. Hell, some of them could have been insufferable cunts; you're not even at correlation stage and still claiming causation!

Have you caught those straws yet? On one of the projects I think there were something like 15 people or so before me who tried to get it completed. Some of them are still at the company - and do you know what they said? They said they tried to do it, but gave up, not because of the technical challenges, but because of other challenges - the ones where being an Insufferable Cunt directly helped me deal with.

There's plenty of social stigma about being a hate filled piece of shit too... They choice their rules/games/etc, just as they choose to be incels. You were right in one part though, social stigma does prevent some choices, so lets social stigma the fuck out of these incel pieces of shit so the world is a nicer place

Your theory has one teeny tiny flaw - It assumes people want to be accepted by Society, you see - when you push a certain type of person (who is typically young and male) sometimes, they decide rather than be crushed by something, they'd rather be the one doing the destroying.

Then they find ways and means to inflict on society all the misery and suffering they feel that Society has inflicted on them. In America, we refer to them as "School Shooters" - Is that what you want? Because it's what you'll get.

I counter they didn't choose (initially) the rules of the game - This is where I think Joe Rogan is dead on the money - quite simply, they've never been taught how to be a Man. They were given an ideal of Masculinity that was fundamentally flawed.

"Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion."

That'd be you bringing up one gender as a reward. If there is no expectation of the reward then your entire argument following that falls flat, what right do incels have to be angry about not getting a companion if they did not expect it as a reward for their actions?

Please point, in that excerpt from me where I mentioned Reward.

Oh I didn't?

Hmmmm, that's a bit of a problem for your strawman isn't it...

Read it again, properly this time, see if you can work out what is actually being said, instead of the Strawman you are feverishly constructing.

I'll give you a hint (cause you clearly need them) - I added the clarification that the goal is to be a desirable companion. That idea, combined with the first shows there is still an element of chance and risk and that nothing is guaranteed.

Of course - in your haste to paint me in your preferred colours, you ignored that, despite even quoting it.

I never tried to provided a burden of proof for mine. That's the key, please stop overstating your drivel as anything more than an opinion; it doesn't fly.

It's opinion, backed with a timeline that matches the phenomena and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

I've accepted that it's not proving Causality to the degree as required by a scientific paper - but it's got more substance than your "they are just angry men" rhetoric.

[Graystone]

There is an exception to it, which is if the Authority being cited is regarded by their peers as being an authority on the subject.

From Wikipedia:



Don Brash is objectively an expert on the NZ Economy because of his years as the Governor of the RBNZ.

For the 99th time, learn how to use the fallacy properly.



Except your link never said "Capital income", did it? That's what you deliberately misinterpreted it as (to form a false a priori position, in order to bolster your argument that capital gains is a form of income therefore should be taxed as income). So, I'll give you a hint - ah fuck it, I've already given you multiple ones and you still can't get it right...



Have you caught those straws yet? On one of the projects I think there were something like 15 people or so before me who tried to get it completed. Some of them are still at the company - and do you know what they said? They said they tried to do it, but gave up, not because of the technical challenges, but because of other challenges - the ones where being an Insufferable Cunt directly helped me deal with.



Your theory has one teeny tiny flaw - It assumes people want to be accepted by Society, you see - when you push a certain type of person (who is typically young and male) sometimes, they decide rather than be crushed by something, they'd rather be the one doing the destroying.

Then they find ways and means to inflict on society all the misery and suffering they feel that Society has inflicted on them. In America, we refer to them as "School Shooters" - Is that what you want? Because it's what you'll get.

I counter they didn't choose (initially) the rules of the game - This is where I think Joe Rogan is dead on the money - quite simply, they've never been taught how to be a Man. They were given an ideal of Masculinity that was fundamentally flawed.



Please point, in that excerpt from me where I mentioned Reward.

Oh I didn't?

Hmmmm, that's a bit of a problem for your strawman isn't it...

Read it again, properly this time, see if you can work out what is actually being said, instead of the Strawman you are feverishly constructing.

I'll give you a hint (cause you clearly need them) - I added the clarification that the goal is to be a desirable companion. That idea, combined with the first shows there is still an element of chance and risk and that nothing is guaranteed.

Of course - in your haste to paint me in your preferred colours, you ignored that, despite even quoting it.



It's opinion, backed with a timeline that matches the phenomena and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

I've accepted that it's not proving Causality to the degree as required by a scientific paper - but it's got more substance than your "they are just angry men" rhetoric.

I do not agree to that exception. In addition to that, all parties clearly do not agree on the authority; especially since you neglected to mention who the 'authority' was

Which link? This one http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...on/income.html where capital is shown as a form of income? To what else would capital income refer to? Capital (interest or profit) is listed as a type of income right there, in that link.

Still seems like a sample size of fuck all, with no strong correlation to being an insufferable cunt shown. Not to mention we're still at the lowered bar end, exactly what have those things done for society again?

But they do choose it, you mention before they had to choose it because of social stigma, are you going back on that?

Strongly inferred I would say So, given you just explained the rules of the game show an element of chance/risk, how can the game possibly frustrate its 'players' if they do not find a companion? Those elements mean the game works and is not corrupt at all. You're trying to have it both ways again, sorry mate, this double standard logic you keep presenting doesn't fly either.

Does it? The difference is I know it is subjective and your bias shall prevent you from accepting my subjective arguments. The important bit, is I don't overstate that and push some correlation forward as a burden of proof, that's just remarkably irrational. I expect now that's it coming to the bit where you're running out of wiggle room and have to face your irrationality to continue the discussion; toys will be thrown...

[TheDemonLord]

I do not agree to that exception.

I never asked you to, I simply stated it's existence and provided evidence - You may as well be disagreeing that the earth is a Sphere...

In addition to that, all parties clearly do not agree on the authority; especially since you neglected to mention who the 'authority' was

I've mentioned Don Brash on multiple occassions. And in this case, his PHD, Work experience and most importantly his role as the Governor of the RBNZ OBJECTIVELY make him an expert - your agreement is not required.

Which link? This one http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...on/income.html where capital is shown as a form of income? To what else would capital income refer to? Capital (interest or profit) is listed as a type of income right there, in that link.

Nope. Stop being dishonest.

Still seems like a sample size of fuck all, with no strong correlation to being an insufferable cunt shown. Not to mention we're still at the lowered bar end, exactly what have those things done for society again?

Your desperation is telling, keep reaching for the straws...

At least one of them has prevented a sizeable portion of New Zealanders (about several thousand) from falling victim to Credit Card fraud. On top of that, I've got a dollar value that society has placed upon my work - which means at some level, Society deems it a worthy endevour to spend money on.

But they do choose it, you mention before they had to choose it because of social stigma, are you going back on that?

It's a complex issue and you are conflating different stages of socialization, development and mental states. Not everyone starts by hating society and wanting to destroy it - with a few exceptions everyone wants to be accepted by Society to a degree. This is the first stage, It's here were the ideals and values of society are taught to the younger generation and it is here that they do not have the mental reasoning, the fortitude and the will to really rebel against it. As one gets older and more mature and more "rebellious", then they have the means to make a conscious choice - to accept Society or to reject it.

Strongly inferred I would say

Of course you would - it's the basis for your strawman - but I'm glad you've conceded I never said it.

So, given you just explained the rules of the game show an element of chance/risk, how can the game possibly frustrate its 'players' if they do not find a companion? Those elements mean the game works and is not corrupt at all. You're trying to have it both ways again, sorry mate, this double standard logic you keep presenting doesn't fly either.

Again, re-read what I've written. If the game is fair, people can loose fairly and not get resentful. If the rules of the game are such that it actively causes you to loose the game, then the game is corrupt. And THAT is what is causing the resentment.

They've been given an ideal of Masculinity that women do not find attractive. That is rigging the game. Give them an ideal of traditional Masculinity (which currently is referred to as "Toxic Masculinity" - that should be a hint to the problem) and watch them play a fair game, sure some will fail - but they will fail because they are not living up to the ideal presented, as opposed to failing because they are living up to the ideal presented.

That is the difference.

Does it? The difference is I know it is subjective and your bias shall prevent you from accepting my subjective arguments. The important bit, is I don't overstate that and push some correlation forward as a burden of proof, that's just remarkably irrational. I expect now that's it coming to the bit where you're running out of wiggle room and have to face your irrationality to continue the discussion; toys will be thrown...

Not at all, there's no irrationality, except on the part of the person who continues to read things I never wrote - that's truly irrational....

[oldrider]

Per thread title:- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program saw it on YouTube so posted it here on this thread?

[husaberg]

Per thread title:- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program saw it on YouTube so posted it here on this thread?

You do realise that the north pole is not the south pole or Antarctica......

[george formby]

Not had a look in here for a bit but contrails seem to be off the agenda.

My current conspiracy thing.

The chemical attack on Douma in Syria, the subsequent air strikes. Chemical weapons investigation, samples from victims etc.

The media has been exceedingly quite on this one.

The attack

The response

A journalist on the ground

If any inquisitive KB'ers can update me on the investigation results I would be appreciative.

[Graystone]

I never asked you to, I simply stated it's existence and provided evidence - You may as well be disagreeing that the earth is a Sphere...



I've mentioned Don Brash on multiple occassions. And in this case, his PHD, Work experience and most importantly his role as the Governor of the RBNZ OBJECTIVELY make him an expert - your agreement is not required.



Nope. Stop being dishonest.



Your desperation is telling, keep reaching for the straws...

At least one of them has prevented a sizeable portion of New Zealanders (about several thousand) from falling victim to Credit Card fraud. On top of that, I've got a dollar value that society has placed upon my work - which means at some level, Society deems it a worthy endevour to spend money on.



It's a complex issue and you are conflating different stages of socialization, development and mental states. Not everyone starts by hating society and wanting to destroy it - with a few exceptions everyone wants to be accepted by Society to a degree. This is the first stage, It's here were the ideals and values of society are taught to the younger generation and it is here that they do not have the mental reasoning, the fortitude and the will to really rebel against it. As one gets older and more mature and more "rebellious", then they have the means to make a conscious choice - to accept Society or to reject it.



Of course you would - it's the basis for your strawman - but I'm glad you've conceded I never said it.



Again, re-read what I've written. If the game is fair, people can loose fairly and not get resentful. If the rules of the game are such that it actively causes you to loose the game, then the game is corrupt. And THAT is what is causing the resentment.

They've been given an ideal of Masculinity that women do not find attractive. That is rigging the game. Give them an ideal of traditional Masculinity (which currently is referred to as "Toxic Masculinity" - that should be a hint to the problem) and watch them play a fair game, sure some will fail - but they will fail because they are not living up to the ideal presented, as opposed to failing because they are living up to the ideal presented.

That is the difference.



Not at all, there's no irrationality, except on the part of the person who continues to read things I never wrote - that's truly irrational....

The evidence is insufficient (one line on a wikipedia page), and very poorly interpreted if you think my agreement with what constitutes an expert is not required (am I somehow not one of 'all parties'?). Also not just two lines down "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." When your own source disagrees with your interpretation of it, perhaps find the correct one?

Dishonest about what? you are free to correct me, but I feel my honesty prevents you from doing so...

There are far bigger fish to fry with credit card fraud than a few thousand, and certainly been done so often as to be statistically sure that they were not all insufferable cunts that did it. Likewise the salary, unless you're well into the 6 figures it is nothing of note.

Sounds like the issue is just 'complex' enough in just the right ways to fit your narrative while discounting mine. Bottom line is they have choices on which rules to follow, by becoming incels they go against the majority of societal pressures, far more so than by not conforming to your idea of masculinity.

To neither say nor infer it is to render your argument invalid, as unless you do those things, they have no right to be frustrated by 'losing the game' as you put it.

They are given both ideals, and women find both attractive, they are free to choose which they use. Your subjective notion than one is rigged and the other corrupt is just that, a subjective notion.

You described a burden of proof but forgot about causality, which most certainly is irrational.

[husaberg]

Not had a look in here for a bit but contrails seem to be off the agenda.

My current conspiracy thing.

The chemical attack on Douma in Syria, the subsequent air strikes. Chemical weapons investigation, samples from victims etc.

The media has been exceedingly quite on this one.

The attack

The response

A journalist on the ground

If any inquisitive KB'ers can update me on the investigation results I would be appreciative.

Despite their assurences they would the Russians and the Syrians repeatedly refused opcw access to the sites of the attacks.
they were delayed until 22 April.
W are now still waiting for results of the chemical samples.
But they did release that Chlorine (Vessles)was again used in FEB.
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/op...saraqib-syria/
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/op...n-douma-syria/
The dotor who gave Fisk the interview never by his own admission never saw any of the victims
Fisk also has a history of writing stories that are not in any way true........

[oldrider]

Not had a look in here for a bit but contrails seem to be off the agenda.

My current conspiracy thing.

The chemical attack on Douma in Syria, the subsequent air strikes. Chemical weapons investigation, samples from victims etc.

The media has been exceedingly quite on this one.

The attack

The response

A journalist on the ground

If any inquisitive KB'ers can update me on the investigation results I would be appreciative.

Best wait for someone who understands the real story to advise you. If you know what I mean?

[TheDemonLord]

The evidence is insufficient (one line on a wikipedia page),

This is neither the first time I've pulled you up on incorrect usage of this Fallacy, nor is that the same link. The fact you don't seem to be able to learn after repeated attempts is rather telling...

and very poorly interpreted if you think my agreement with what constitutes an expert is not required (am I somehow not one of 'all parties'?).

Oh no, I completely expected you to piss and whine that you didn't agree, hence why I stated that objectively he's an expert in Economics in general and the NZ Banking system in particular. Of course - to maintain your narrative requires you to disregard reality.

Also not just two lines down "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." When your own source disagrees with your interpretation of it, perhaps find the correct one?

Science =/= Economics.

Dishonest about what? you are free to correct me, but I feel my honesty prevents you from doing so...

See above for evidence of your dishonesty, but if it makes you happy, the link you posted was the second link you produced, after I ridiculed you on the point we are actually discussing.

There are far bigger fish to fry with credit card fraud than a few thousand,

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

and certainly been done so often as to be statistically sure that they were not all insufferable cunts that did it. Likewise the salary, unless you're well into the 6 figures it is nothing of note.

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

Sounds like the issue is just 'complex' enough in just the right ways to fit your narrative while discounting mine. Bottom line is they have choices on which rules to follow, by becoming incels they go against the majority of societal pressures, far more so than by not conforming to your idea of masculinity.

Not at all, there's a myriad of factors - and I even stated at the beginning that I'm not 100% sure - however, with the advent of things like Netflix, some rather interesting things can be done - you can directly compare Cartoon/Childrens TV of 20-30 years ago with Cartoon/Childrens TV of today - now, I'm not saying TV is the be-all and end-all of culture, but as one datapoint that is a product of its time, a comparison can be made. Then you can look at academic discourse (which often predates changes in culture) - I believe Toxic Masculinity as an Idea first saw the light of day in the mid-nineties - give such an idea about 20 years to gestate (which is the time it takes to first be propagated in Academia, then to be propagated to a generation) and we are getting eerily close to the current day - it could be coincidence, but again - it aligns with a shift that has been observable within our culture.

I'm putting forward that the current crop of young men who regard themselves as Incels are products of that Cultural Shift - when they were young, they weren't presented with a traditionally manly archetype (such as Biggles or Tintin or G.I. Joe or similar), but with something different - something less domineering, less violent, less assertive, less powerful and less decisive. They've grown up and got to a point where they enter the Dating market - and Women don't find their lack of masculine qualities attractive. At this point (ie sexual maturity) in men, is accompanied by several Peaks - rebelliousness, creativity, aggression - and this is when they decide to reject and destroy that which tried to reject and destroy them.

To neither say nor infer it is to render your argument invalid, as unless you do those things, they have no right to be frustrated by 'losing the game' as you put it.

Only if you accept your irrational presuppositions, which I don't.

I'll try again: In a fair game, if you don't win - it's because either someone else was better on the day, or you didn't play the game properly.

In a rigged game, playing by the rules automatically results in you loosing the game. That's the difference and that's where true resentment lies. The harder you try to play by the rules (as you know them) the quicker you loose.

They are given both ideals, and women find both attractive, they are free to choose which they use. Your subjective notion than one is rigged and the other corrupt is just that, a subjective notion.

Actually (on average), no, Women don't find both attractive - and that is the lie. Thanks for proving my entire point - that you believe it to be so is proof that my theorizing and chain of logic is correct.

There's been both serious research on this (the Housework vs Manly work study) and even more convincingly - what was the fastest selling Paperback in the UK of all time? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't about a meek, submissive indecisive Man.... There's also the Bad-boy Trope, in fact - a large number of Female-centric fantasies are explicitly about sleeping with Powerful Men (Fucking the Boss, Gangbangs, often with Gang members, Men in Uniform, Pirates, 'Daddy' fetishes, Rape fetishes etc. etc.).

You described a burden of proof but forgot about causality, which most certainly is irrational.

Nope, I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't have the research to prove a Causal link (in the scientific sense) but I believe the evidence I do have is sufficient for a strong, inductive argument that is more fully formed and accurate when compared to any competing theory.

[oldrider]

You do realise that the north pole is not the south pole or Antarctica......

No kidding Einstein - It may help for you to know that Admiral Byrd was involved with both areas - the common denominator was Byrd.

[husaberg]

No kidding Einstein - It may help for you to know that Admiral Byrd was involved with both areas - the common denominator was Byrd.

Your video was about the North pole its even in the title. Yet your post is not. Is the video anything to do with the south pole or not?

- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program

Einstein so was he pat of your jewish conspiracy as well?

[Graystone]

This is neither the first time I've pulled you up on incorrect usage of this Fallacy, nor is that the same link. The fact you don't seem to be able to learn after repeated attempts is rather telling...



Oh no, I completely expected you to piss and whine that you didn't agree, hence why I stated that objectively he's an expert in Economics in general and the NZ Banking system in particular. Of course - to maintain your narrative requires you to disregard reality.



Science =/= Economics.



See above for evidence of your dishonesty, but if it makes you happy, the link you posted was the second link you produced, after I ridiculed you on the point we are actually discussing.



Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.



Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.



Not at all, there's a myriad of factors - and I even stated at the beginning that I'm not 100% sure - however, with the advent of things like Netflix, some rather interesting things can be done - you can directly compare Cartoon/Childrens TV of 20-30 years ago with Cartoon/Childrens TV of today - now, I'm not saying TV is the be-all and end-all of culture, but as one datapoint that is a product of its time, a comparison can be made. Then you can look at academic discourse (which often predates changes in culture) - I believe Toxic Masculinity as an Idea first saw the light of day in the mid-nineties - give such an idea about 20 years to gestate (which is the time it takes to first be propagated in Academia, then to be propagated to a generation) and we are getting eerily close to the current day - it could be coincidence, but again - it aligns with a shift that has been observable within our culture.

I'm putting forward that the current crop of young men who regard themselves as Incels are products of that Cultural Shift - when they were young, they weren't presented with a traditionally manly archetype (such as Biggles or Tintin or G.I. Joe or similar), but with something different - something less domineering, less violent, less assertive, less powerful and less decisive. They've grown up and got to a point where they enter the Dating market - and Women don't find their lack of masculine qualities attractive. At this point (ie sexual maturity) in men, is accompanied by several Peaks - rebelliousness, creativity, aggression - and this is when they decide to reject and destroy that which tried to reject and destroy them.



Only if you accept your irrational presuppositions, which I don't.

I'll try again: In a fair game, if you don't win - it's because either someone else was better on the day, or you didn't play the game properly.

In a rigged game, playing by the rules automatically results in you loosing the game. That's the difference and that's where true resentment lies. The harder you try to play by the rules (as you know them) the quicker you loose.



Actually (on average), no, Women don't find both attractive - and that is the lie. Thanks for proving my entire point - that you believe it to be so is proof that my theorizing and chain of logic is correct.

There's been both serious research on this (the Housework vs Manly work study) and even more convincingly - what was the fastest selling Paperback in the UK of all time? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't about a meek, submissive indecisive Man.... There's also the Bad-boy Trope, in fact - a large number of Female-centric fantasies are explicitly about sleeping with Powerful Men (Fucking the Boss, Gangbangs, often with Gang members, Men in Uniform, Pirates, 'Daddy' fetishes, Rape fetishes etc. etc.).



Nope, I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't have the research to prove a Causal link (in the scientific sense) but I believe the evidence I do have is sufficient for a strong, inductive argument that is more fully formed and accurate when compared to any competing theory.

The others were just as poorly interpreted, you seem to be confusing the 'argument from authority' with the 'argument from false authority' falacy. In eithe case, your locig is flawed as I am one of the parties, which does not agree "on the reliability of an authority in the given context". Furthermore, there is no caveats for economics in that article, so as your interpretation does not work in all fields, it is illogical.

It is possible to post supplementary links on a topic. If you would like to address either of them, I am happy to do so... After all, since one of us has a basic understanding of economics, it should be a simple matter to find out which

Look back to the original post and my assertion in it, it was simply that being an insufferable cunt is not a virtue worth having as they cannot do anything special which cannot be done in a more harmonious fashion. You've now shifted the goalposts so that getting paid somehow satisfies that? And you seek to call me out on goalpost shifting sargon's law indeed.

See I don't buy into the alpha male is the only attractive male thing, to use your words, it's an irrational presupposition. And you just used gangbang fantasies as support of that? What the fuck is wrong with you?

And yet, a strong inductive argument does not form a burden of proof. Supplying it as such remains irrational.