☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlcake to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 3 days agoFree Thinkerlemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square73fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkFree Thinkerlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlcake to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square73fedilink
minus-squaredavel [he/him]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·3 days agoName dropping a game theory hypothetical is not an argument.
minus-squarejoenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 days agoYou’re right, it’s not an argument. But it’s a perfectly sufficient reply to a one-word question that doesn’t properly provide an argument of its own.
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoYour original comment only garnered a one word question because you were too vague.
minus-squarejoenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoThe original comment that garnered a one word response wasn’t mine. Thanks though.
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoThere was a vague “argument,” followed by a request for elaboration, followed by another somehow more vague “argument” from yourself.
Name dropping a game theory hypothetical is not an argument.
You’re right, it’s not an argument. But it’s a perfectly sufficient reply to a one-word question that doesn’t properly provide an argument of its own.
Your original comment only garnered a one word question because you were too vague.
The original comment that garnered a one word response wasn’t mine. Thanks though.
There was a vague “argument,” followed by a request for elaboration, followed by another somehow more vague “argument” from yourself.