i'm actually surprised you consider that logical. I would have that beneath even you. You're the worst, now you're even defending your illogical conclusion with illogical reasoning. you're saying that anytime someone presents an argument they have to clarify and present all the fundamental facts surrounding the subject before proceeding, or it is assumed they are not aware of such.
I'm pretty sure that is not what I said Swift. I said if an argument is presented lacking certain critical information that would show that argument to be false, and the argument is being made in earnest, it stands to reason the person is unaware of that information. As I have said a number of times it does not mean it is absolutely true they don't have that information, its not being included or considered could be an error, which is why I have given you numerous opportunities to correct that error and square your characterization of the executive who works more than the average member of the global working class with the material reality of capitalism and the tangible effects on one's relation to labor (labor would be the "hard work" we are discussing) that I have described previously. At every opportunity you refuse to do so and instead personally attack me and accuse me of lying, largely without articulating what I am lying about, but then when you rarely do I patiently and in detail explain why it is not a lie. And then the loop continues as you accuse me of lying again.
Basically you are a pissy pants baby mad about getting owned and that I'm smarter than you and you can't win this argument, and rather than humbly admitting you have a lot to learn (as I do, though not from you) you just make vague accusations of me lying or "twisting your arguments". It is telling that you don't respond to direct statements I have made and do not cite specific instances of me lying when you make these accusations.
No, tacit information is regularly skipped over in conversation and debates, in all walks of lives, on all subjects, over and over.
When certain premises are assumed to be shared, yes, it is natural to gloss that over. However, in this case the premises are not shared and are actually what is in contention (what constitutes "hard work"), and the "tacit information" you are skipping over is information that directly puts the lie to your argument, so this is quite different.
it's silly and embarrassing for you, just stop.
Yeah that was pretty embarrassing when I said I was done with this and then kept replying to you because I was in the middle of a meltdown. Oh wait, that was you, lol.
also, the rest of your post is full of bullshit and lies to
Yikes, how can I argue with that? Stop owning me so hard please.
