You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: “Defining Voluntaryism” - No, private property is not “optional” (addressing @lukestokes)
Yes, and this necessary clarification and qualification was not made. Thus the correction. You can accept/concede this, and we can move on.
Haha. No, I think I will decide what I would be "better off" doing, thanks. I am clarifying, not going back and forth.
Maybe a tip that could help you in the future is to consider that going "back and forth" often happens when one party is unwilling to concede valid logical points for whatever reason.
Yes. You did not clarify. Thus the correction of the logically invalid statement.
We good?
"I did not clarify" instead of "you jumped to a conclusion that was inconsistent with my two+ years of blogging here"? It could go either way.
I'm not making root posts about your views based on a misunderstanding of the actual views you hold hinging off a single sentence. You seem comfortable doing that. That's the approach I still do not agree with.
No, that is not how argumentation works, Luke. It is now my job to magically know every unspoken disclaimer and qualifier you were thinking?
🤦♂️
I attempted to clarify in the other thread. I was met with what I view to be obfuscations in the form of slightly condescending word salads. Thus the root post.