☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlcake to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agoFree Thinkerlemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square84fedilinkarrow-up1208arrow-down134
arrow-up1174arrow-down1external-linkFree Thinkerlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlcake to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square84fedilink
minus-squaredavel@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17arrow-down1·2 days agoName dropping a game theory hypothetical is not an argument.
minus-squarejoenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down16·2 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-up5arrow-down1·13 hours agoYour original comment only garnered a one word question because you were too vague.
minus-squarejoenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·12 hours agoThe original comment that garnered a one word response wasn’t mine. Thanks though.
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4·12 hours 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.