Jubbergun wrote:
No one was making an analogy. Those are two things you've said within a short span of time that are completely incompatible, neither of which had anything to do with "internet forums."
Fine. Comparison.
Jubbergun wrote:
When you said people would be better off doing what you wanted, you weren't talking about them having an opinion on the internet, you were saying their real-world behavior was a root cause of their condition.
Your premise is faulty. That the "root cause" of social conditions is the behavior of the concerned individuals was not my argument. That was
your argument.
My argument was that people's condition is often driven by factors beyond their control. I gave the sale of inferior products to the exclusion of superior ones as an example.
Jubbergun wrote:
When it was pointed out that others have made that argument and you disagreed, your response was that they were wrong because those people had "to fight an uphill battle against powerful, entrenched interests who define the rules of the game before it even starts," which also has nothing to do with internet forums, since it's a statement about the condition of the real world. You have made two conflicting statements, and stand by both, yet you are incapable of seeing how the two are incompatible: cognitive dissonance, you has it.
Your argument is logically invalid. The statement was about the real world and distinct from my argument about the internet. The premise of the former is that the real world is an unequal contest; the premise of the latter is that an internet forum is not.
Therefore, to use my statements that people are self-responsible in one setting and not the other, is not proof of any inherent contradiction in my views, because the difference is predicated on a clearly defined variable - the evenness of the playing field.
