but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
not saying you’re wrong, but that is a whataboutism
I meant that both only exist due to the labor of individuals. without the workforce, billionaires and corporations would not exist
arguably billionaires and corporations are still people-powered
edit: as in the wealth of billionaires and corporations only exists due to the exploration of the labor of the people. without that labor, billionaires wouldn’t exist
then your categories are too small. both are modes of thought
and the bible “proves” god exists
level of complexity
nuance won’t hurt you, I promise <3
how is a concern about upending precedent a nonsensical statement? the source of an argument does not impact its validity as a point