= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DonaldMcIntyre comments on How to debate when authority is questioned, but really not needed? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
This is an example of refuting my argument by actually arguing about it instead of discrediting me because I am not an economist.
My problem is when instead of your answer above you write "are you an economist? have you investigated this?" with the obvious objective of coming after my answer with an "ok, so your premise is false because you don't know what you are talking about".
Yeah, hence the [missing the point] label... ;)
Yeah. That's a pain in the neck.
Silly counter-rebuttal:
"Well, are you an economist?"
Not-so-silly counter-rebuttals:
No, but this is Econ 101 stuff you can look up on Wikipedia or whatever.
No, but that's what Famous Economist wrote. Here, go look at his stuff. (link)
No, so I might be confused about something. Can you explain where I went wrong?
Is that really the obvious objective? Maybe they are saying you should research the topic. "Printing money" is a red flag phrase, like discussing evolution in terms of your grandfather being a monkey.