> The damage caused by indiscriminate internet commenting is negligible...
So that was an attempt to point out that, when you make claims like you did, with no supporting evidence, others can also make claims with no supporting evidence. Why should we take your claim seriously, and not mine?
But apparently that was a mistake, because you answered my "claim" as if it were a serious one, instead of a random thing thrown out there with the same structure as your claim.
My point was that anyone can claim that anything is a mental illness. Without something more to back it up, it's just someone pontificating on the internet.
The rest of my post was an attempt to get you to supply something to back up your position, because I didn't get it in your initial post.
> The damage caused by wealth hoarding is tangible...
Yeah? Then state what it is, and demonstrate that the damage is actual rather than theoretical. Don't assume that we all agree with you that it is.
> It's concerning that when posed with an opinion, you jump to an Ad Hominem point of view. Who I am is not important, and you should judge my comment on whether it raises an interesting point worthy of discussion or further consideration.
You're stating that something should be considered a mental illness. My evaluation of that claim depends a great deal on whether you know anything about what is or is not mental illness. So far, it looks like you are labeling <thing you don't like> as <other thing you expect your readers not to like>, with no actual connection beyond that. And that would have just been a bad rhetorical device, except that you went on to advocate locking them up. If you're going to advocate locking up people for mental illness, it matters a great deal whether you are a competent mental health professional.
> I don't know about him apart from what I just saw on Wikipedia, so I can't help dissect which people have been disadvantaged to gain him massive profits.
But, by saying "which people", you seem to be assuming that there are some. But again, you provide no evidence whatsoever, nor even an argument - you just state it as if it must be so.
> However, your language indicates that you are trying to pick an argument, despite not actually providing any counter-argument...
Well, see, my problem with your post was that you didn't provide an argument. You made a massive claim that was completely unsupported. The burden of proof was on you to demonstrate why we should take your claim seriously. You didn't even attempt to do that. My reply was an attempt (apparently a bad one) to point that out, and to try to get you to meet that burden of proof, so that we could have something of substance to talk about.
So that was an attempt to point out that, when you make claims like you did, with no supporting evidence, others can also make claims with no supporting evidence. Why should we take your claim seriously, and not mine?
But apparently that was a mistake, because you answered my "claim" as if it were a serious one, instead of a random thing thrown out there with the same structure as your claim.
My point was that anyone can claim that anything is a mental illness. Without something more to back it up, it's just someone pontificating on the internet.
The rest of my post was an attempt to get you to supply something to back up your position, because I didn't get it in your initial post.
> The damage caused by wealth hoarding is tangible...
Yeah? Then state what it is, and demonstrate that the damage is actual rather than theoretical. Don't assume that we all agree with you that it is.
> It's concerning that when posed with an opinion, you jump to an Ad Hominem point of view. Who I am is not important, and you should judge my comment on whether it raises an interesting point worthy of discussion or further consideration.
You're stating that something should be considered a mental illness. My evaluation of that claim depends a great deal on whether you know anything about what is or is not mental illness. So far, it looks like you are labeling <thing you don't like> as <other thing you expect your readers not to like>, with no actual connection beyond that. And that would have just been a bad rhetorical device, except that you went on to advocate locking them up. If you're going to advocate locking up people for mental illness, it matters a great deal whether you are a competent mental health professional.
> I don't know about him apart from what I just saw on Wikipedia, so I can't help dissect which people have been disadvantaged to gain him massive profits.
But, by saying "which people", you seem to be assuming that there are some. But again, you provide no evidence whatsoever, nor even an argument - you just state it as if it must be so.
> However, your language indicates that you are trying to pick an argument, despite not actually providing any counter-argument...
Well, see, my problem with your post was that you didn't provide an argument. You made a massive claim that was completely unsupported. The burden of proof was on you to demonstrate why we should take your claim seriously. You didn't even attempt to do that. My reply was an attempt (apparently a bad one) to point that out, and to try to get you to meet that burden of proof, so that we could have something of substance to talk about.