Post by Tartonga
The whole point was that his was different from the OP's case. And yours differs too, as no lying is involved.
His? And there may be lying involved on my case. My point is you can't know if there was any.
culminating in essentially arguing that if a victim of a crime doesn't think they've been a victim,
no crime was committed.I never said that. And hence the rest of your point is irrelevant.
I'm not implying it is any less of a scam. I'm, however, implying that it is possible to scam people without it being categorized as a scam, which is the solution for the OP.
Take a minute and read back what I said. I'm saying it is a scam. I'm also saying it's not possible for the scammed people to tell if it is a scam.
They won't categorize it as a scam.
Yes you did. (@I never said that. And hence the rest of your point is irrelevant.)
If I say that it is a scam, how can you possibly imply that I meant it's not a crime?
Yes, I really do think that, because you made no indication that it was a tangent. Thank you for showing me where you
didn't explicitly change the subject, and just posted an irrelevant analogy.
You're trying to argue that there are ways for the OP to "get away with" scamming, and yet you're also trying to claim that the analogies you're making have nothing to do with the OP's case? You're a complete mess. Sort it out.
Yeah, it could be difficult for some people to realize it was a separated point. I don't blame you. You already showed me your fallacious non-argumented way of reasoning, whose only point is to derive every justifiable statement into the classification of: "
Duh, that's an irrelevant analogy, because I think it is so". And yeap, another fallacious argument from you (not surprising): if I'm poiting out there are ways to get away with scamming and therefore I create another hypothetical scenario (in other words, another case), how am I somehow relating to the OP's case and even doing analogies of it? Another fallacy from you.
You are talking nonsense and even telling me that I have to fix my point of view, it's so ironic.
Also, thank you for showing me that you don't understand what a tautology is:
And if you think that it is
logically impossible
What you asked me to do is
tautologically impossible
I realise it's very tempting to leave off bits of words if that makes you feel more comfortable about not dealing with words you don't understand, but it will just make you look even more inept when I quote both together. As koa demonstrates above me. You can run away now. I think you're done here.
Tautology
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.- An instance of such repetition.
- Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false.
I realize it's very tempting to complement your line of reasoning with fallacious statements, because of not being able to refute other's arguments and instead doing false assumptions if that makes you feel more confortable about not dealing with words you use and yet you don't completely understand, but it will just make you look more inept when I point that out. There are 2 definitions for the word you implemented, the first one being a synonym for redundancy. If I ask you to show me where I didn't change the matter, you have to accomplish a comparison between my posts and conclude they are still talking about the same. In response to my request you said it was impossible to show something I didn't say (fallacious statement), and you used tautology in the terms of redundancy (by not being able to say something I didn't say). Now that definition of tautology could have never been applied to this case, because it was brought by your incorrect line of reasoning in the first place, which leads me to believe that you actually meant the second defintion, hoping that you meant it by recognizing your error and even hoping that you actually knew there was another definition for tautology, which you showed me that you don't. Now the second definition is the one, where tautology is the logical model of a valid argument whether the premises in it are either true or false. You could have implied that what I was asking was, by no mistake, a fallacy, but you demonstrated me you had no idea about tautology having to do with logics, and therefore any further explanation would be in vain. And you even dare to tell me that I'm free to run away now? Like you made a solid point? Lol, all you have done is argument erroneously, without any solid evidence to back fallacious statements up.
And now are you going to argument properly to this reply or are you gonna discard it under the classification of: "
Duh, that's an irrelevant analogy, because I think it is so"?
I'm confused. You're saying that, even though know it's a scam, it's not a scam unless the victim identifies it as such? And by saying that "is the solution for the OP", you're saying it's okay for the OP to scam as long as the OP doesn't get caught?
No to both.