☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish • 4 months agoFree Thinkerlemmy.mlimagemessage-square86fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageFree Thinkerlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish • 4 months agomessage-square86fedilink
minus-squaredavel [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish0•4 months agoName dropping a game theory hypothetical is not an argument.
minus-square@joenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilink0•4 months agoYou’re right, it’s not an argument. But it’s a perfectly sufficient reply to a one-word question that doesn’t properly provide an argument of its own.
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]linkfedilink0•4 months agoYour original comment only garnered a one word question because you were too vague.
minus-square@joenforcer@midwest.sociallinkfedilink0•4 months agoThe original comment that garnered a one word response wasn’t mine. Thanks though.
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]linkfedilink0•4 months agoThere was a vague “argument,” followed by a request for elaboration, followed by another somehow more vague “argument” from yourself.
minus-squareDessalineslinkfedilink0•4 months ago“Hey friend, can you share some of your potato chips?” “Sorry, prisoners dilemma, can’t.”
Ever hear of the prisoner’s dilemma?
Name dropping a game theory hypothetical is not an argument.
You’re right, it’s not an argument. But it’s a perfectly sufficient reply to a one-word question that doesn’t properly provide an argument of its own.
Your original comment only garnered a one word question because you were too vague.
The original comment that garnered a one word response wasn’t mine. Thanks though.
There was a vague “argument,” followed by a request for elaboration, followed by another somehow more vague “argument” from yourself.
“Hey friend, can you share some of your potato chips?”
“Sorry, prisoners dilemma, can’t.”
Yep, you got it!