11
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: PS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on April 04, 2024, 07:03:09 AM »Quote from: 4 April @ 0802
ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I don't belong to your church.
I do not share your religious beliefs.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?
Quote from: 4 April @ 2058
Dale, your question is irrelevant.
Houses are a store of value.
They’re not money.
That isn’t the definition of money.
You sure spend a lot of words to end up asking a question which is either wholly irrelevant or based on a false premise.
Maybe if you cut out all the preliminary throat clearing and just got to the point right away, it would be possible to actually have a discussion.
Sadly, I’m not sure your apparently pointlessly argumentative temperament would allow that.
Quote from: 5 April @ 0708
Your 77 word response did not address the question asked.
ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Admit or deny that with those six words you denied that money is a store of value.
The question you refuse to answer still stands unanswered.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?
Quote from: 5 April @ 0742
Dale, I answered your question about the definition of money days ago.
Since you’re so fond of filling space with words, and screenshotting, I’ll let you go back and find it.
I answered your question about “store of value”, also. Thats not a definition of money. Many things “store value”. That doesn’t make them money.
I also answered, like a week ago, WHY “store of value” is a bad definition of money. A store of value is “better” if it appreciates in value. We do NOT want money to do that.
I explained why we don’t want that last week. Since you screenshot everything, you can go back and look that answer up.
This is all stuff I answered days or weeks ago, and you’re back again, ponderously asking the same questions.
Your obsession with repeating other’s words and displaying screenshots really does keep you from following what others say.
Quote from: 5 April @ 0958
Your 177 word response DID NOT address the very SPECIFIC question asked.
ME:
The proper and correct definition of MONEY is something that is a measure and store of value.
YOU:
Dale, that’s not a “correct” definition.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Admit or deny that with those six words you denied that money is a store of value.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟚 Is a very simple question to answer. That you claimed money is not a store of value is plainly evident regardless of your refusal to admit that you denied money is a store of value.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.
The question you refuse to answer still stands unanswered.
𝟘𝟘𝟘𝟙. Please explain exactly how money is not a store of value?
Quote from: 5 April @ 1506
Dale, your logical fallacy is non sequitur.
Saying that money happens to be a store of value doesn’t mean that’s the definition of it.
“A house is a store of value”.
According to you, that makes a house money.
That’s illogical.
I’ve pointed this out, AND given a definition of money which is unique to money.
Quote from: 5 April @ 1507
And I didn’t claim money was NOT a “store of value”.
I said that’s not the definition of it.
Pay attention, please.