I wasn't saying that what was going on with Jon Stewart's situation was a bidding war. I brought up bidding wars on properties because it's something that happens regularly, many people are familiar with them, and is an example of when someone pays more than asking price for a property. It was an example to show that just paying above asking price is not fraudulent.
Remember when I said you should look up what a Strawman Argument is? This is why.
The original argument was that Jon Stewart received more for his house than he was asking for, and that was fraud.
When it's pointed out that no, it's not fraud to receive more than asking price for a property, you (along with others) are now stating or implying (with zero evidence) that Jon Stewart committed fraud by cooking up some scheme to get someone to pay too much so then they both benefit financially.
That's a Strawman argument. And it's simply just wrong.
People pay stupid prices for things all the time. Doesn't mean it's illegal. Super wealthy people tend to have different outlooks on things than the rest of us, so judging what they do by our own values just doesn't work.
I'd also look into how accurate the information is in this post about how much Stewart actually listed the apartment for, and how much was paid. The information provided here hasn't been all that confidence inspiring, and I wouldn't take it for granted that any of those numbers are right.
If you think that going from 1.8 million to 17.5 million is something the rich do all the time, and it's normal operating procedure, move along, nothing to see here, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I didn't say they did it all the time. Just that it's not fraud to pay more than asking price. And, again, I'd double check the numbers before choosing this argument as your hill to die on.
Now, if you had some evidence that Stewart was involved in real estate or tax fraud, then that would be different. But saying that it's stupid to pay so much, or that your values don't match the buyers isn't evidence. It's just speculation and unfounded accusations.
Trying to minimize or deflect from someone else's actions (Trump's fraud conviction) by falsely accusing someone else of the equivalent (saying Jon Stewart was involved in fraud because someone paid more than he was asking for his real estate) is wrong on a couple of levels.
It doesn't wash away the wrong doings of the first person. (Again, just a reminder that I don't personally believe Trump to have committed any wrong doing. I'm pointing out the flaws in the arguments logic.)
What Stewart is accused of doing isn't even a fraud. What's worse, even after it's pointed out, several times, that it's not a fraud, you're still gnawing on that bone.
It just reeks of desperation to have to do so many mental gymnastics to try to make Stewart look like a hypocrite on this. It's no different than when liberals look for anything they can twist about Trump to make him look bad.
What do you think those people you're trying to redpill with these fallacy ridden arguments are going to do when you present them? From what I've seen, they're going to point out everything wrong with what you're saying, note that you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding basic facts (like how accepting a real estate offer that's over your asking price isn't fraud), and then question your judgement in everything you're telling them.
I'm trying to get people to realize that they're destroying any sort of credibility they might have when they make arguments like this.
I honestly believe that one of the main reasons we haven't won over anywhere near them number of normies that we should have by now is because we have people running amok out there making the entire Q community look ignorant because of things like this.
So now you're going to move the goalposts? You know darn well those numbers aren't normal operating procedures for rich people. So you change the argument to weather the numbers are true or not? It looks to me you believed those numbers when you so condescendingly tried to get us to buy that was a normal bidding war.
It's not moving goalposts. There was never a time where how much above asking price was a determination of whether or not it's fraud to accept a higher amount than asking price. So no goalposts to move.
So you change the argument to weather it is true or not?
This is probably the most asinine thing I've read this year. The argument is always about whether (not weather) or not claims being made are true. That's pretty important, unless you live off in LaLa land somewhere.
I was never arguing that the price was a factor on if it was a fraud or not. You were. I was simply suggesting that before you invested too much in that argument that you actually check to see if the numbers you're basing your opinion on were accurate. That was simply me offering you some advice on general debating skills (though this could not in the most fanciful of thoughts be considered a debate).
And again, I didn't claim that Stewart's house sale involved a bidding war. As I already explained, in very simple language, it was an example of how paying above listing price is common, and not fraud.
I'm trying to determine if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're just not capable of understanding simple concepts.
I wasn't saying that what was going on with Jon Stewart's situation was a bidding war. I brought up bidding wars on properties because it's something that happens regularly, many people are familiar with them, and is an example of when someone pays more than asking price for a property. It was an example to show that just paying above asking price is not fraudulent.
Remember when I said you should look up what a Strawman Argument is? This is why.
The original argument was that Jon Stewart received more for his house than he was asking for, and that was fraud.
When it's pointed out that no, it's not fraud to receive more than asking price for a property, you (along with others) are now stating or implying (with zero evidence) that Jon Stewart committed fraud by cooking up some scheme to get someone to pay too much so then they both benefit financially.
That's a Strawman argument. And it's simply just wrong.
People pay stupid prices for things all the time. Doesn't mean it's illegal. Super wealthy people tend to have different outlooks on things than the rest of us, so judging what they do by our own values just doesn't work.
I'd also look into how accurate the information is in this post about how much Stewart actually listed the apartment for, and how much was paid. The information provided here hasn't been all that confidence inspiring, and I wouldn't take it for granted that any of those numbers are right.
If you think that going from 1.8 million to 17.5 million is something the rich do all the time, and it's normal operating procedure, move along, nothing to see here, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I didn't say they did it all the time. Just that it's not fraud to pay more than asking price. And, again, I'd double check the numbers before choosing this argument as your hill to die on.
Now, if you had some evidence that Stewart was involved in real estate or tax fraud, then that would be different. But saying that it's stupid to pay so much, or that your values don't match the buyers isn't evidence. It's just speculation and unfounded accusations.
Trying to minimize or deflect from someone else's actions (Trump's fraud conviction) by falsely accusing someone else of the equivalent (saying Jon Stewart was involved in fraud because someone paid more than he was asking for his real estate) is wrong on a couple of levels.
It doesn't wash away the wrong doings of the first person. (Again, just a reminder that I don't personally believe Trump to have committed any wrong doing. I'm pointing out the flaws in the arguments logic.)
What Stewart is accused of doing isn't even a fraud. What's worse, even after it's pointed out, several times, that it's not a fraud, you're still gnawing on that bone.
It just reeks of desperation to have to do so many mental gymnastics to try to make Stewart look like a hypocrite on this. It's no different than when liberals look for anything they can twist about Trump to make him look bad.
What do you think those people you're trying to redpill with these fallacy ridden arguments are going to do when you present them? From what I've seen, they're going to point out everything wrong with what you're saying, note that you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding basic facts (like how accepting a real estate offer that's over your asking price isn't fraud), and then question your judgement in everything you're telling them.
I'm trying to get people to realize that they're destroying any sort of credibility they might have when they make arguments like this.
I honestly believe that one of the main reasons we haven't won over anywhere near them number of normies that we should have by now is because we have people running amok out there making the entire Q community look ignorant because of things like this.
So now you're going to move the goalposts? You know darn well those numbers aren't normal operating procedures for rich people. So you change the argument to weather the numbers are true or not? It looks to me you believed those numbers when you so condescendingly tried to get us to buy that was a normal bidding war.
It's not moving goalposts. There was never a time where how much above asking price was a determination of whether or not it's fraud to accept a higher amount than asking price. So no goalposts to move.
This is probably the most asinine thing I've read this year. The argument is always about whether (not weather) or not claims being made are true. That's pretty important, unless you live off in LaLa land somewhere.
I was never arguing that the price was a factor on if it was a fraud or not. You were. I was simply suggesting that before you invested too much in that argument that you actually check to see if the numbers you're basing your opinion on were accurate. That was simply me offering you some advice on general debating skills (though this could not in the most fanciful of thoughts be considered a debate).
And again, I didn't claim that Stewart's house sale involved a bidding war. As I already explained, in very simple language, it was an example of how paying above listing price is common, and not fraud.
I'm trying to determine if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're just not capable of understanding simple concepts.