| > If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit If that's what I was fighting, I would agree with you. But it's not. By avoiding the word famine and loudly announcing that I am doing so, I am explicitly not picking that fight. I'm accepting the expertise of both parties, and making an argument that doesn't disagree with the claims of either party. Israel says it's not famine, I say that's not good enough. Simple. > Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down. Again, every argument that gives the benefit of the doubt would fall under "convenient". Including many arguments you have no problem with. If you took the car example as a completely standalone argument, unchanged from how I originally stated it (so there would be nobody claiming "$4000 should be the limit"), would you have any problems with it? |