@paulg Yes, well, have you seen how that plays out in Behavioral Economics?
If you're against x because of its component y but not its component z, then you're not against x. You're against y.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg but you still shouldn’t take x to the dance.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg But to convince the person to be for x, you'd probably need to show how it's possible to separate y from x.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@AndrewElgert@paulg how’s this a fallacy?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Lukamuk
@paulg Do you mean if y is a precondition for x?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg or really pro "z". -Single issue commenterThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@AndrewElgert@paulg if you hate the abuse but love the sex, you should still get out of the relationship.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg what if x is@Volkswagen, y is faulty non clean-burning Diesel engine, and z is comfortable ride, can you still be against@vw? -
@b4bendetta@paulg his argument is more like x is Tesla, y is oil and gas car workers losing jobs, z is mankind move from gas to electric - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.