3RU7AL

More accurately, that because table legs are a thing, tables are obsolete, one supports the other - and your slippery slope fails to account for that

This is like me saying that because there are tables, desks are obsolete, or because there are boots, shoes are obsolete. 

both rich and poor can be lazy

Each receives according to the effort and skill they apply,

Simple: a free-market economy that accounts for all contributors to business expenses from design to after-market customer care, and all in between, and the uses of gross revenue to pay for them,

Each receives according to the effort and skill they apply,

This is, primarily, a Marxist view of economy because Marxism primarily views inflation as a measure of the supply of money in the economy, and the relative demand for it.

Well sure, but if we reach the point where there are literally no jobs left because of AI whatsoever except for a few million software engineers here and there then that gives us the ability to go post-scarcity anyway so from an economic point of view employment is no longer required. You can argue that is a bad thing from a philosophical perspective and many have, but the point is that economically there is no problem. The transition to that point (assuming that point is even in our future) is the delicate part, but taken in gradual steps and given policies to ease the process, possibly including the implementation of a UBI, it is easily doable.

decrease in labor demand.

Like say that caused by automation?

Basically 3RU7AL made a big fuss over self-driving vehicles causing 3.5 million people to lose jobs, but that is only a bit over 2% of the labor market. If everyone in all other fields in the labor market took a 5% cut in their hours scheduled they could make room for those 3.5 million people to move to those fields without causing a huge labor surplus thus keeping wages per hour similar to before. Wages per year would decrease by that 5%, which would be compensated for by the fact that cost of living would decrease dramatically in this example because decrease in transportation costs would have an effect on the price of virtually everything (fauxlaw doesn't seem to understand why a transportation company would decrease it's prices after having such a huge reduction in it's overhead costs but 3RU7AL is perfectly willing to admit cost of living would decrease, he just doesn't understand the rest of what I am saying well enough to realize why this cost of living decrease would not necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in wages per hour).

Why don't we all use the original?

I don’t know, just on the top of my head maybe it has something to do with the fact that it’s 2021 and NOT 1806.

...Not even, that’s kinda the purpose of a dictionary, to know what words mean.

I see a lot of pretty blue letters with neat little lines under them

my proposal to cut hours in other fields to avoid a cut in wages and avoid a cut in jobs. What do you say to that?

you know...basic stuff

Such as?

the universe suddenly knocking down the dominoes behind them rather than in front of them.

Irrefutably, the delayed-choice experiments suggest the arrow of time is reversible and the future can influence the past.

No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same, and you completely ignore factors as I raised which do make a difference and are always possible factors. Your only similarity was the need for both A & B to sell at a profit [not necessarily the same profit]. But, loss leaders, for example, do sometimes help to gain that profit, as does accounting for countervailing factors, even if the similar product itself is priced either the same or differently. You offered a two-dimensional solution. Mine has three and four.

The problem with banning these as topics is it doesn't account for kritikal arguments in a meaningful way. For example, as a proud Native American, if I wanted a topic around the critical literature of settler colonialism (obviously not reading a kritik against a normal resolution, but creating a critical resolution), using a topic like "Resolved: On balance, kill the Indian, save the man is a good idea", or "Resolved: The white man must take what is rightfully his from inferior natives". These ideas, while seeming to support the idea of white supremacism, would actually allow for an easy platform for me to critically reject a resolution. I'm a bit new to this platform, so I don't know how often kritikal debate happens, but banning things on the perceived resolution would kill any chance for kritikal debate.

Buy a house; shelter is a necessity. then build another one, and sell it for a profit.

Why does not everyone buy homes then?

The third thing you want to do is to think about the best possible arguments for and against the resolution.

Each argument you make should entail your position on the resolution.  So, there needs to be a direct link between the arguments you make and the resolution you're arguing about.

And as a potential investor in that corporation, you can share in that profiting. That is, you can if you consider that in addition to just working for money, you can put your money to work for you. By that tactic, you want that corporation to be more profitable. Of course, that means you may not be able to buy a boat, or an RV, but you will increase your wealth. Such purchases do not do that for you; these products are not investments; they're drains. Invest in yourself. Buy a house; that is an investment. then buy another one, and rent it out. That other stuff can be rented, and you're free of the upkeep and maintenance costs. When was the last time you sold a vehicle at a profit? In spite of my net worth, I drive a 20 year-old truck because it just continues to run. I don't need a new car every three years. My truck has more than paid for itself, and, in the meantime, I've been able to devote more money to investment in me. It's too easy and so many people stumble over the idea that working for money is enough. Really?

I love this quote, but I disagree. I’d rather gain that experience so I can beat the stupid people rather than running away from them.

And as a potential investor in that corporation, you can share in that profiting [RENT-SEEKING].

Doesn’t matter my credible definition still says otherwise.

Not according to the dictionary which defines valid as (of an argument or point) having a SOUND basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/valid

Valid [but not sound] = (only "true" conditionally or hypothetically)

Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?

No

If there is no progression then there are no thoughts, no actions, and it cannot cause anything. All of these things require its state of existence to change. For example, to make a decision is to begin by existing in a state of being undecided and progress to a state of being decided.

A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.

Your question is all about semantics.

No, it’s about basic meaning of words. You’re making an argument while disregarding that the words you are using if taken for what they actually mean contradict each other. If it’s being misunderstood then that is exactly why we have to go through this exercise.

no, a perfect god has the CAPABILITY to create less perfect beings

if your arguing that the term valid is only limited to hypotheticals then that’s not true,

I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.

I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.

I am fighting hard to embrace the middle path