100% Chance
100% Chance
Link to the original article:
You're viewing part of a thread.
The original claim was that "they" changed the definition of recession. You are the one who is insisting that "they"= "we are talking about the USA and the current day"
They could imply the capitalist, the ruling class, the government, or even an organization like the NBER. Unless you are claiming that how we determine if a recession has occurred has remained unchanged throughout the history of capitalism, then your claim was a semantic dispute. If you are claiming that then you are just incorrect.
The article this whole thread is about discusses the chances for a recession in AMERICA, so Im not the only one saying they=American.
This isn't semantics. You have not been paying any attention to the subject at hand. Might I suggest you look at the title of the linked article?
The article this whole thread is about discusses the chances for a recession in AMERICA, so Im not the only one saying they=American.
Right..... But "they" doesn't imply a specific entity, nor does it specify a time.
The way we define a recession in America has changed over time, we only started utilizing the NBER for this in the 1960s.
They does apply to a specific entity since the discussion is overtly about America.
"They" changed the definition would mean the US government changed the definition and that is incorrect.
And now that I have explained 3rd grade English grammar to you regarding how pronouns work, I think we can stop here. You were not paying any attention to the subject at and kept losing the thread and then resorting to bs when this was pointed out.
"They" changed the definition would mean the US government changed the definition and that is incorrect.
Lol, if we are basing this on your assumption wouldn't "they" mean the NBER?
And if they meant either, wouldn't that still be correct given that the way they define a recession has adapted over time......again they made an extremely vague claim that did not include any specified descriptors, including time.
You were not paying any attention to the subject at and kept losing the thread and then resorting to bs when this was pointed out.
My original claim was that you were having a semantic dispute.... That's still my claim. Your issue is that you are stuck in an intentionality fallacy, where you have assumed the meaning of his statement and then rejected it for not being as specific as you would like.
now that I have explained 3rd grade English grammar
Lol, and you are still failing to understand that the specificity of a pronoun cannot be assumed by a person outside of a discourse. A person making a vague claim after reading an article is not specific enough to assume their meaning unless asked for further clarification.
OP has no idea who NBER was so "they" would be the government.
Do context clues exist in your first language?
OP has no idea who NBER was
And what evidence has led you to believe that....... Oh yeah, another assumption!
Do context clues exist in your first language?
Lol, do logical fallacies exist in your first language?
Assumptions are not logical fallacies. Deriving info from context is not either.
The logical fallacies happened when you utilized your assumptions to validate your claim, not when you made an assumption.
That isn't a fallacy either. If they knew about the NBER or not "they" did not change the definition. The definition they thought was correct is an oversimplification and was not correct.
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard,[9][10] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy[11]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.