I’ve misunderstood you? Well what did you actually say?
you’re comparing groups of people that follow the laws of economics and individuals who commit a crime.
One group follows the laws of economics (as in not a crime) and the other group commits crimes? Or did you mean this part
I was just saying that wage theft and actual physical thefts are different
Which you haven’t explained how they’re different, except for the part where you’re saying one isn’t a crime and the other is.
Was not at all saying that they aren’t a crime, just that all the facts need to be on the table about the data so we can make true and informed judgments from it.
But the facts were on the table? This guy gave the numbers before the comment you replied to even existed and then there was also this guy who found the source on reddit, also before your comment. Now you could argue federation delay and you didn’t see them the first time, but if you really cared about finding the data you could’ve found the data. But I don’t think you really care that much the data because you also started your first comment with:
There’s no way that the stats here are legit stats…
Seems to me like you made up your mind before you even questioned whether they’re factual or not.
I haven’t gotten the time to look through the number yet, it’s on my list. Responding to these is pretty quick. But you’ve made up your mind about me already I guess…
I was implying in the example listed that we should be fully aware of the differences of the two items portrayed, which a good solid source usually does and was my justification for having asked for one first. Hope this clears things up.
I’ve misunderstood you? Well what did you actually say?
One group follows the laws of economics (as in not a crime) and the other group commits crimes? Or did you mean this part
Which you haven’t explained how they’re different, except for the part where you’re saying one isn’t a crime and the other is.
But the facts were on the table? This guy gave the numbers before the comment you replied to even existed and then there was also this guy who found the source on reddit, also before your comment. Now you could argue federation delay and you didn’t see them the first time, but if you really cared about finding the data you could’ve found the data. But I don’t think you really care that much the data because you also started your first comment with:
Seems to me like you made up your mind before you even questioned whether they’re factual or not.
I haven’t gotten the time to look through the number yet, it’s on my list. Responding to these is pretty quick. But you’ve made up your mind about me already I guess…
I was implying in the example listed that we should be fully aware of the differences of the two items portrayed, which a good solid source usually does and was my justification for having asked for one first. Hope this clears things up.