swansont

A premise is offered, and then an argument follows without establishing the veracity of the premise. If the premise is false the conclusion is invalid, but the poster is proceeding as if it were true. Such as an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, and concluding the moon landings were faked because they would have noticed the cheese if they’d landed there. (the conclusion is not being used to support the premise, so it’s not begging the question/circular logic) Seems like this happens a fair amount, and it’s a failure of logic, but is there a recognized name for it?

Some necessity is physiological. Some is social. Some issues are not generally applicable to both men and women. To pretend otherwise is, at best, just parading one’s ignorance

Dunning-Kruger is alive and well

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In this case, inflation-adjusted prices and nominal prices. When crude hit $150 (Dec ‘79) that’s in adjusted dollars; the nominal price was $38 https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ The inflation adjusted price of gas then was north of $3.50. I’m guessing you’re citing the nominal price https://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph Leaded gas was sold back then, and was cheaper than unleaded.

There is wording in many of them about a declared emergency, so timing is part of it. But I suspect that shipping and wholesale cost would be easy to document, and show that you were just maintaining your profit margin if all you were doing was adjusting to those changes. And I think these are state sanctions, so the state would be prosecuting and the business pays the fine and have to pay their lawyers.

The existence of secular rules doesn’t mean that the religious rules don’t exist. So it should be easy to find a few examples.

Thrust upon society? There isn’t any sort of hypothesis police that forces people to accept such models. Your view of how science works doesn’t match reality.

A lot of US laws quantify it. Often a 10%-15% rise in price compared to the past 30 days, above any rise in costs.

Shouldn’t “terrible criticisms” be wrong? Or do you have some specific definition of “terrible” that you aren’t sharing? Please show that religion does not control people, by preventing them from doing things they like. Religious rules aren’t legislated. i.e. a religious admonishment not to murder and a law punishing murder are not the same thing unless you have a theocracy Rationalizing a behavior is not showing that it doesn’t happen. And once again you’ve chosen a premise with substantiating it. Where did you find these criticisms? Under what context?

Not to me. I’m baffled as to how you come to this characterization. You’re also entirely too credulous when it comes to untested/unconfirmed ideas. A proposal of a new idea does not mean an existing idea is wrong. Did you miss the part that said “The paper has been released on the preprint server arXiv and has been submitted to a journal”? It’s not even gone through peer review, yet, much less been independently tested (though I’m not sure how you test such ideas)

Two or more, i.e. not alone. Three quark systems exist, of course.

I remember a story from a while back where there was some disaster and one of the stores in a small-ish town jacked up prices to cash in on the temporary supply shortage. Other stores ran out, and people were forced to shell out for some basics, since there was no other option. When things got back to normal their business fell off dramatically. People remembered being screwed over and just stopped shopping there. But that only works if there are alternatives.

Yes, they are both automobiles. That’s a small distinction. The answer is one of utility; there are far more similarities so the automobile designation is useful. Horsepower is demanding a very close or exact match, which is a finer distinction, better left to a subcatagory, much like we do in taxonomy. Animal is at the level of kingdom, i.e. quite high on the tree. Honda vs ferrari would probably be at the level of family (if one were to take the time to sort this out) with different models at a lower level and then horsepower below that, like different species or subspecies. The larger picture is making a useful hierarchy out of this instead of haphazardly grasping at straws to defend a poorly-reasoned point The biology is irrelevant…to biology?

Ah, I had assumed you were to referring to biology, since animal is a biological designation, and we’re discussing evolution, i.e. biology. But a non-sequitur is apparently in your wheelhouse. Can you show (i.e. have evidence) that other animals do not have any of these other characteristics? Surely you have such evidence, since this is “easy” But it’s not arbitrary. Given that the classification of animals exists, how are humans not animals? Infinite number? Really? Abiogenesis is a scientific term. Ascribing it to atheists lacks evidence. And it does, in fact, refer to the origin of life. It would help tremendously if you knew what you were talking about, even a little, rather than spouting nonsense.

Easily? What characteristics would justify a separate category?

You need to define what you mean by Christian. There are at least two - 1. Someone who accepts Jesus as their savior 2. Someone who follows the tenets of Christianity (note that these are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect type 2 usually includes type 1, while 1 does not necessarily include 2) I think there are a lot of type 1 Xtians out there who act like they are also type 2, but (as you suggest) have no clue about the details and no interest in being burdened by all of its limitations. I see a lot of the televangelist types who preach to type 1 followers without bothering to worry about WWJD. Anyone who points to another and says, “You’re not a good Christian” is arguably not a good Christian by the type 2 definition. That said, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the Bible that gives cover to people who want to mollify themselves and think their actions are Christian

Sure. But where is this actually allowed? More than 100 countries have antitrust laws. You can’t offer up a counter to price-gouging by citing unfettered capitalism, since the latter is not a reality, but an idealized system. And drawbacks of it are well-known.

Indeed. The idea that the president was behind all of the shenanigans (or that top WH officials were involved) was not offered up at the outset, it was a conclusion drawn after a bunch of evidence had been found.

Perhaps it’s because maybe most people don’t have integrated home security systems that control the smoke detector. You are implying that this is (nearly) universal. Consider that it’s not. That you are the outlier, not the typical.

Context matters. “Conspiracy theory” is often used when there is no actual evidence of a conspiracy, yet one must exist in order to account whatever coverup is allegedly happening. As opposed to actual conspiracies, where you hypothesize connections and then go out and find evidence of them, and don’t actually refer to them as conspiracy theories. I concur - you need some examples of these absurdities being called conspiracy theories. I think it’s absurd to use made-up notation like “e.x.” but it’s not a conspiracy theory unless I e.g. (<— a legit abbreviation) say it’s a freemason plot to take over the world.

You said “turn the other cheek” was not a moral argument, though. And why does a moral stance require a reasonable argument? Who decides if it’s reasonable? Someone who doesn’t share that moral stance? Is the view that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind a “reasonable” argument?

So when you claim that “Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it” this is not based upon any evidence. It’s just a premise you offer to bootstrap an argument. The thing is, you could replace “evolution” with other science theories and make the same claims you do. Most people who understand a little physics are not actual physicists. These people wouldn’t have come up with Newtonian gravity on their own, either. So what? But it’s harder to argue that they do this to “support their atheistic stance” since Newtonian gravity isn’t seen as being in stark contrast to the Bible. Same goes for laws of motion, thermodynamics, E&M. You don’t need to come up with a concept to be able to understand the concept. This whole thing reeks of bad faith. You need to do better, starting with not trying this “end run” tactic of stating some purported fact that is something you’ve made up.

And nobody else is allowed to?

There is supposed to be competition that would limit prices.

Is the Bible a source of morals for some, or not? Foolishness and morality are not the same thing.