Auspm
New Member
DanDee said:Auspm said:Because I don't use leveraged debt, I don't have the trappings of society many assume are necessities, nor is my stack as large as many people here.
I don't use X
Therefore I don't have Y
This would only be valid if X was the only way to get Y.
X is not the only way to get Y
Being based on a false premise ( that is X is the only way to get Y)
this argument is invalid.
Are you undermining the point for a specific reason, or just assuming that you can give informed conclusions based on idealised assumptions?
You don't know me from a bar of soap. Your 'conclusion' on 'validity' based on the premise above smells more like the usual playing of the man rather than the ball around here.
We get half the thread saying if you don't use debt to get ahead, you deserve your lot in life - the other half saying that because you chose not to use leveraged debt for investment, basing this logic on the reason why you only have a small holding is 'invalid'.
Well, which is it? Use debt and get ahead or don't use debt, but don't blame the lack of credit for your situation?
Why do I get the feeling this thread is just another baiting exercise used to draw out rhetoric so debtors can justify their ideology or try and fish for something they can label as hypocracy among non-debtors?
This thread honestly serves no other purpose.
<< leaving this thread before it gets (as usual) into another debtor vs saver shit fight.