this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
-38 points (6.8% liked)

Conservative

383 readers
8 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

and when has a left boycott ever been effective? Never.

That said, I thought the exemption for bakeries was strange.

Greg Flynn doesn't own Panera. He owns some franchise units. JAB holdings is the one that owns Panera.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Since you believe a CEO is always representing their company, then a person couldn’t be a CEO of multiple companies but they are, companies would be legally liable for all actions of their CEO but they are not.

A person can represent multiple companies. And the law is the law, it is often not a reflection reality.

You really need to work on understanding logical fallacies, you lose all credibility when you use them incorrectly.

You portrayed my argument as "Bad people do bad", an intentionally weak and inaccurate version of my argument. That's by definition a strawman.

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

The only real difference here is that you portrayed my argument to be so weak that it was implied to be inherently wrong. But at the end of the day you were using a strawman.

If anyone here has lost credibility it is you for using fallacies, and then lying about it.

An opnion piece that doesn’t mention white nantionalists in the whole article is not evidence that Trump is a white nantionalists. Do you even read the articles you cite.

Evidently the concept of synonyms is beyond your understanding. That, and the spelling of "nationalist".

You're also fundamentally missing the point. The article is talking about the -ism, not the specifics which would be the -ists.