https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/open-markets-institu...
There are myriad examples of Starbucks predatory pricing strategies, among all sorts of other global monopolistic hijinks over the last two decades.
Someone asserts a fact, someone else counters with incompatible (asserted) facts, and then the first person comes up with more things in support of their original claim.
How is that supposed to work, in the abstract?
If I say swans are white, and you say "there are black swans everywhere where I live", what is the relevance of me countering with evidence (of whatever quality) of swans being white?
For most of my life, I've separated this sort of behavior from "real life" and kind of assumed that there were "internet people" who always will be inscrutable to me.
But disturbingly I've run into a few people IRL in recent years who do it too.
source if fact?