What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

People need to stop with ridiculous conspiracy theories. You’ve become what you hate

Capitalism is self regulating

It most certainly is not. The bargaining power of a corporation and individual worker are not the same. It’s why labor unions exist. Additionally governments should regulate commerce for the benefit of everyone.

Lastly, please review and understand the differences between your and you’re, as well as their, there, and they’re. Absolutely frustrating trying to read what you wrote.

Only if they microwave after thawing.

Given a valid structure, true premises must necessarily lead to a true conclusion. A fallacy is an invalid structure; therefore, you cannot know whether or not the conclusion is true. If you can’t know the truth value of the conclusion, you wouldn’t be correct to reject their argument.

Using the go to example: Plato argues P1) All men are mortal, P2) Socrates is a man, C) Socrates is mortal. Valid structure, sound premises, the conclusion must be true.

Using the smoking example: P1) Person A claims smoking is dangerous, P2) Person A smokes, C) Smoking isn’t dangerous.

This argument is invalid in structure because Premise 2 is fallacious. Premise 1 doesn’t connect to Premise 2 to lead to the conclusion. Given no additional information, you would not be able to ascertain the truth value of the conclusion, it may or may not be true using this deductive argument.

It’s considered a formal fallacy.

you’re probably right to discount their arguments

You cannot square these two statements. If it’s a fallacy then you are not justified in discounting their argument. They may be a hypocrite, but it doesn’t mean that their argument isn’t both valid and sound. The smoking example by the other reply is a great example.

I wish that’s advice I had at the time. Live and learn.

I just threw it away, I was done with it. I definitely should have tried to repair it, but my frustration with all things Vizio made that an unappealing option at the time. The others I just moved to less used areas.

For personal use I buy Visio displays, and have had nothing but success.

I have some smaller, older Vizio TV’s that were great, no issues. I recently bought 3 large, expensive Vizio TV’s and had problems with all 3. All issues dealing with updates. Had 70" get stuck in an update cycle, no fix, even customer service couldn’t help. Other 2 repeatedly will not turn on after an update. Problem persists occasionally, but usually resolves in 5-10 minutes.

Done with Vizio. Sony if I want to spend a lot, Samsung if I want to spend a little less.

If you make a question ambiguous enough, can it have an answer?

Whoa! You can have any gun you want, but we draw the line at allowing logic.

I think dumber needs to be preceded by “much, much, much” to even be in the ballpark of an accurate statement.

Attorney, not yours, not advice.

As with all legal issues, it depends. It doesn’t help that you took over a week to discover the issue. But you can testify that it worked, you brought it for service, and now it doesn’t work. The work they did, it sounds like, would be in the same general area as the remote starter.

Get it fixed, send the invoice to the dealership and demand payment. You may want to cite any consumer protection statute you have in your jurisdiction (mine requires claim presentment in writing and 30 days to wait for a reply). Also have the repair facility determine, if possible, what broke specifically and why, noting it in their records. Civil cases are simply preponderance of the evidence, so you might be in decent shape. Good luck!