Remember me
▼ Content

What is this Church of Marxism?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
09-10-2016 23:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:We currently depend on money.

We currently enjoy money. Anything that facilitates the adding of value to society through goods and services and strengthens the economy is a great thing.

Cavemen didn't have money. Today we do. Which world is better? Hmmmm?

You're right, we should return to the caveman world.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.

" ... in the same way." Weaseling.

The bottom line is that Marxism hates nice things and consequently hates people who have nice things. People who are unwilling to add any value to society are heralded as saints while people with nice things are demonized.

"They don't NEED those nice things they have. Confiscate them!"


What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns. Stop putting straw into my mouth.

jwoodward48 wrote:it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

Who gets to determine what a "significant" amount is? Especially when there is no money for prices to be affected?


I'm describing what the current situation is, you idiot. And besides, "significant isn't rigorously defined" =/= "there's no problem". Stop evading.

What is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely stores/stockpiles goods in anticipation of coming shortages?


What is an appropriate punishment for someone who stockpiles necessary goods that are in high demand in order to create a shortage?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 23:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.


Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.


Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 09-10-2016 23:38
10-10-2016 02:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

No, you are trying to legitimize yourself as the judge of what constitutes "nice things" such that they should be considered for prohibition.

We don't need your kind of Nazi humanity-haters trying to create a power-mad government that seeks to punish the citizenry for the completely natural desire to want nice things. We don't need your kind of invasive, omnipotent government controlling the personal decisions of each person and punishing those personal preferences the government hasn't sanctioned.

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop putting straw into my mouth.

More EVASION. "Hoarding" is only an issue in Marxism. Normal humans store extra quantites of those items they foresee will have shortages.

Marxists, however, want people to be absolutely fukced wherever they successfully damage an economy. Marxists don't want any people potentially riding it out for having built up sufficient stores. Marxists want to relish in the sight of the people desperately journeying across the border to fish through foreign trash in the hopes of maybe finding something to eat. Marxists cackle with glee as they arrest someone who bartered for food for his family.

Marxists are evil fukcs who should be segregated from the world's non-haters and forced to live in their own commune without any capitalist support. What? That would be too cruel, you say?

Fukc them.

Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage? Don't tell me that you don't have an answer because based on your posts you obviously do. But your EVASION hints at a certain level of shame you carry for having that position.

...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X56-taFhsvE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0lWjKXWSy0Q

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IYvcrddoxCM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XC8FDY1EOlU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KpYgEEKm-ps
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=av0d9gokjSs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rwyTZng7664



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 02:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

No, you are trying to legitimize yourself as the judge of what constitutes "nice things" such that they should be considered for prohibition.

We don't need your kind of Nazi humanity-haters trying to create a power-mad government that seeks to punish the citizenry for the completely natural desire to want nice things. We don't need your kind of invasive, omnipotent government controlling the personal decisions of each person and punishing those personal preferences the government hasn't sanctioned.


I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns! I'm saying that a particular nongovernmental entity making an effort to create an artificial scarcity of a good - that's worse when the good is a necessity, and thus the price of a necessary good without which everybody would die is artificially raised, than when the good is a useful item that it is possible to live without.

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop putting straw into my mouth.

More EVASION. "Hoarding" is only an issue in Marxism. Normal humans store extra quantites of those items they foresee will have shortages.


That's fine. Some people humans are arseholes, though, and if you have enough power to buy up a significant amount of something in order to create the shortage, that's not fine.

Marxists, however, want people to be absolutely fukced wherever they successfully damage an economy. Marxists don't want any people potentially riding it out for having built up sufficient stores. Marxists want to relish in the sight of the people desperately journeying across the border to fish through foreign trash in the hopes of maybe finding something to eat. Marxists cackle with glee as they arrest someone who bartered for food for his family.


Marxists kick puppies. And laugh!

Everyone needs their demons. Who am I to take away yours?

Marxists are evil fukcs who should be segregated from the world's non-haters and forced to live in their own commune without any capitalist support. What? That would be too cruel, you say?


Oh, I'd love that. To be cut off from all the haters of the world, to finally have utopia... but capitalism wouldn't let us be, so it's an impossible dream.

Fukc them.


'Kay.

Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?


None.

Don't tell me that you don't have an answer because based on your posts you obviously do. But your EVASION hints at a certain level of shame you carry for having that position.


No shame.

...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?


Hey, you're assuming that all Marxists support harsh punishment. I oppose the death penalty.

I'd say large fines would be a decent punishment.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 03:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.


If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.
10-10-2016 05:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:That's fine. Some people humans are arseholes, though, and if you have enough power to buy up a significant amount of something in order to create the shortage, that's not fine.

This kind of fear-mongering premise makes no sense. Nobody has any power to buy any quantity of anything that isn't granted by the person/people selling said quantity of whatever.

So if someone happens to buy a controlling quantity of something, shouldn't you be villifying the sellers who were apparently eager to make that happen? Why is the buyer somehow at fault. He was begged for his business.

I'm guessing you're a Marxist because you find economics too confusing.

jwoodward48 wrote:Marxists kick puppies. And laugh!

No, they do even better. They drive populations into abject povery and starvation such that no dog is safe. Have you seen any of the videos on the current state of Venezuela?

Marxism is a cancer. Marxists spread the cancer.

jwoodward48 wrote:Everyone needs their demons. Who am I to take away yours?

No, I certainly don't need my demons, but I have them nonetheless. The difference between your demons and mine is that you demonize those who add value to society while I demonize those who seek to punish those who add value to society.

jwoodward48 wrote: Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?

.....
...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?


jwoodward48 weaseled:
None [but also] I'd say large fines would be a decent punishment.


What form do fines take when there is no money?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 06:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:That's fine. Some people humans are arseholes, though, and if you have enough power to buy up a significant amount of something in order to create the shortage, that's not fine.

This kind of fear-mongering premise makes no sense. Nobody has any power to buy any quantity of anything that isn't granted by the person/people selling said quantity of whatever.

So if someone happens to buy a controlling quantity of something, shouldn't you be villifying the sellers who were apparently eager to make that happen? Why is the buyer somehow at fault. He was begged for his business.


The sellers are just selling - they don't know what the buyer will do. They assume that the buyer will either use or sell the goods, but they have no way of checking, nor a reason to do so.

If you buy up a significant amount of a good with the intent of creating an artificial scarcity of said good, that's your fault. Not the fault of whoever's buying from you, not the fault of whoever's selling to you. Your fault, and the fault of the system.

I'm guessing you're a Marxist because you find economics too confusing.


...no?

jwoodward48 wrote:Marxists kick puppies. And laugh!

No, they do even better. They drive populations into abject povery and starvation such that no dog is safe. Have you seen any of the videos on the current state of Venezuela?

Marxism is a cancer. Marxists spread the cancer.


I will admit, I am a poverist. Whatever that is.

Are you suggesting that I want this to happen? Or are you saying that I'm an idiot? Make up your mind, IB! Evil arsehole, or idiotic sheeperson! Which am I?!

jwoodward48 wrote:Everyone needs their demons. Who am I to take away yours?

No, I certainly don't need my demons, but I have them nonetheless. The difference between your demons and mine is that you demonize those who add value to society while I demonize those who seek to punish those who add value to society.


I don't demonize anybody. By your logic, accusing someone of a crime is demonizing them. Learn English.

jwoodward48 wrote: Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?

.....
...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?


jwoodward48 weaseled:
None [but also] I'd say large fines would be a decent punishment.


What form do fines take when there is no money?


Oh, by the four hells. We're talking about a system with money, as without money and trade, it's impossible for somebody to do this.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 08:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:The sellers are just selling

I was right. You find economics too confusing.

jwoodward48 wrote: - they don't know what the buyer will do.

Yes they do. They know that every buyer is scheming ...to buy. Those buyers give themselves away, asking what the prices are, looking for discounts, wielding coupons, holding credit cards at the ready...they don't disguise their intent very well.

The sellers are the ones that aren't performing the background checks. The sellers are the ones who don't implement any waiting period. The buyer is just buying.

jwoodward48 wrote:If you buy up a significant amount of a good with the intent of creating an artificial scarcity of said good, that's your fault.

What if I buy a controlling amount with no intention of creating a scarcity, but just because I want to be the main provider of that good? Don't the two look the same?

What if I corner the market on soybeans just because I hapeened to buy a bunch from the early harvest the day before a surprise storm wipes out all the rest? Would "Climate" have declared me deserving of a hefty fine?

jwoodward48 wrote:Your fault, and the fault of the system.

Oh yeah, blame the unfalsifiable "system."

jwoodward48 wrote: I will admit, I am a poverist. Whatever that is.

I'll take you on your word.

jwoodward48 wrote: Are you suggesting that I want this to happen? Or are you saying that I'm an idiot? Make up your mind, IB! Evil arsehole, or idiotic sheeperson! Which am I?!

I go with you being an evil humanity-hater who is at war with those who want or like nice things.

I happen to think you are that way because you never grasped economics.

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't demonize anybody.

You think that people who prepare for impending shortages.should face hefty fines.

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, by the four hells. We're talking about a system with money, as without money and trade, it's impossible for somebody to do this.

Then you probably should have thought of that before you posted something stupid.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 14:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The sellers are just selling

I was right. You find economics too confusing.


How so? I've never taken an economics course, but I have a decent grasp of the basics. You say that typing the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I will never understand you.

jwoodward48 wrote: - they don't know what the buyer will do.

Yes they do. They know that every buyer is scheming ...to buy. Those buyers give themselves away, asking what the prices are, looking for discounts, wielding coupons, holding credit cards at the ready...they don't disguise their intent very well.

The sellers are the ones that aren't performing the background checks. The sellers are the ones who don't implement any waiting period. The buyer is just buying.


They intend to buy. That is obvious. What they do with the goods is another matter.

jwoodward48 wrote:If you buy up a significant amount of a good with the intent of creating an artificial scarcity of said good, that's your fault.

What if I buy a controlling amount with no intention of creating a scarcity, but just because I want to be the main provider of that good? Don't the two look the same?

What if I corner the market on soybeans just because I hapeened to buy a bunch from the early harvest the day before a surprise storm wipes out all the rest? Would "Climate" have declared me deserving of a hefty fine?


No, because in my scenario, you don't sell it yet. You wait until the price has gone up. In your scenario, the price happened to go up, but you always planned on selling it as soon as possible.

jwoodward48 wrote:Your fault, and the fault of the system.

Oh yeah, blame the unfalsifiable "system."


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinking it means.

jwoodward48 wrote: I will admit, I am a poverist. Whatever that is.

I'll take you on your word.


It was a joke.

jwoodward48 wrote: Are you suggesting that I want this to happen? Or are you saying that I'm an idiot? Make up your mind, IB! Evil arsehole, or idiotic sheeperson! Which am I?!

I go with you being an evil humanity-hater who is at war with those who want or like nice things.

I happen to think you are that way because you never grasped economics.


So I'm both evil and idiotic. Hm. How will I carry out my evil plans?

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't demonize anybody.

You think that people who prepare for impending shortages.should face hefty fines.


Straw man. Plus, by that logic, I am demonizing every criminal.

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, by the four hells. We're talking about a system with money, as without money and trade, it's impossible for somebody to do this.

Then you probably should have thought of that before you posted something stupid.[/quote]

I posted nothing stupid. We are discussing two scenarios, one capitalist and one socialist.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 15:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.


If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.


You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.
10-10-2016 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:How so? I've never taken an economics course, but I have a decent grasp of the basics.

You do not have a decent grasp of the basics. It is patently obvious that you haven't any sort of economics background and that your perception of your understanding is highly exaggerated.

Just as your understanding of physics is full of bogus violations of science, your understanding of economics is full of contradictions and bogus misunderstandings of human nature.

In fact, the basis for Marxism is a nasty combination of required economic illiteracy, envy/fear/hatred for those who aren't of the dogma and a dependence upon habitual dishonesty to cover completely indefensible positions, i.e. a direct clone of warmizombies wrt Global Warming.

I'll give you a hint. You should not be concerned with the personal intentions of those striving to add value. You should be concerned with the process and results. You should not be imposing your religious perpective onto others by declaring one widget store owner's "intentions" as being honorable while declaring that another widget store owner's intentions are somehow sinful. Further, you should not be trying to integrate church and state such that the government favors those declared to be of "holy" intentions while punishing those who are not in favor with the government by initiating a witch hunt.

Venezuela anyone?

jwoodward48 wrote: You say that typing the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I will never understand you.

Priceless! It was you who wrote "sellers are just selling" thinking that makes it all OK.

jwoodward48 wrote: They intend to buy. That is obvious. What they do with the goods is another matter.

Who do you claim is required to sell something s/he doesn't want to sell?

If there becomes a shortage of sex partners should the government have the power to require women to sell/rent their bodies?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because in my scenario, you don't sell it yet. You wait until the price has gone up. In your scenario, the price happened to go up, but you always planned on selling it as soon as possible.

The intentions are irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same. Your attempt to control intentions and not results allows the government to become a religious oligarchy that rules by any whimsical religious decree based on any WACKY religious dogma they legislate as gospel.

jwoodward48 wrote: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinking it means.

That's exactly what trafn said.

In what way do you not understand falsifiability?

jwoodward48 wrote: It was a joke.

Yes, and I piggybacked on your joke. Didn't you get it?

jwoodward48 wrote: So I'm both evil and idiotic. Hm. How will I carry out my evil plans?

There's still time to save yourself.

jwoodward48 wrote: Straw man. Plus, by that logic, I am demonizing every criminal.

You demonize all those who break the laws you believe should be on the books ... and ... you believe there should be laws regulating intentions, how people are allowed to think and how people approach adding value to society.

Should we have innovation? Doesn't that give someone a monopoly at some point, by definition? Should innovation be outlawed and demonized?

Btw, I asked you how "fines" work in a system without money. You then went into aggressive EVASION. I was just curious how fines would work once money is removed. You'd still need to punish people for acts of self-preservation, right? Would incarceration be your only option? Might you change your mind on the death penalty? How about sharia law-style amputations, safely administered by the state, of course?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 18:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.


If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.


You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.


Heh. No, the president doesn't have absolute power, so we'd still be better than a dictatorship, at least.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 18:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:How so? I've never taken an economics course, but I have a decent grasp of the basics.

You do not have a decent grasp of the basics. It is patently obvious that you haven't any sort of economics background and that your perception of your understanding is highly exaggerated.


No, you suffer the D-K effect, not I.

Just as your understanding of physics is full of bogus violations of science, your understanding of economics is full of contradictions and bogus misunderstandings of human nature.


Oh, no, I'd say that my understanding of economics is a bit worse than my understanding of physics, but thanks for the compliment!

In fact, the basis for Marxism is a nasty combination of required economic illiteracy, envy/fear/hatred for those who aren't of the dogma and a dependence upon habitual dishonesty to cover completely indefensible positions, i.e. a direct clone of warmizombies wrt Global Warming.


I neither fear, envy, nor hate you. I pity you.

I'll give you a hint. You should not be concerned with the personal intentions of those striving to add value.


To society? That's fine. But adding value to one's own wealth at the expense of others isn't fine.

You should be concerned with the process and results. You should not be imposing your religious perpective onto others by declaring one widget store owner's "intentions" as being honorable while declaring that another widget store owner's intentions are somehow sinful.


Because, you know, morality has no place in capitalism.

Further, you should not be trying to integrate church and state such that the government favors those declared to be of "holy" intentions while punishing those who are not in favor with the government by initiating a witch hunt.


"BLAH BLAH WACKY RELIGION"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Venezuela anyone?


There have been messed-up capitalist countries before.

jwoodward48 wrote: You say that typing the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I will never understand you.

Priceless! It was you who wrote "sellers are just selling" thinking that makes it all OK.


You say that the fact that I typed the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I wasn't saying that the phrase was a "magic make-my-words-true" phrase. I was saying that it didn't show a lack of understanding.

jwoodward48 wrote: They intend to buy. That is obvious. What they do with the goods is another matter.

Who do you claim is required to sell something s/he doesn't want to sell?

If there becomes a shortage of sex partners should the government have the power to require women to sell/rent their bodies?


...what?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because in my scenario, you don't sell it yet. You wait until the price has gone up. In your scenario, the price happened to go up, but you always planned on selling it as soon as possible.

The intentions are irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same. Your attempt to control intentions and not results allows the government to become a religious oligarchy that rules by any whimsical religious decree based on any WACKY religious dogma they legislate as gospel.


No, because there is a difference between surfing on a tsunami and creating one for the purpose of surfing on it.

I'm not regulating intent. I'm regulating effect. If your actions cause something, rather than happen to correlate with that thing, then you are at fault.

jwoodward48 wrote: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinking it means.

That's exactly what trafn said.

In what way do you not understand falsifiability?


I understand it. Do you?

jwoodward48 wrote: It was a joke.

Yes, and I piggybacked on your joke. Didn't you get it?


No, but never mind.

jwoodward48 wrote: So I'm both evil and idiotic. Hm. How will I carry out my evil plans?

There's still time to save yourself.


By falling on my knees and praying to the Free Market to save my soul from the Satan of Communism, right?

jwoodward48 wrote: Straw man. Plus, by that logic, I am demonizing every criminal.

You demonize all those who break the laws you believe should be on the books ... and ... you believe there should be laws regulating intentions, how people are allowed to think and how people approach adding value to society.


So saying that a particular activity is or should be criminal... is equivalent to demonization??

Adding value to society is good. Adding value to your wealth by taking away from society and exploiting other people is bad.

Should we have innovation? Doesn't that give someone a monopoly at some point, by definition? Should innovation be outlawed and demonized?


"Outlawed", according to you, is equivalent to "demonized", so you're being redundant.

No, of course not. That would be stupid. Innovation doesn't have to give people monopolies - it can be used for the good of all.

Btw, I asked you how "fines" work in a system without money. You then went into aggressive EVASION. I was just curious how fines would work once money is removed.


We were discussing a crime that can only exist within capitalism. Of course a fine makes sense. If money didn't exist, neither could the crime.

You'd still need to punish people for acts of self-preservation, right?


No, strawmanner.

Would incarceration be your only option?


Considering that theft would no longer be possible, and that nobody would be poor and desperate, I'd say that incarceration would be very possible. Once we stop the prison industry, things will get better.

Might you change your mind on the death penalty? How about sharia law-style amputations, safely administered by the state, of course?


Someone sounds like they're demonizing their enemies...


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 19:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.


If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.


You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.


Heh. No, the president doesn't have absolute power, so we'd still be better than a dictatorship, at least.


Liecester won the league cup. This is the era of the highly unlikely......
10-10-2016 19:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.


If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.


You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.


Heh. No, the president doesn't have absolute power, so we'd still be better than a dictatorship, at least.


Liecester won the league cup. This is the era of the highly unlikely......


It's quite unlikely that he would find a way to usurp the Congress's power. We aren't entirely ****ed if he wins.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

No, you are trying to legitimize yourself as the judge of what constitutes "nice things" such that they should be considered for prohibition.

We don't need your kind of Nazi humanity-haters trying to create a power-mad government that seeks to punish the citizenry for the completely natural desire to want nice things. We don't need your kind of invasive, omnipotent government controlling the personal decisions of each person and punishing those personal preferences the government hasn't sanctioned.


I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns! I'm saying that a particular nongovernmental entity making an effort to create an artificial scarcity of a good - that's worse when the good is a necessity, and thus the price of a necessary good without which everybody would die is artificially raised, than when the good is a useful item that it is possible to live without.

You effectively are saying that people shouldn't have guns, because food is more important. Who the hell are you to say what is more important?

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food? (Didn't I just say that? Oh well...seems like you didn't get it last time.)

Hoarders only hurt themselves. No one is hoarding food in the U.S. commodity markets.

In Argentina, however (a socialist nation), they found a cache of hoarded food that simply went to waste. It was hoarded by the government.

OUR government pays farmers to destroy their own crops and pour milk on the ground to 'prop up' prices.

We don't need price controls. They are not a step to your Utopia. They only bring misery.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-10-2016 02:28
11-10-2016 02:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.
Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.


You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 03:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

1) There is nothing about generalizations that inherently make them wrong.
2) There is nothing about the character of generalizations that apply to a particular generalization.
3) There is nothing about a particular generalization that says all generalizations have the same characteristics.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.
Laws are not needed in this case. The hoarding problem takes care of itself. The hoarder loses. No hoarder can control the market, or production.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the
.

Subject dropped.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.


You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

I have a gun. So do my neighbors.

Is stealing food part of your Utopia? How about getting shot?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

Oh, for ****'s sake. I'm saying that since most absolute statements are wrong (every Mexican is a rapist = wrong, ferex), yours is likely to be wrong.

1) There is nothing about generalizations that inherently make them wrong.

They tend to be wrong, especially when they aren't backed up.
2) There is nothing about the character of generalizations that apply to a particular generalization.

Anti-divisional error: the statement that nothing about the whole ever applies to its parts. I didn't think it was possible to make this error.
3) There is nothing about a particular generalization that says all generalizations have the same characteristics.

You haven't backed it up. I have nothing to distinguish it from other baseless generalizations.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.
Laws are not needed in this case. The hoarding problem takes care of itself. The hoarder loses. No hoarder can control the market, or production.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the
.

Subject dropped.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.


You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

I have a gun. So do my neighbors.

Is stealing food part of your Utopia? How about getting shot?


...no, stop that. I am saying that "people can grow their own food" isn't a good defense against the statement "inducing an artificial scarcity of food is unethical". We're discussing capitalism at the moment.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 11:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

Oh, for ****'s sake. I'm saying that since most absolute statements are wrong (every Mexican is a rapist = wrong, ferex), yours is likely to be wrong.

A repeat of a divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from...).

jwoodward48 wrote:

1) There is nothing about generalizations that inherently make them wrong.

They tend to be wrong, especially when they aren't backed up.
2) There is nothing about the character of generalizations that apply to a particular generalization.

Anti-divisional error: the statement that nothing about the whole ever applies to its parts. I didn't think it was possible to make this error.
3) There is nothing about a particular generalization that says all generalizations have the same characteristics.

You haven't backed it up. I have nothing to distinguish it from other baseless generalizations.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.


Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.
Laws are not needed in this case. The hoarding problem takes care of itself. The hoarder loses. No hoarder can control the market, or production.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the
.

Subject dropped.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?


You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.


You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

I have a gun. So do my neighbors.

Is stealing food part of your Utopia? How about getting shot?


...no, stop that. I am saying that "people can grow their own food" isn't a good defense against the statement "inducing an artificial scarcity of food is unethical". We're discussing capitalism at the moment.

Yes it is. It shows the food hoarder has no real power to hurt anything but himself.

We are NOT discussing capitalism at the moment. We are discussing the fallacy of you introducing price controls to achieve your Utopia of a no money system.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.


Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

Oh, for ****'s sake. I'm saying that since most absolute statements are wrong (every Mexican is a rapist = wrong, ferex), yours is likely to be wrong.

A repeat of a divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from...).

If you say an absolute in a complex, chaotic system like economics, it is almost certainly wrong. It can be a general law, yes, so I'm just nitpicking and I'll drop this.

We are NOT discussing capitalism at the moment. We are discussing the fallacy of you introducing price controls to achieve your Utopia of a no money system.


The plan is twofold - first, improve upon capitalism. Second, change it to socialism. The latter will take a long time. It's not fallacious.

I have diabetes. There are two main organizations that help people with diabetes - the JDRF, which helps find a cure, and the ADA, which helps diabetic people right now. The former is better in the long run, but who's going to argue that the latter is fallacious?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote: The plan is twofold - first, improve upon capitalism.

Second, change it to socialism. The latter will take a long time. It's not fallacious.

You haven't said anything more than any radical religious leader who wants to establish a new society and/or a new world order based on some WACKY religious dogma.

jwoodward48 wrote: I have diabetes. There are two main organizations that help people with diabetes - the JDRF, which helps find a cure, and the ADA, which helps diabetic people right now. The former is better in the long run, but who's going to argue that the latter is fallacious?

Capitalism isn't a problem.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a cancer. How would you recommend we deal with it in the present?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 17:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: The plan is twofold - first, improve upon capitalism.

Second, change it to socialism. The latter will take a long time. It's not fallacious.

You haven't said anything more than any radical religious leader who wants to establish a new society and/or a new world order based on some WACKY religious dogma.

I've said that I want to change things. You were asking for more detail - I've given some. You were asking for more general statements - ditto.
jwoodward48 wrote: I have diabetes. There are two main organizations that help people with diabetes - the JDRF, which helps find a cure, and the ADA, which helps diabetic people right now. The former is better in the long run, but who's going to argue that the latter is fallacious?

Capitalism isn't a problem.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a cancer. How would you recommend we deal with it in the present?


Well, you could start by not demonizing it.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 17:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Capitalism isn't a problem.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a cancer. How would you recommend we deal with it in the present?


Well, you could start by not demonizing it.

I made it clear. Marxists demonize those who make the word a better place.

I demonize those who demonize those who make the world a better place.

Expect me to continue demonizing Marxism.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 18:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, so you demonize demonization! Finally, I understand. I was similar. I was intolerant of intolerance. But if you view intolerance as a bad thing, then you yourself should not intolerate anything.

That's not a very sophisticated approach, though. Here's a better one:

To disapprove of demonization when it is headed toward people you like is easy. To disapprove of demonization when it is headed toward your enemies is bad.

And demonization is bad. It reduces rationality to pathos. Whoever gets the more people worked up and angry, not thinking, just hatred and rage, is the one who wins. And that is objectively bad. The best way to determine what happens isn't who you're the angriest at. It isn't picking on whichever demographic or group is the easiest target. The best way is to rationally debate and discuss the issues, and then to have the voters decide who they want to represent them. (Or to simply have them vote directly on an issue, in some cases.)

Demonization transmutes decision-making from logic to emotion, and the base emotions at that. (anger, fear, hatred, disgust, etc.) It's not good, ever. Please consider this.
Edited on 11-10-2016 18:22
11-10-2016 20:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote: And demonization is bad. It reduces rationality to pathos.

I do not demonize demonization. I demonize those who demonize people who are making the world better. Do you not understand the difference?

jwoodward48 wrote: Whoever gets the more people worked up and angry, not thinking, just hatred and rage, is the one who wins.

I demonize those who do that.

jwoodward48 wrote: And that is objectively bad.

Which is why I demonize those who do it.

jwoodward48 wrote: The best way to determine what happens isn't who you're the angriest at.

When did anger on my part ever come into the picture. I am quite capable of effectively demonizing Marxists without my heart rate even increasing noticeably. Let's do a quick test:

IB DaMann demonizes: Marxists are total dumbasses who demonize those who make the world a better place. Marxists want to form an omnipotent government to confiscate the rewards earned by those making society better and to punish people for having nice things.

Marxists are firebrand haters of humanity who want everyone (except those in the government) to be flat broke in the name of making everything "fair" and "leveling the playing field." Marxists will not stop until humanity is living as cavemen in a world devoid of nice things.

Marxists aren't happy until you're not happy.

<heart rate check> It looks like I'm fine. I didn't even work up a sweat. </heart rate check>

So, um, no. I believe you are mistaken.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 23:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: And demonization is bad. It reduces rationality to pathos.

I do not demonize demonization. I demonize those who demonize people who are making the world better. Do you not understand the difference?

When I said that I "used to be intolerant of intolerance," that meant that I did not tolerate those who intolerated, nor their acts of intolerance.

Besides, as I just said, demonization is bad.
jwoodward48 wrote: Whoever gets the more people worked up and angry, not thinking, just hatred and rage, is the one who wins.

I demonize those who do that.

No, Mommy, she started it!

Demonization is bad. Even demonizing people who you think deserve it.

And besides, there's either two ways for demonization to be effective:
1. You lie.
2. You get people angry, or fearful, etc. Anger is not the only possible emotion.

Those who demonize are not necessarily angry themselves, but they take advantage of others' anger.

jwoodward48 wrote: And that is objectively bad.

Which is why I demonize those who do it.

*facepalm*
jwoodward48 wrote: The best way to determine what happens isn't who you're the angriest at.

When did anger on my part ever come into the picture. I am quite capable of effectively demonizing Marxists without my heart rate even increasing noticeably. Let's do a quick test:

IB DaMann demonizes: Marxists are total dumbasses who demonize those who make the world a better place. Marxists want to form an omnipotent government to confiscate the rewards earned by those making society better and to punish people for having nice things.

Marxists are firebrand haters of humanity who want everyone (except those in the government) to be flat broke in the name of making everything "fair" and "leveling the playing field." Marxists will not stop until humanity is living as cavemen in a world devoid of nice things.

Marxists aren't happy until you're not happy.

<heart rate check> It looks like I'm fine. I didn't even work up a sweat. </heart rate check>

So, um, no. I believe you are mistaken.


You are making an appeal to emotion when you demonize. I'm not saying that you yourself are getting caught in the base emotions, but you are making that happen to other people.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 15:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, and the base emotions don't necessarily have to correlate with heart rate increases, etc.
12-10-2016 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, Mommy, she started it!

You're not very good at the logic thing.

jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization is bad. Even demonizing people who you think deserve it.

I disagree with your absolute.

jwoodward48 wrote:And besides, there's either two ways for demonization to be effective:
1. You lie.
2. You get people angry, or fearful, etc. Anger is not the only possible emotion.

Marxists are haters who would destroy an economy just because they think it will make them feel better. Marxists are all about pursuing legalized theft by having the government do it.

Revealing a negative truth about certain people as I just did in my preceding words earns the characterization of "demonization." It is not bad thing. It is information. Alerting others to the intentions of some is a good thing as long as it is honest.

And therein lies the difference between us. I keep it honest. You keep it dishonest. I strictly adhere to science, math, economics and other objective disciplines. You deny science, math and economics.

You EVADE anything that runs counter to your religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: *facepalm*

Ineffective.

jwoodward48 wrote: You are making an appeal to emotion when you demonize.

Nope. An appeal to emotion has no real, verifiable threat. Global Warming is a great example of an entire religion dedicated to fear-mongering, i.e. appealing to emotion.

Alerting people unfamiliar with Marxism to its dangers is a neighborly service. The doctor who notifies her patient of cancer is not appealing to emotion even though the topic might involve emotion for other reasons. Marxism is a social and political cancer. When it is diagnosed, immediate attention should be afforded.

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not saying that you yourself are getting caught in the base emotions, but you are making that happen to other people.

In the case of Marxism, the Marxists are already at work playing on emotion for political gain and for the advancement of the cancer. The emotions involved are already brought to bear by the Marxist problem. Offering a diagnosis (and hence "demonizing" the Marxists) differs not from any doctor diagnosing cancer. We just don't say that the doctor is "demonizing" the cancer because the word "demonize" implies that people are the recipient of a negative characterization.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 16:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: No, Mommy, she started it!

You're not very good at the logic thing.

I was mocking you. I'll spell it out.

You are saying that Group X demonizes people, and thus it is okay to demonize them. Even excluding the possibility that the demonic image of Group X is false (which is probably is), that is juvenile. Saying that "Group X started it, so I'm not at fault"? Grow up.
jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization is bad. Even demonizing people who you think deserve it.

I disagree with your absolute.

I have explained why demonization is bad. It's effective - if you think that the ends entirely justify any means, then you'll love demonization. But keep in mind that that makes me the ethical one. Hehehe.
jwoodward48 wrote:And besides, there's either two ways for demonization to be effective:
1. You lie.
2. You get people angry, or fearful, etc. Anger is not the only possible emotion.

Marxists are haters who would destroy an economy just because they think it will make them feel better. Marxists are all about pursuing legalized theft by having the government do it.

Yes, that is a very good example of demonization.
Revealing a negative truth about certain people as I just did in my preceding words earns the characterization of "demonization." It is not bad thing. It is information. Alerting others to the intentions of some is a good thing as long as it is honest.

Ah, so you are saying that it is true? Ohhhhh. Okay. You see everything as black and white. I'm sorry, I should have guessed that a conservative would do that.
And therein lies the difference between us. I keep it honest. You keep it dishonest. I strictly adhere to science, math, economics and other objective disciplines. You deny science, math and economics.

Demonization, insults.
You EVADE anything that runs counter to your religion.

So sayeth the King of Evasion, yea.
jwoodward48 wrote: *facepalm*

Ineffective.

If demonization is objectively bad, then you shouldn't do it!
jwoodward48 wrote: You are making an appeal to emotion when you demonize.

Nope. An appeal to emotion has no real, verifiable threat. Global Warming is a great example of an entire religion dedicated to fear-mongering, i.e. appealing to emotion.

That's false. Fallacies don't necessarily have incorrect results. I could use an appeal to emotion to convince people that we shouldn't let serial killers back on the street. I could also use logic. What makes the appeal to emotion a fallacy is that it can apply to both false and true statements - making the appeal doesn't say anything about the truth of your point, just that you can pull on people's emotions.
Alerting people unfamiliar with Marxism to its dangers is a neighborly service. The doctor who notifies her patient of cancer is not appealing to emotion even though the topic might involve emotion for other reasons. Marxism is a social and political cancer. When it is diagnosed, immediate attention should be afforded.

Why do you think that I am an EVIL PERSON who does EVIL THINGS for the EVULZ?

I'll quote something:

WELCOME TO RATIONALITY

ALMOST EVERYTHING IS ****ED

ALMOST NO ONE IS EVIL


The problems that exist can be blamed on a particular group, and then said group can be demonized, or we can actually fix things.
]quote]
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not saying that you yourself are getting caught in the base emotions, but you are making that happen to other people.

In the case of Marxism, the Marxists are already at work playing on emotion for political gain and for the advancement of the cancer. The emotions involved are already brought to bear by the Marxist problem. Offering a diagnosis (and hence "demonizing" the Marxists) differs not from any doctor diagnosing cancer. We just don't say that the doctor is "demonizing" the cancer because the word "demonize" implies that people are the recipient of a negative characterization.[/quote]

This is pointless. You've been told your whole life that Marxists are vile, despicable, inhuman beings who want to destroy all of humanity, and that Marxism is a cancer that is eating away at society. If you want to stay happy and wrong, by all means continue. I always found life to be easier when you could blame all your problems on a few people.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
jwoodward48 wrote:
This is pointless. You've been told your whole life that Marxists are vile, despicable, inhuman beings who want to destroy all of humanity, and that Marxism is a cancer that is eating away at society. If you want to stay happy and wrong, by all means continue. I always found life to be easier when you could blame all your problems on a few people.


This is the argument of the Stone again.

You have provided nothing less than the SAME vile, despicable, inhuman solutions to implement your version of Utopia.

No thanks. I'll keep my property, thanks. Neither will I conform to price controls.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You can disagree. That is fine. Portraying me as a vile, despicable, inhuman person is not fine.
12-10-2016 22:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote: You can disagree. That is fine. Portraying me as a vile, despicable, inhuman person is not fine.

Hint: Into the Night was referring to your "solutions." He's too nice to point out that you actively seek to harm others and to destroy happiness ... which makes you a bad person.

Really, he won't say that. He won't point it out.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 22:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Blatant demonization. Stop it. It's not true.
12-10-2016 22:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote: Blatant demonization. Stop it. It's not true.

It is absolutely true demonization.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 22:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.
12-10-2016 22:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You can disagree. That is fine. Portraying me as a vile, despicable, inhuman person is not fine.


Any of us who has looked the history of communism and then thinks its any good is a vile, despicable, inhuman person only interested in having power over others in order to hurt them or kill them.

You are, I hope, a young optimistic idealist who has yet to understand just how nasty most people are given half a chance.

The basic sound bites of communism sound OK but once you think about the power necessary to enforce them you should shudder.
12-10-2016 23:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
13-10-2016 01:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.

You were asked before how you imagine it being implemented such that it is a good thing and not a heinous monster described as a great thing.

Would you let us in?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate What is this Church of Marxism?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Church of Global Warming Community523-10-2019 01:22
Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty6401-10-2019 06:40
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.613-02-2019 23:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact