Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?

[Firestreak]

The conversation is currently about economics, don't let silly things like the actual definitions of a phrase get in your way or anything :roll:

If i told you the grass was green would you argue as well?

As i said were the conversation about culture, philosophy, psychology, etc the comment you made would hold water. That's not the case.



Ask one of your professors when you next get the chance how much common sense is involved in economics, you're obviously not going to take anyone around here's word for it.

Basic principles of economics, like the supply/demand curve, were put into question.

I've been trying to be as civil as possible, explaining the technical reasons why this is a faulty argument. I'm not going to spend hours teaching people over QCDN how economics works, but when someone argues against the supply/demand curve it is obvious to me that they don't know it.

I was pushed into defending that position, and so I explained the fault in his argument, which it is based on common sense which is often not correct(often correct, but often not correct, nonetheless). This is the tactful way to say it. The not so tactful way is to flame someone and mock them, insult their intelligence, ext.

That's also the easier way, but this isn't the flameboard and I don't really want my posting priveledges restricted! So unfortunately I have to do it the intellectual way. And that's not always interesting and may come off as nit picking but it is nonetheless valid.

 

[Darkdante]

So I guess you know how the basic economic fundamentals depend upon human behavior.

And if you know anything about human behavior you know its not set in stone like say, biology.

But of course its time to change the subject again.

 

[Mokk]

Basic principles of economics, like the supply/demand curve, were put into question.

I've been trying to be as civil as possible, explaining the technical reasons why this is a faulty argument. I'm not going to spend hours teaching people over QCDN how economics works, but when someone argues against the supply/demand curve it is obvious to me that they don't know it.

So you're not here to spend hours educating you're here to blow your own horn and be generally abrasive, got it. What exactly do you gain from either pursuit, if i may ask? Why spend hours doing either if you can't see the positive impact you could be making and go with that?

I was pushed into defending that position, and so I explained the fault in his argument, which it is based on common sense which is often not correct(often correct, but often not correct, nonetheless). This is the tactful way to say it. The not so tactful way is to flame someone and mock them, insult their intelligence, ext.

It's not possible for something to be often correct and often incorrect, it's one or the other for a designated length of time or specified instance. At the risk of getting in trouble i'd say more often than not you pick the less tactful route in conversation and this ultimately leads to multiple misunderstandings when you actually are being civil when making your points.

That's also the easier way, but this isn't the flameboard and I don't really want my posting priveledges restricted! So unfortunately I have to do it the intellectual way. And that's not always interesting and may come off as nit picking but it is nonetheless valid.

Agreed, all i was saying is that the way you put your point forth did not do what you were attempting to say any justice, it's simply too duplicitous. Calling on common sense as a defense is inapplicable. The fact of the matter is that on a case by case basis the supply and demand curve are subjected to multiple variables which can swing this debate one way or the other. Nothing is written in stone for every business out there. A simple way to control misunderstandings like this would be to orate on one particular business type or model and expound based on that case to make your point instead of broadly generalizing and praying no one notices if you slip.

It's simply too big a subject not to be specific and still be correct.

 

[Rones]

A simple way to control misunderstandings like this would be to orate on one particular business type or model and expound based on that case to make your point instead of broadly generalizing and praying no one notices if you slip.

That would be a microeconomics approach. We were discussing in a macroeconomics style. Both are equally valid approachs.

So you're not here to spend hours educating you're here to blow your own horn and be generally abrasive, got it. What exactly do you gain from either pursuit, if i may ask? Why spend hours doing either if you can't see the positive impact you could be making and go with that?

Well, I already tried to teach those basics, but that wasn't well accepted (check my posts with the supply graphs). It was clear that the other side was not interested in learning, so not much point in Fire trying to teach too.

As for the appeal to common sense, interesting read here

 

[Mokk]

Which is why i particularly addressed Firestreak.

If no one is interested in enlightenment what drives the conversation aside from intellectual posturing?

 

[Firestreak]

So you're not here to spend hours educating you're here to blow your own horn and be generally abrasive, got it. What exactly do you gain from either pursuit, if i may ask? Why spend hours doing either if you can't see the positive impact you could be making and go with that?



It's not possible for something to be often correct and often incorrect, it's one or the other for a designated length of time or specified instance. At the risk of getting in trouble i'd say more often than not you pick the less tactful route in conversation and this ultimately leads to multiple misunderstandings when you actually are being civil when making your points.



Agreed, all i was saying is that the way you put your point forth did not do what you were attempting to say any justice, it's simply too duplicitous. Calling on common sense as a defense is inapplicable. The fact of the matter is that on a case by case basis the supply and demand curve are subjected to multiple variables which can swing this debate one way or the other. Nothing is written in stone for every business out there. A simple way to control misunderstandings like this would be to orate on one particular business type or model and expound based on that case to make your point instead of broadly generalizing and praying no one notices if you slip.

It's simply too big a subject not to be specific and still be correct.

I can sum the answer up, with simply, I haven't intentionally steered the conversation onto the issue of economics. The argument came up however on the negative effects of taxation. These aren't things considered guesses. Republicans and Demoocrats in congress don't debate the fundelmental effects of taxes, they accept the negative affects, understand the potential benefits, and weigh them. Hence some programs get funding and some are cut funding.

Hence some political debates are meaningful and some redundant. Just because I don't really want to waste the time on the redundant debates doesn't mean I concede I lose them.

 

[Mokk]

Just because I don't really want to waste the time on the redundant debates doesn't mean I concede I lose them.

My point is one way or another you're just wasting time on redundancy.

 

[Firestreak]

You're basically saying talking to you is pointless.

Now to and to brush up on an argument you put forth before.

It's not possible for something to be often correct and often incorrect, it's one or the other for a designated length of time or specified instance.

It's very possible for something to often happen, and often not happen. It's not possible for something to most often happen and most often not happen, which implies more than half of the time.

If 80% of the time common sense is right, and 20% of the time it's wrong.

I can say it's often wrong. If you base everything on common sense, and it's wrong 20% of the time, then a good deal of everything you know is wrong. This is not terribly good.

 

[Mokk]

You're basically saying talking to you is pointless.

Now to and to brush up on an argument you put forth before.

No, if you'd notice i've had no dog in this fight for quite some time. It's pointless to argue with DD and trip past the point you already have, none of you will concede your points one way or the other for the sake of good conversation. Instead you choose to repeat yourselves over and over until the topic changes .... again.

It's very possible for something to often happen, and often not happen. It's not possible for something to most often happen and most often not happen, which implies more than half of the time.

If 80% of the time common sense is right, and 20% of the time it's wrong.

I can say it's often wrong. If you base everything on common sense, and it's wrong 20% of the time, then a good deal of everything you know is wrong. This is not terribly good.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=often

The same subject matter cannot occupy the space of often and not often. It is either one or the other when the usage is applied to a point made in conversation, you lend too much flexibility to your terminology.

 

[Firestreak]

Precision of language.

I cannot be often and not often right.

But I can be often right, and often wrong.

Yet again the assumption you're making is that often is always over 50%. If to be often, I set the standard of 1 in 10, minimum, then if 11 times out of 100 common sense is wrong, I can say, common sense is often wrong. But then 89 of 100 it's right, so it is also often right.

 

[Mokk]

Respectively if someone has different standards they will lean towards calling your views wrong.

It is neither correct nor incorrect, it's subjective, that's all i'm getting at. You can't honeslty be surprised that the people you converse with on one matter or another in these instances share different values over their respective terminologies at this point, nor should you be offended or feel put on the defensive over such things. Rather i'm pointing out that it would save you time and frustration to simply say "I may not agree for <insert variable here> reason, based on these facts <insert facts here>, however the fundamental issue here is the difference between your set of values to the given subject and mine." and simply leave it at that until something new requires addressing.

This is what breeds so much frustration and redundancy in conversations of this nature historicly on the boards. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean you should immediately feel compelled to go on the defensive after your point has already been clearly made.

Keep in mind on the latter part of this post i am not singling you out.

 

[Rones]

If no one is interested in enlightenment what drives the conversation aside from intellectual posturing?

What is with your high and mighty attitude lately of calling the discussions worthless? Some people debate because it is fun in and of itself. You don't have to change someone's mind or even reach a concise conclusion. Some people have fun going back and forth on the flameboards. Others enjoy going back and forth on a little more difficult subject matter. Does it have to lead anywhere or be productive? No, as long as it is fun.

Heck, I think me and Trippy debate for this same reason. Neither of us are likely to change our views, but the discussion is a form of sparring. This is much like sports and video games, it's just a fun competition to keep the mind agile.

 

[Mokk]

What is with your high and mighty attitude lately of calling the discussions worthless? Some people debate because it is fun in and of itself. You don't have to change someone's mind or even reach a concise conclusion. Some people have fun going back and forth on the flameboards. Others enjoy going back and forth on a little more difficult subject matter. Does it have to lead anywhere or be productive? No, as long as it is fun.

Heck, I think me and Trippy debate for this same reason. Neither of us are likely to change our views, but the discussion is a form of sparring. This is much like sports and video games, it's just a fun competition to keep the mind agile.

It's not high and mighty nor am i calling the discussion worthless, the form of the discussion has no conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that no one involved is doing anything to bridge the gap in understanding, you're simply reiterating yourselves until someone derails the topic and then you dance the same dance to a different tune.

Why so indignant at calling out the obvious? A debate would be one thing, however this is not a debate, it's an arguement about who's right and who's wrong which is ultimately futile. There are no points or counterpoints that haven't been issued to death. What you call keeping the mind agile with respect to this thread i would call dulling the mind with repetition. Simply put you all need to learn some new tricks to warrant anyone but you reading this and getting anything out of it.

 

[Firestreak]

Respectively if someone has different standards they will lean towards calling your views wrong.

It is neither correct nor incorrect, it's subjective, that's all i'm getting at. You can't honeslty be surprised that the people you converse with on one matter or another in these instances share different values over their respective terminologies at this point, nor should you be offended or feel put on the defensive over such things. Rather i'm pointing out that it would save you time and frustration to simply say "I may not agree for <insert variable here> reason, based on these facts <insert facts here>, however the fundamental issue here is the difference between your set of values to the given subject and mine." and simply leave it at that until something new requires addressing.

This is what breeds so much frustration and redundancy in conversations of this nature historicly on the boards. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean you should immediately feel compelled to go on the defensive after your point has already been clearly made.

Keep in mind on the latter part of this post i am not singling you out.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Often does not by default mean greater than half.

Therefore I proved I was right in how I used the word. There's nothing subjective about it.

I'm right, you're wrong. There's no need for debate except stupid pride. There's no need to agree to disagree. You're wrong. In all cases, you're wrong. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Wasting time with being polite is pointless, because only the impolite solution is the truth.

Which is that...
...if you don't understand how two things in competition with each other can both occur "often," then you are simply not as bright as you think you are.

I'm sorry, it's not meant to offend, but it's the truth.

 

[Mokk]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Often does not by default mean greater than half.

Therefore I proved I was right in how I used the word. There's nothing subjective about it.

I'm right, you're wrong. There's no need for debate except stupid pride. There's no need to agree to disagree. You're wrong. In all cases, you're wrong. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Wasting time with being polite is pointless, because only the impolite solution is the truth.

Which is that...
...if you don't understand how two things in competition with each other can both occur "often," then you are simply not as bright as you think you are.

I'm sorry, it's not meant to offend, but it's the truth.

You should familiarize yourself with the word occasionally.

If you don't know what i'm talking about how could you possibly manage an intelligent response?

Where, before i posted, were you talking about 2 things simultaneously?

Am i the one who designated the definition?

Am i the one who used a subjective word in a generalized sense?

Am i the one who felt the need to get defensive about it when faced with the undeniable definition of the words you chose to use and then further neglected the unintentional misuse or refuted the validity of the clarification that was provided as to why there might be a discrepency?

Nope, i saw the cause of your frustration and offered a simple means by which to compare what you said with what would have communicated your point.

So far you've been all about wasting time telling everyone what you don't want to waste time with all the while refusing to accept the obvious.

A debate is a civil exchange of opposing views supported by fact. A debate is ambivalent to persuasion.

An argument is the result of inflexibility on the opposing sides of a debate. Argument stresses the advancement by each side of facts and reasons intended to persuade the other side.

While the words may be synonyms for each other they are often misused in place of each other.

At this point i'll take my own advice. I can't imagine you'd slip out of your comfort zone by allowing for the fact that what i had to say made perfect sense.

 

[Firestreak]

If you don't know what i'm talking about how could you possibly manage an intelligent response?

Where, before i posted, were you talking about 2 things simultaneously?

Am i the one who designated the definition?

Am i the one who used a subjective word in a generalized sense?

Am i the one who felt the need to get defensive about it when faced with the undeniable definition of the words you chose to use and then further neglected the unintentional misuse or refuted the validity of the clarification that was provided as to why there might be a discrepency?

Nope, i saw the cause of your frustration and offered a simple means by which to compare what you said with what would have communicated your point.

So far you've been all about wasting time telling everyone what you don't want to waste time with all the while refusing to accept the obvious.

A debate is a civil exchange of opposing views supported by fact. A debate is ambivalent to persuasion.

An argument is the result of inflexibility on the opposing sides of a debate. Argument stresses the advancement by each side of facts and reasons intended to persuade the other side.

While the words may be synonyms for each other they are often misused in place of each other.

At this point i'll take my own advice. I can't imagine you'd slip out of your comfort zone by allowing for the fact that what i had to say made perfect sense.

The specific words that you are writing are understandable, but seemingly, they're out of context. The only thing I can really construe is that this entire page has seemingly been a huge distraction to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Why are you explaining to me the definition of words that we aren't arguing(or debating, heh) over? Why do anything possible to change the subject, and then make a case against something completely out of place?

I don't care if this is a debate, or an argument, or what the difference is. It simply, is what it is. I can discern whatever shade of flexibility or inflexibility is present here without needing to use labels.

What is this all about?

 

[Mokk]

The specific words that you are writing are understandable, but seemingly, they're out of context. The only thing I can really construe is that this entire page has seemingly been a huge distraction to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Why are you explaining to me the definition of words that we aren't arguing(or debating, heh) over? Why do anything possible to change the subject, and then make a case against something completely out of place?

I don't care if this is a debate, or an argument, or what the difference is. It simply, is what it is. I can discern whatever shade of flexibility or inflexibility is present here without needing to use labels.

What is this all about?

I certainly hope you hold youself and the others under the same scrutiny you do me for derailing.

Context is the issue i was attempting to address. The debate v argument was more for rones' edification than anything else.

I simply noted that the choice of words you use/used allows for the challenge to your point of view, which seems to do nothing but further frustration on both ends of the argument and in turn change the topic. This is a counterproductive means to illustrate a point.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, least of all myself. I'm saying you all make sense but refuse to admit it to each other, which is a shame. I'm making a (quite possibly misguided) attempt at bridging the gap over the subject matter as the only thing i've seen further the conversation is redundancy and intellectual flexing to those who already know where your mental accuity (sp?) is at.

No one here needs to be told how intelligent and knowledgeable those involved are yet you each respectively never miss an attempt to do so to each other while alienating anyone else from the conversation in the name of being right or wrong respectively. I just think it comes off a little stagnant, i mean no offense, quite the opposite actually.

To put it simply i know exactly what point you were trying to make. I also noticed why it might've been lost in translation and moved to clarify, i then fell subject to the aforementioned alienation. You're predisposed to seeing my name and reading my posts as an insult or something of that nature, while that is entirely understandable, in this instance i was actually attempting to help you out.

 

[Firestreak]

So basically, you're not going to admit you were wrong?

 

[jender]

I find outright calling other's opinions "wrong" disrespectful, soIam moving this tothe Flameboard - have fun kids.

 

[Firestreak]

His opinion wasn't outright wrong, his argument about my grammatical usage of "often" was wrong.