This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:44 pm
Reply
David Korten's Take on #OccupyWallStreet

Like this post


Question for debate:

How can we have an economy that benefits everyone instead of a few people who benefit at the expense of others?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
This guy's even more incohrent than the wall street protestors themselves. Neither he, nor them, actually know what the purpose of the 'protests' are. Or they are just verbally incapable of articulating their position. It could be either one, take your pick. The protests are a total joke, and going off what the people at these protests are saying, the protestors are total morons. They're out their screaming, but they have no idea what it is they're screaming about. It's actually kinda funny.

What's even more funny is David Korten's complete ignorance of economics. I unfortunately watched the video and he presented no economic argument or reasoning. He just made claims about how Wall Street and Corporations are responsible for this crisis and went on to further ramble about irrelevant nonsense. Recessions always occur, and people like David Korten always try to blow them out of proportion in order to utilize it for their political agenda. Recessions are part of the business cycle, and what causes them are shocks to various indicators, such as supply, consumption and production. But for the most parts, it's a shock to the supply of money that causes economic contraction. To bad David Korten didn't take even a high school level macroeconomics class cause he might be aware of this Confused.

Question Everything wrote:
How can we have an economy that benefits everyone instead of a few people who benefit at the expense of others?


The question already contains a falsehood. Can you rationally explain how a few people have benefited at the expense of other people, because I don't understand. In reality, Question Everything, when someone benefits we all benefit and when someone suffers we all suffer. I know people like you believe and cherish the idea that wealthy people earned their wealth at the expense of others and I know no amount of reasoning will be able to change that view, but the actual answer to your question is Supply Side Economics. If you actually did care about people being manipulated and taken advantage of you'd be on the right side of the issue, since government intervention does exactly the thing you have a problem with. Everytime the government intervenes, whether it be in the form of a tax or a regulatory statute, one party is benefited while another party is harmed.

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:46 am
Reply
Re: David Korten's Take on #OccupyWallStreet

Like this post
Question Everything wrote:


Question for debate:

How can we have an economy that benefits everyone instead of a few people who benefit at the expense of others?


Sure.

It's called capitalism.

Unless you think you live a more restricted, less privileged and more deprived existence than your grandparents did?

Dunno about you, but if the world were still the way it was in MY grandparent's day, I wouldn't even be here, never mind typing on my own computer, in my own home. I'd have died when I contracted Scarlet Fever. Or I'd have caught polio from my cousin. Or not survived the birth of my oldest son.

I certainly would not have survived through the sepsis that nearly nailed me a couple of months ago.

Benefits?

When even the poorest of Americans have things the wealthiest of our grandparents couldn't even imagine?

As to "Occupy Wall Street,"

When they have a message that does NOT go:

"What do we want?"
"We're not sure!"
"When do we want it?"
"Right now!"

and when they leave the places they occupy as clean as they found them (the way the Tea Party folks do)

and when they have the same record for non-violence and the same arrest record (0) Tea Partiers do.

When they do NOT defecate on cars in public.

When they do NOT behave as if serious protesting was more about Woodstock than Wall Street.

SOME of those messages are good ones. I"d be more impressed if any of 'em could remember the good messages long enough to paint 'em on a sign.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:26 am
Reply

Like this post
From Post 2:

WinePusher wrote:

This guy's even more incohrent than the wall street protestors themselves.
...

I caution against accusations of incoherency, lest one expose their own inability to cohere.

WinePusher wrote:

...the protestors are total morons.

I propose it's you that's the moron.

I leave the remainder of the post as the Fox News inspired rant it so obviously is.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
JoeyKnothead wrote:
From Post 2:

WinePusher wrote:

This guy's even more incohrent than the wall street protestors themselves.
...

I caution against accusations of incoherency, lest one expose their own inability to cohere.

WinePusher wrote:

...the protestors are total morons.

I propose it's you that's the moron.

I leave the remainder of the post as the Fox News inspired rant it so obviously is.


lol. So no commentary on the topic? No rebuttal to my points about the business cycle or mutually beneficial economic actions? I doubt anybody actually expected an intelligent response out of you, JoeyKnothead. Producing one liners that violate just about nearly every single english grammatical rule seems to be the only thing you're capable of doing. The fact that you would think that a description of the business cycle is a similar to a Fox News rant just shows how you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Why do you post in the Politics and Religion section if you know nothing about Politics or Current Affairs? Have you actually read any OP-ED's on the Wall Street Protests or seen people at the protests speak? I think this is a very good quote:

JoeyKnothead wrote:
I, with my limited education, can't understand why any challenge to any claim, in debate, should warrant a rebuke from my debating peers - so many of whom I hold in such high esteem.


If you have a limited education on a specific topic, which you admit you do, then don't try to debate it. Well actually, you're not even trying to debate the topic in this thread, you're just trying to derail it. But anyways, if you don't understand Politics, Economics or Current Events, which you clearly don't, then don't post in threads devoted to the subject. I know very little about Physics and am not motivated to learn more about it, so I probably wouldn't enter into a thread that is devoted to the topic. But if I did, I would only enter in if I had a fair amount of sources supporting my contention and I would defer contestable points to users who have demonstrated knowledge in Physics, such as AkiThePirate or fredonly. Although I'm not going to say, as a user on here does, that you're a good representation of non-theist/liberal debaters cause you're not. Your post represents the lowest quality of debate that can ever exist. Anyways if there is somebody on this forum their who actually is intelligent enough to debate this topic, and there certainly are, here are my arguments:

Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, and they occur as a result of shocks to economic indicators, not because of income inequality or the like.

When the rich benefit, the poor also benefit. In economic arrangements, what is most likely to happen is that both parties involved will either benefit or be harmed together. One party is not bound to benefit at the expense of the other party.

BTW: JoeyKnothead suggested that links be incorporated into the quoted users name so that readers can click on the name and see the post. This suggestion has screwed up the format in many threads, and what's even more strange is that JoeyKnothead, in this post, chooses to manually link the Post and disregard the suggestion he himself proposed. What's up? You make a suggestion that messes up threads and makes it harder to quote statements, and yet you don't utilize it?

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
From Post 4:

JoeyKnothead wrote:

I propose it's you that's the moron.

I'd like to 'pologize to WinePusher, and the forum at large for this.

My intention was to show the futility in ad hom attacks and danged if I didn't end up ad homming right along.

With thanks to a great friend and forum member for pointing this out to me.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:22 pm
Reply

Like this post
JoeyKnothead wrote:
From Post 4:

JoeyKnothead wrote:

I propose it's you that's the moron.

I'd like to 'pologize to WinePusher, and the forum at large for this.

My intention was to show the futility in ad hom attacks and danged if I didn't end up ad homming right along.

With thanks to a great friend and forum member for pointing this out to me.


Laughing It's fine. I can't say I was suprised to see you say that but what I do find suprising is that it took someone else's doing to show you that what you said was ad hominem. Eh?

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:57 pm
Reply

Like this post
From Post 5:

WinePusher wrote:

lol. So no commentary on the topic?

I'd caution against saying there was no commentary on the topic, lest I expose how I couldn't sort out how much commentary there actually was.

WinePusher wrote:

No rebuttal to my points about the business cycle or mutually beneficial economic actions? I doubt anybody actually expected an intelligent response out of you, JoeyKnothead.

I'd caution against saying there was no rebuttal, lest I expose I coulndn't sort out what rebuttal was acually there.

WinePusher wrote:

Producing one liners that violate just about nearly every single english grammatical rule seems to be the only thing you're capable of doing.

Of course.

Calling one's opponents "morons" ain't the same.

Does violating some old English teacher's rules indicate one's argument is in error?

WinePusher wrote:

The fact that you would think that a description of the business cycle is a similar to a Fox News rant just shows how you know absolutely nothing about the topic.

Please note, I never said the "business cycle" is similar to a Fox News rant. That you assume such is the case is quite telling.

WinePusher wrote:

Why do you post in the Politics and Religion section if you know nothing about Politics or Current Affairs?

Cause I have rights.

Does WinePusher seek to deny me my rights (according to forum rules)?

WinePusher wrote:

Have you actually read any OP-ED's on the Wall Street Protests or seen people at the protests speak?

Yes.

And upon hearing such, I couldn't just say outright they were - to use your term - morons.

WinePusher wrote:

If you have a limited education on a specific topic, which you admit you do, then don't try to debate it.

I propose that calling one's opponents - as you have - "morons" is to indicate that you yourself are the one lacking in education.

WinePusher wrote:

Well actually, you're not even trying to debate the topic in this thread, you're just trying to derail it.

Of course. Offering opposing views is "derailing threads".

WinePusher wrote:

But anyways, if you don't understand Politics, Economics or Current Events, which you clearly don't, then don't post in threads devoted to the subject.

I propose you "clearly don't" understand the points I make.

WinePusher wrote:

I know very little about Physics and am not motivated to learn more about it...

That's your own cross to tote around.

WinePusher wrote:

so I probably wouldn't enter into a thread that is devoted to the topic.

Can you reference a site rule or regulation that says I can't?

WinePusher wrote:

But if I did, I would only enter in if I had a fair amount of sources supporting my contention and I would defer contestable points to users who have demonstrated knowledge in Physics, such as AkiThePirate or fredonly.

Argument from popularity. For the umpteen millionth time.

I care not who engages in debate. I care if they start calling folks "morons" as you (and I) have.

WinePusher wrote:

Although I'm not going to say, as a user on here does, that you're a good representation of non-theist/liberal debaters cause you're not.

Well whoodathunk my opponent wasn't cool with my arguments?

Let's all says this together...

Argumentum ad populum!

WinePusher wrote:

Your post represents the lowest quality of debate that can ever exist.

Your post represents the lowest quality of debat that can ever exist.

How might'n we determine which of us is closer to the truth...

Without resorting to arguments from popularity?

WinePusher wrote:

Anyways if there is somebody on this forum their who actually is intelligent enough to debate this topic, and there certainly are, here are my arguments:

Anyways, if there is somebody on this forum their (is that a "fragment error, or a 'can't' tell there from their or they're error"?) who is actually intelligent enough to

SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS WITHOUT RESORTING TO AD HOMS, OR RESORT TO ARGUMENTS FROM NUMBERS...

WinePusher wrote:

Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, and they occur as a result of shocks to economic indicators, not because of income inequality or the like.

Somewhat correct.

That recessions occur rather "naturally", I propose, is not in dispute.

That such occurs because capitalist entities demand "socialist" bailouts should not be.

WinePusher wrote:

When the rich benefit, the poor also benefit.

Except when the rich demand bailouts (socialism), while decrying any attempt at moderation to be - wait for it - socialism.

WinePusher wrote:

In economic arrangements, what is most likely to happen is that both parties involved will either benefit or be harmed together. One party is not bound to benefit at the expense of the other party.

Unless, of course, one party actually is harmed while the other'n benefits.

WinePusher wrote:

BTW: JoeyKnothead suggested that links be incorporated into the quoted users name so that readers can click on the name and see the post. This suggestion has screwed up the format in many threads, and what's even more strange is that JoeyKnothead, in this post, chooses to manually link the Post and disregard the suggestion he himself proposed. What's up? You make a suggestion that messes up threads and makes it harder to quote statements, and yet you don't utilize it?

Is there no straw-man argument you won't present?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
WinePusher wrote:
lol. So no commentary on the topic?
JoeyKnothead wrote:
I'd caution against saying there was no commentary on the topic, lest I expose how I couldn't sort out how much commentary there actually was.


Your advice is not needed, JoeyKnothead. Rather than handing out unwanted advice you should try debating for a change. Do you have anything to say about the topic, or did you just want to derail another thread?

WinePusher wrote:
No rebuttal to my points about the business cycle or mutually beneficial economic actions? I doubt anybody actually expected an intelligent response out of you, JoeyKnothead.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
I'd caution against saying there was no rebuttal, lest I expose I coulndn't sort out what rebuttal was acually there.


Well, were was your rebuttal to my points? I can't find them, so direct me to them instead of this nonsense.

WinePusher wrote:
Producing one liners that violate just about nearly every single english grammatical rule seems to be the only thing you're capable of doing.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Of course.

Calling one's opponents "morons" ain't the same.


I'd never call a user on here a moron like you did. But referring to an argument or a group of people as morons is uncivil and I'll retract it and 'pologize to those affected.

JoeyKnothead wrote:
Does violating some old English teacher's rules indicate one's argument is in error?


lol what is your argument. Where is your argument addressing the points I raised? And no, it doesn't but it means that the individual is inarticulate and a bad writer. It's ironic how you get so 'butt hurt' about people violating rule 5 but you go out of your way to break rule 13. Not all of us are from your region and are familiar with your dialect, please take that into consideration next time you attempt to write something.

WinePusher wrote:
The fact that you would think that a description of the business cycle is a similar to a Fox News rant just shows how you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Please note, I never said the "business cycle" is similar to a Fox News rant. That you assume such is the case is quite telling.


Why must you resort to such dishonesty? You responded to two of my quotes:

"This guy's even more incohrent than the wall street protestors themselves."
"...the protestors are total morons."

and you said:

"I leave the remainder of the post as the Fox News inspired rant it so obviously is."

The part about the business cycle was part of the remainder. Retract your claim lest you expose your "lack of honor."

Challenge #1

WinePusher wrote:
Why do you post in the Politics and Religion section if you know nothing about Politics or Current Affairs?
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Cause I have rights.

Does WinePusher seek to deny me my rights (according to forum rules)?


No, of course not. You can post wherever you want. But it's apparent you don't understand Politics and are not motivated to keep up on Current Events, so why debate the issue? Don't people need to actually understand the issue they try to debate? Do you claim to understand Politics, Economics and Current Events?

WinePusher wrote:
Have you actually read any OP-ED's on the Wall Street Protests or seen people at the protests speak?
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Yes.

And upon hearing such, I couldn't just say outright they were - to use your term -morons.


You did? Would you mind presenting for examination the OP-Ed Columnist who wrote the article and the article itself or the anchor who was reporting and the clip in which he was reporting on the protests?

WinePusher wrote:
If you have a limited education on a specific topic, which you admit you do, then don't try to debate it.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
I propose that calling one's opponents - as you have - "morons" is to indicate that you yourself are the one lacking in education.


lol you know nothing about me. Why would you say such an absurd thing about someone you know nothing about? I am merely going off the things you have written where you have admited on more than once occastion about your lack of education. If you don't want it to become a subject of debate don't post it in debate threads.

WinePusher wrote:
Well actually, you're not even trying to debate the topic in this thread, you're just trying to derail it.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Of course. Offering opposing views is "derailing threads".


I can't find any opposing viewpoints on the topic of the Wall Street Protests in Post 4 Think. Why do you have to constantly make up stuff? First you make up latin phrases that don't exist, and now you make up posts that don't exist. It's funny, for someone who relies so heavily on one liner latin fallacies you don't seem to know anything about latin.

WinePusher wrote:
But anyways, if you don't understand Politics, Economics or Current Events, which you clearly don't, then don't post in threads devoted to the subject.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
I propose you "clearly don't" understand the points I make.


Where were your political and economic arguments and points in Post 4? Please stop making stuff up and start actually debating the issue.

WinePusher wrote:
so I probably wouldn't enter into a thread that is devoted to the topic.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Can you reference a site rule or regulation that says I can't?


No, but that's the difference between you and I. I'd refrain from participating in a thread if it was about a topic I knew little about because I would contribute very little to the overall discussion. You just go into any thread you desire, even if you don't understand the topic, and derail it with inane comments.

WinePusher wrote:
But if I did, I would only enter in if I had a fair amount of sources supporting my contention and I would defer contestable points to users who have demonstrated knowledge in Physics, such as AkiThePirate or fredonly.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Argument from popularity. For the umpteen millionth time.


Before you start spewing fallacies, get a clue about what they actually mean. An appeal to popularity is when an individual states an assertion it true because numerous amounts of people believe it. This is why critical thinking classes should be given out prior to Middle School Rolling Eyes.

JoeyKnothead wrote:
SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS WITHOUT RESORTING TO AD HOMS, OR RESORT TO ARGUMENTS FROM NUMBERS...


Laughing There's the screaming JoeyKnothead we're all familiar with. I'm suprised you actually managed to post two entire posts in this thread without screaming, but whatever, little steps.

WinePusher wrote:
Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, and they occur as a result of shocks to economic indicators, not because of income inequality or the like.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Somewhat correct.


Somewhat correct? Which part is incorrect. Go ahead and astound us with your brilliance, explain how the business cycle works and how my description of it is only somewhat correct.

JoeyKnothead wrote:
That such occurs because capitalist entities demand "socialist" bailouts should not be.


Capitalism is an economic system, Socialism is an economic systems. 'Entities' either exist within a Capitalist economy or a Socialist economy. An elementary mistake, this isn't even an economic concept. This concept is taught in government courses. And what is the mechanism by which bailouts cause recessions? I can think of none unless you don't understand what a recession is? Could you explain what, in your view, a recession is?

WinePusher wrote:
When the rich benefit, the poor also benefit.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Except when the rich demand bailouts (socialism), while decrying any attempt at moderation to be - wait for it - socialism.


Rich individuals aren't eligible for government bailouts, JoeyKnothead. Who is feeding you this information, or are you just making stuff up as you go along? Corporations are the 'entities' which recieved bailout money, do you know what a corporation is and why corporations exist? If you gain some motivation, wikipedia actually has a decent article for once on the Theory of the Firm which thoroughly explains this concept.

WinePusher wrote:
In economic arrangements, what is most likely to happen is that both parties involved will either benefit or be harmed together. One party is not bound to benefit at the expense of the other party.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Unless, of course, one party actually is harmed while the other'n benefits.


1) Cite an example where this has occured.
2) Explain how one party was harmed at the expense of another parties benefit.
3) Explain how the other party benefited from their harm.
4) Explain how this 'harm' and 'benefit' took form.

Challenge 1

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:06 am
Reply

Like this post
Moderator Action
This thread has been derailed since it was hijacked by a couple posters who decided personal insults would be so much more beneficial than actually debating. As it is currently in such a downhill spiral I don't see anything but further reports being generated so the topic is locked. I strongly encourage the author of the original OP to give it another attempt if he/she feels strongly about the topic. I would also pass along a strong word of caution here, if threads continue to be derailed and personal attacks continue to escalate between members, warnings will progress much quicker to probation and even faster to banning. Please adhere to the rules.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version