Gbaji might have a field day?Follow

Good enough?

Nope.

Edit out the commentary. That's the point. All that stuff in parens is useless for anything but qualifying statements. If you have to qualify, think of something more precise.


Here's mine:

A forced redistribution of wealth would increase the standard of living of most people on the planet.

Supporting facts:

1. Wealth is currently concentrated disproportionately in less populous areas of the world.

2. The standard of living of the bottom 50% +1 people on the planet is lower than the aggregate average standard of living for all people on the planet.

3. Wealth has never been redistributed on a large scale from the wealthy to the less wealthy without the application of force.

4. Force is an effective method of compelling people to act against their self interest.

5. Increases in wealth lead to increases in standards of living.

You can choose to ignore the statements in parenthesis if you wish. They're clarification Smash. IMO, you can't ever have enough of that, especially when arguing against someone who has an amazing talent to massively misinterpret what you say and then argue against that misinterpretation...




You're absolutely correct. Forced redistribution of wealth would increase the standard of living of most people on the planet. That's kind of a "duh" statement though, so there's no point in disputing your facts or your conclusion.

It misses the point though, and the actual reason people oppose the idea. The cost of all of that is freedom. Any government with sufficient power to force people to act against their self interest (your words) in the area of wealth can do it in other areas as well.

There's a reason property rights are commonly listed as one of the core rights that must be protected in a free society. You really willing to throw those dice? After all, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia...

It misses the point though, and the actual reason people oppose the idea. The cost of all of that is freedom. Any government with sufficient power to force people to act against their self interest (your words) in the area of wealth can do it in other areas as well.


That's another argument unrelated to my statement.






Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 6:44pm by Smasharoo

Joph. You may disagree or dispute the facts I use to support my arguments, but I *do* support my arguments in that manner. Always have...

I've literally never seen you do what you describe.

I imagine I'm not the only one.

Perhaps our definitions of the word "facts" or "support" differ.

"over time" as in "when measured over a period of time". Specifically, "increased GDP growth over time" means that if we don't lower taxes for the next 10 years the average GDP increase over that ten year period will be "X", where if we do lower taxes it will be "Y", with Y being greater then X.




Lowering taxes is ambiguous? Seriously?

Let me make it really simple for you. Assume we're talking about any taxes on earnings, both by individuals and businesses. It really can be any taxes, or all taxes. Doesn't matter that much really, as long as the result is that those being taxed have more money in their pockets as a result of not being taxed then they would have had otherwise. Since that's kinda assumed by the statement "lowering taxes", I'm frankly not sure why you're confused by this...




Lol. Sure Smash. Knock yourself out. Without re-interpreting my statements to mean something completely different then what was meant of course... ;)



I'd love that. But honestly Smash. When I have to explain to people 3 times that "consistent correlation implies causation" is not the same as "correlation is the same as causation" it gets a bit tiresome, don't you agree?

It just seems like the willingness of others to ignore what is said and argue against something else entirely manages to outweigh any attempts at clarity on my part. But by all means proceed...

Er? Your statement is irrelevant Smash. It's like you coming upon two people discussing where to eat dinner and you "prove" to them that dinner consists of eating food. Um... That's nice... ;)

Do you really want me to link examples of you using absolutes to back up your own conjecture and trying to pass it off as fact? Because if you were just looking to be embarassed, I can help you with that.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 6:30pm by Jophiel

You left out the part where you can't use commonly accepted definitions of words such as "above and beyond".

Right at that point, everything you say becomes totally useless.

It was fun to get you to actually define your terms then get you to contradict them. But it was way too easy.

Now it's just sad that the forum is filled with your meaningless gibberish in lieu of any credible right wing views.

Keep typing.

Or we can talk about how often I'll write 10 paragraphs, clearly and painstakingly explaining *exactly* the point I'm trying to make, only to have someone point to a single phrase or word, apply a definition that clearly doesn't match the context of the surrounding 10 paragraphs and then argue against me based on that definition.


Context. Forest for the trees and all that.




But that's the point, isn't it? You do that. Smash does it. Joph does it. But what's quite often completely lost in your desire to find a definition that doesn't match up, or an incorrect usage of a phrase or word, is that at no point have you actually disputed the core argument I've made.

It's like for many people on this forum, the only point to a debate is to "score points" on side subjects and issues, while ignoring the disagreement at hand. The whole "correlation/causation" thing in this thread is just another example of the same. We can debate the terms and their meanings and clever sayings about them all day long, but at no point does this even remotely challenge the argument that tax cuts result in increased economic growth.


See what I mean? You're missing the forest for the trees. And you guys do this a lot!



My conservative views *are* credible. What I think you seem to want is a mindless religious right fundamentalist that fits your exact stereotype of what a "right winger" is, so that you can more easily attack his positions. Instead, you get me, and you have to go through massive gyrations and strawman methods in order to do so. And after doing so, you pat yourself on the back for your cleverness, all the while failing utterly to respond to my conservative views and positions.


Seriously. Just read this thread. No one has yet provided even a shred of argument against the two core arguments I've made (that Fiscal Conservativism is about reducing tax burden, not just about reducing spending and/or debt, and that reducing said tax burden is good for the economy). No one. You've all danced around these positions by attacking everything I've said *except* those things.


I'll point out that Smash has managed to post about 5 times since I met his challenge and hasn't actually debated against my core position yet. He hasn't refuted a single supporting fact, nor come remotely close to position itself. Or did you somehow lose track of that during all the backslapping?

I'll point out that Smash has managed to post about 5 times since I met his challenge

That hasn't occurred yet.

If you'd like to post a set of non-ambiguous statements, I'd be happy to continue.

You have chosen not to continue, not me. I think you'll find my statements clear, concise and not open to arbitrary interpretation. I'd be thrilled if you did the same. I think we can both agree that hasn't happened yet, can't we?

You asked me to do this. I did. You've refused to respond because of some lame excuse that I used parenthetical statements in a few sentences.


You set the rules. I followed them. Deal with it. I responded to your statement and facts. In fact, I agreed that your statement was correct. Seems to me that you're quibbling over details in order to avoid the point at hand.


Shocking!

No, I already said what I was saying. As often as not you act as I said you act.

Literally

And you still never answered my question.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 7:46pm by Jophiel

I think the question is "Are you really going to cling to 'All the time' as your out"?Here's a real quick and recent example.

You made the statement:I asked you to back that up. You didn't. In fact, despite arguing repeatedly that gasoline production drives down the cost of petrochemicals, you never once provided any sort of cite, source or hint that you were doing anything besides guessing blindly.

I provided several cites of established journals in the petrochemical business saying that increased gasoline production and demand were driving the cost of petrochemicals upwards. You, rather than provide any sources of your own, mocked those journals as "speculative" and that, apparently, was supposed to be good enough evidence that you were right and they were wrong.

Now, feel free to try to go through and nitpick at that and backpedal. I'd be disappointed if you didn't. The "fact" is that you do this pretty consistantly and especially when the topic involves science or some other thing not easily spun by opinion. You assert some opinion as factual, people post things to show you're wrong and you say "Lol. Here's why that guy is an idiot." and provide some inane defense which comes solely from your own mind and never actually back it up with anything more credible than Gbaji saying it's a "fact", "absolute" or "certain".

Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I think part of the problem is just that you write very poorly. You're so sure that a wave of verbage is required to make even the simplest point that you say way more than you have to and leave dozens of opening for yourself to be wrong. Then you defend those to the death and wind up yelling "semantics!!" over and over because you can't just admit that one of your subpoints was wrong and move on. Back to writing poorly, I think that you're under the impression that words such as "certainly", "absolutely" and "it's a fact that..." are acceptable substitutes for "my deeply held opinion is..." or "I think that..." They're not. They're words that roundly mean "this is a truth." Now you can go back and cry more about semantics because people actually expect your words to mean what the dictionary says they mean, but them's the breaks.

So, I dunno... maybe you just need some new words or something. Or to just admit that you're using half-assed guesses in place of fact. Or something. In any event, consider the advice free of charge.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 8:38pm by Jophiel