What really eats me up... Topic

Can we ask WifS to start tracking our W-L record in forum debates?
11/29/2012 10:40 AM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/29/2012 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/28/2012 10:03:00 PM (view original):
In the spirit of bistiza's "correct structure" of a Socialist economic implementation, I'm proud to anounce that I have put together a flawless plan for repelling an extraterrestrial attack on the planet Earth.

I have an extensive background in understanding and dealing with extraterrestrials, but I'm not going to tell you how I came to this knowledge because it's none of your ******* business, and none of you have shown to me that your inferior minds would be able to understand the nuances of my plan.  I'm also not going to divulge any specifics about my plan because, again, nobody here is capable of comprehending the details.

I suspect that others may have given some thought to how to best repel an extraterrestrial attack on our planet, but it's quite obvious to me that nobody else can develop a plan that matches the perfection of my plan.

This may come across as arrogance, but it really isn't.  It's just fact.  I'm smarter than you.  Deal with it, much in the same way that you deal with wallowing in the ignorance of the rest of your meaningless little lives.

You forgot to claim that you've "won" any debates on the subject, based on your own criteria for "winning".
Winning was implied, because superior intellects don't lose.
11/29/2012 10:51 AM
I'M 1500 -1
11/29/2012 10:57 AM
No, no, I distinctly put the W first.
11/29/2012 11:08 AM

1500- WINS
1-  LOSS(JRJACOBS+ DEBATE OVER SOME HIGH FALUTIN NEW STAT)
1-  DRAW( DENNY PUT ME TO SLEEP OVER CIVIL WAR+ MISSOURI GENERALS)

11/29/2012 11:13 AM
Undefeated here.

Bow at my feet and I shall not smite ye down, heathen.
11/29/2012 11:27 AM
Posted by kermit on 11/29/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
No, no, I distinctly put the W first.
Heh
11/29/2012 1:07 PM
You admit that your form of Socialism hasn't been tried anywhere at any time. Yet you're touting it definitively as the best answer.  And yet you don't think you're being arrogant.

If you use data which indicates individual elements of an economic theory are successful and other data which says they would be successful together, it's not a stretch to believe that such a system would in fact be successful even if it hasn't yet been done.

It's simply looking at the data and drawing a logical conclusion. If you think anyone who does that is arrogant, you've got issues I won't even begin to touch.
In the spirit of bistiza's "correct structure" of a Socialist economic implementation

I've given you several pieces of economic theory and information which you don't respond to at all.

Your entire strategy is to ignore the facts I present because you have no way to challenge them. If you could have done it, you would have, but you just keep ignoring the facts. The last time I provided information and an example, no one has yet responded to it, yet I see you have time for a personal attack. 

It must be convenient for you to ignore the material and just launch childish personal attacks whenever you come across someone who presents an argument you can't handle.  Then when they point out your obvious inability to deal with it, you'll attack again and say they must be arrogant.

Next, you'll say some people here agree with you, so that proves you're right. You'll accompany that with another personal attack or two and again ignore the facts and material presented, because when it's too difficult for you to argue your point, your fallback option is childish bullying attempts and personal attacks.

I'm done here. It's pointless trying to have any semblance of a real debate with someone who acts like they are five years old.
11/29/2012 3:59 PM

If you use data which indicates individual elements of an economic theory are successful and other data which says they would be successful together, it's not a stretch to believe that such a system would in fact be successful even if it hasn't yet been done.

 
Of course it's a "stretch".  Your intellectual dishonesty stems from a clear refusal to acknowledge that there is almost ALWAYS a difference between theory and practice, especially when dealing with human behavior.?  The fact that you don't even recognize your communication style as "arrogance" shows a pathological lack of self-awareness.

Just for kicks, tell us all about a time in recorded history where an economic theory worked perfectly within a given population. 
11/29/2012 4:07 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/29/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):

If you use data which indicates individual elements of an economic theory are successful and other data which says they would be successful together, it's not a stretch to believe that such a system would in fact be successful even if it hasn't yet been done.

 
Of course it's a "stretch".  Your intellectual dishonesty stems from a clear refusal to acknowledge that there is almost ALWAYS a difference between theory and practice, especially when dealing with human behavior.?  The fact that you don't even recognize your communication style as "arrogance" shows a pathological lack of self-awareness.

Just for kicks, tell us all about a time in recorded history where an economic theory worked perfectly within a given population. 
That's never happened. Even the US is a blend of capitalism and socialism.
11/29/2012 4:09 PM
"I've given you several pieces of economic theory and information which you don't respond to at all.

Your entire strategy is to ignore the facts I present because you have no way to challenge them. If you could have done it, you would have, but you just keep ignoring the facts. The last time I provided information and an example, no one has yet responded to it, yet I see you have time for a personal attack. 

It must be convenient for you to ignore the material and just launch childish personal attacks whenever you come across someone who presents an argument you can't handle.  Then when they point out your obvious inability to deal with it, you'll attack again and say they must be arrogant."


Bullshit.

You've presented a number of statements as "fact", but when those statements are questioned, or you are asked to provide some evidence to back up your statements, you either dismiss the questions as (a) irrelevant, or (b) having already been answered but that the respondent is not capable of understanding your answers because of intellectual inferiority.  You've also gone to the "my theories have never been implemented correctly so there is no tangible proof beyond the inherent obvious correctness of them" well more than once.

You keep chiding me and others for personal attacks against you.  Yet you continuously keep pointing out your superior knowledge (and everybody else's inferior knowledge) on the subject at hand.  Your arrogance is a personal attack on everybody who dares question or challenge you.  Pot, meet the kettle.

You have continuously refused to answer direct questions with direct answers throughout this thread.  Yet you have claimed "victory" from your series of unsubstantiated statements and unproven theories..

You are a tool.

11/29/2012 6:46 PM
This  ^^^^^^^

I rarely come to the that type of conclusion in a debate, but one thing I've learned in the 30+ years since school and that consistently rings true is:

1 - If you have to tell others you are an intellectual

and

2 - have to say you "won" a debate,

then...

generally neither is true.

At this point, as much as I usually don't mind going through the economic points in a forum discussion, in this case (to borrow a biblical term), it's "pearls before swine".  Someone who cannot see and recognize their own attitudes to this extent isn't going to carry on a logical discussion no matter how much they claim to be doing so...

And finally, in the spirit of economic education, bis should feel free to do as suggested earlier:  run the numbers from the IRS that show tax rates and their correlations to both GDP and share of the burden, superimposed on the timeline of tax policy changes.  The effect of incentives on human behavior are almost impossible to ignore.
11/29/2012 7:38 PM (edited)
Damn, this is still going on?
11/30/2012 12:59 AM
NO
11/30/2012 4:41 AM
Of course it's a "stretch".  Your intellectual dishonesty stems from a clear refusal to acknowledge that there is almost ALWAYS a difference between theory and practice, especially when dealing with human behavior.

It's not a stretch at all because it's NOT theory. The elements are shown to work IN PRACTICE. That's what you're not getting. They simply haven't been combined in a real life scenario as you seem to suggest is the only thing that matters, which isn't true.
The fact that you don't even recognize your communication style as "arrogance" shows a pathological lack of self-awareness.

Perhaps you should consider that your personal interpretation of my alleged arrogance is an ASSUMPTION on your part. Assuming anything leaves you open to drawing incorrect conclusions, as you've done here.

I'm merely presenting information in a logical manner. If you want to add things in on your own, assume information that isn't there, make assumptions and jump to conclusions, it's on you when you're incorrect, as you are here. There is no arrogance - only your assumption that it exists because it conveniently fits the mold you want to use to attack me.

Try addressing the actual issues instead of focusing on an agenda of personal attack and you might not make those kinds of mistakes.
Just for kicks, tell us all about a time in recorded history where an economic theory worked perfectly within a given population.
No economic theory works perfectly, and I've never suggested that it would. I'm simply saying the proper form of socialism would be much better than the current form of modern American capitalism, which isn't a difficult conclusion to come to if you know anything about economics (especially considering the problems with modern American capitalism right now).
That's never happened. Even the US is a blend of capitalism and socialism.
In a very broad sense, yes, socialism is mixed into modern American capitalism. However, its effects on the whole system are very small, as the wealthy still have all the power to use their wealth to gain more wealth and stay in power.
You've presented a number of statements as "fact", but when those statements are questioned, or you are asked to provide some evidence to back up your statements, you either dismiss the questions as (a) irrelevant, or (b) having already been answered but that the respondent is not capable of understanding your answers because of intellectual inferiority. 


NO. Go back and read the thread. There are several instances where I've given specific pieces of information, some of which were specifically asked for, and yet there has been no response to it at all (as I've said, how convenient). You're doing it again right now.
You keep chiding me and others for personal attacks against you.  Yet you continuously keep pointing out your superior knowledge (and everybody else's inferior knowledge) on the subject at hand.  Your arrogance is a personal attack on everybody who dares question or challenge you.  Pot, meet the kettle.

I am merely stating the facts about my own background and knowledge.

You are ASSUMING I think it means I'm superior, which is incorrect.

You are ASSUMING I think everyone else is inferior, which is incorrect.

You are INFERRING arrogance from those ASSUMPTIONS, making it an incorrect inference.

None of those things actually exist except in the minds of those who would rather attack me than have a real debate.
You have continuously refused to answer direct questions with direct answers throughout this thread.  Yet you have claimed "victory" from your series of unsubstantiated statements and unproven theories..

When I have given direct answers to direct questions, they are ignored in favor of personal attacks, as you are doing right now yet again. I grow tired of the foolish and childish nature of it all, yet like a passerby who looks at a car wreck, I can't help but be oddly entertained by it all.
The effect of incentives on human behavior are almost impossible to ignore.
That's what we've been talking about (those of us still interested in a real debate, anyway). The incentives are stronger in a proper socialist system so that all workers at a company or organization want to see it succeed because it means more for their own bottom line than in modern American capitalism where only the higher ups in large companies or the owner of a small company sees any real gain from the harder work of those below them. I discussed that at length and even provided a detailed hypothetical example that was completely ignored. If you're interested, it's still there.
11/30/2012 8:18 AM
◂ Prev 1...27|28|29|30|31...34 Next ▸
What really eats me up... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2016 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.