Bank Error In My Favor

[ShakeZuma 585]

yes I am. green is the "I want to help people but don't understand economics" quadrant. if you aren't in the purple quadrant then you are more than likely a do gooder hippie who can't see the effects of actions past their initial localized impact.

[Spademan 94]

yes I am. green is the "I want to help people but don't understand economics" quadrant. if you aren't in the purple quadrant then you are more than likely a do gooder hippie who can't see the effects of actions past their initial localized impact.

Ahhh!That's why everyone in your quadrant, and in particular you, have done more than Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama to help people. Those stupid hippies that didn't understand economics or things outside of their "initial impact".It's all so fucking clear now.Or I'm being sarcastic and you can go back to living your non-eventful life and pretending like you do more for other people than those who have done/are doing more for other people than you ever will.

[SilentSnow 1]

Ya... but no.One can find "really, really stupid" people all over the scale because a stupid person can believe anything. Literally anything. From Hitler to Ghandi. Holding stupid beliefs can land you anywhere on that scale.Correlation does not equal causation. Not being stupid would have made that obvious.You've said absurd things in this thread, and I recall marginalizing you elsewhere. Nice try though. I advise making a concerted, ridiculous to everyone you know, absurdly focused effort at learning logic. We can discuss the issues after.

We are on a message board, not scientists trying to get our studies published. Generally the discussion isn't going to rise above the level of correlations. My response in no way implies that I thought our almost identical scores proved I was right, but it certainly doesn't help your idea that I am stupid. If you think I've said absurd things then point out specifically why. I might have forgotten, but I don't remember you ever doing this to one of my posts. What I find absurd is that people are acting as if they've never heard of the wealth distribution problem when societies have been dealing with this since the beginning of time. The arguments against me have ranged from weak(vbnautilis) to nonexistent(various forms of name-calling by everyone else).

[ShakeZuma 585]

That's why everyone in your quadrant, and in particular you, have done more than Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama to help people.

actually yes, we have.

you are more than likely a do gooder hippie who can't see the effects of actions past their initial localized impact.

[SilentSnow 1]

Just wondering; what's your practical experience in dealing with "the poor"?Like, not your thoughts or ideals on how a perfect world might treat 'the poor', but your actual, practical, hands-on experience in trailer parks and urban ghettos? Or Africa or India? For example, how many nights have you slept in a neighborhood that was over 80% black? How much time have you spent in 3rd World countries? I'd be really interested in hearing your resume on this one.

I'm not going to answer the question because any answer I gave would be used as an excuse to irrationally reject my argument. I think it's funny you would mention third world countries though. Third world countries usually have very few social programs or wealth redistribution. Their disastrous societies seem to be strong indicators in favor of my position.

[Spademan 94]

We are on a message board, not scientists trying to get our studies published. Generally the discussion isn't going to rise above the level of correlations. My response in no way implies that I thought our almost identical scores proved I was right, but it certainly doesn't help your idea that I am stupid. If you think I've said absurd things then point out specifically why. I might have forgotten, but I don't remember you ever doing this to one of my posts. What I find absurd is that people are acting as if they've never heard of the wealth distribution problem when societies have been dealing with this since the beginning of time. The arguments against me have ranged from weak(vbnautilis) to nonexistent(various forms of name-calling by everyone else).

In this thread VB pointed out probably 3/4ths of the things I would have dismantled. It was plenty enough to shut your argument down. I have no idea where else I've specifically challenged your posts, but I do remember doing so a few times. I'd look them up if you were relevant enough in this thread. I also remember glossing over a few of your posts that were silly because there was a larger discussion going on.You'd have to be much more clear, coherent or prolific for me to be assed enough to put the effort in to elaborate. Just, seriously, learn to logic.

[Spademan 94]

actually yes, we have.

The old "I've done more shit but don't say what it is" defense. The time tested "you just don't understand why I'm better than Ghandi and have done more than you to help other people" gambit. Well played.Or: Shut the fuck up you hand-waving piece of shit.Please... explain to me how you've done more for other people than the idiots Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama... or even me. Put it in detail. I'd love to know. I know the history of each, and what they've done for their respective populations and cultures.But clearly, you and those who think like you have done more than they, or what you think I - since I am close to them on that internet scale - have done individually.Please make a huge, well-researched, cited, thoughtful post, so I'm motivated to spend the time necessary to fucking crush you rather than just call you an idiot.

[SilentSnow 1]

In this thread VB pointed out probably 3/4ths of the things I would have dismantled. It was plenty enough to shut your argument down. I have no idea where else I've specifically challenged your posts, but I do remember doing so a few times. I'd look them up if you were relevant enough in this thread. I also remember glossing over a few of your posts that were silly because there was a larger discussion going on.You'd have to be much more clear, coherent or prolific for me to be assed enough to put the effort in to elaborate. Just, seriously, learn to logic.

Well it's hard to argue against a nonargument, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now. As for VB I think I adequately answered every one of his objections, but I guess opinions differ. I seriously don't understand why people are so outraged by the idea of wealth redistribution that they don't even bother to make coherent arguments. Looking at this inequality map, with the exception of the US, Mongolia and Kazakhstan this is pretty much a map of the good and bad places to live in the world. I suppose everyone will fall all over themselves to point out that this is simply an amazing coincidence that means absolutely nothing rather than accept the obvious interpretation.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I guess differentiating between macro and micro is harder for others than I thoughtedit:

Please... explain to me how you've done more for other people than the idiots Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama... or even me. Put it in detail. I'd love to know. I know the history of each, and what they've done for their respective populations and cultures.But clearly, you and those who think like you have done more than they, or what you think I - since I am close to them on that internet scale - have done individually.Please make a huge, well-researched, cited, thoughtful post, so I'm motivated to spend the time necessary to fucking crush you rather than just call you an idiot.

[Spademan 94]

Well it's hard to argue against a nonargument, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now. As for VB I think I adequately answered every one of his objections,

You didn't adequately answer his objections and I didn't present a non argument, I said VB's argument against you was sufficient. This is an example of your failure in logic.

but I guess opinions differ.

This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of you making illogical, unreasonable and occasionally downright absurd claims/arguments and having them demolished without you realizing.

I seriously don't understand why people are so outraged by the idea of wealth redistribution

Hardly anyone is outraged at what you think they are outraged about. Your points, which may have an underlying sense of compassion, are horrible. Just terrible. The logic is bad. I would guess most people don't even really pay attention to you past how poor your arguments are constructed.And I mean from a idealistic communist idiot to a theocracy based, oxymoronically-minded Randian. You're incoherent. Learn to logic.

[Spademan 94]

I guess differentiating between macro and micro is harder for others than I thoughtedit:

*sigh*Wave your hands around."Macro and micro... so hard to understand."Ugh. What a cesspool.

[SilentSnow 1]

Please... explain to me how you've done more for other people than the idiots Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama... or even me. But clearly, you and those who think like you have done more than they, or what you think I - since I am close to them on that internet scale - have done individually.One can find "really, really stupid" people all over the scale because a stupid person can believe anything. Literally anything. From Hitler to Ghandi. Holding stupid beliefs can land you anywhere on that scale.

When asserting your logical superiority it's best not to contradict yourself on the same page.

[SilentSnow 1]

You didn't adequately answer his objections and I didn't present a non argument, I said VB's argument against you was sufficient. This is an example of your failure in logic.This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of you making illogical, unreasonable and occasionally downright absurd claims/arguments and having them demolished without you realizing. Hardly anyone is outraged at what you think they are outraged about. Your points, which may have an underlying sense of compassion, are horrible. Just terrible. The logic is bad. I would guess most people don't even really pay attention to you past how poor your arguments are constructed.And I mean from a idealistic communist idiot to a theocracy based, oxymoronically-minded Randian. You're incoherent. Learn to logic.

And once again you didn't point out a single specific thing I said that was wrong. Surely you are smart enough to realize that you are making a nonargument here?If you want me to provide better support for my position then you are going to have to specifically point out where you think i am "absurd".

[ShakeZuma 585]

ok, I've been intentionally vague because a) I'm not actually trying to argue (and I really can't figure out why you are completely incapable of ever just discussing something without becoming a vitrolic ass, but whatevs) and b) I thought you've be able to figure out what I was saying considering how smart you always say you are, but I guess not.my point is that yes, on a macro scale, the ideas of economic libertarianism have done more to help people than ghandi, mandela, and the dl, but since you can't see the effects in a simple cause - effect example then you can't recognize it. I never once claimed that I or any other ONE economically libertarian individual has done more to help people than those three; that's your strawman. kinda disappointed that I had to write all that out.also: the actual accomplishments of the dali lama, mandela, or ghandi are for personal freedoms and human rights, i.e. the libertarian part of the graph, the part I share with them.

[ShakeZuma 585]

and I want to make it very well known that just because I'm quasi-arguing with spademan at the same time silentsnow is arguing with him as well, in NO WAY does that mean I IN ANY WAY side with silentsnow. lets be clear on this.I answered that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" question with a "disagree."

[ahosang 0]

I'm not going to answer the question because any answer I gave would be used as an excuse to irrationally reject my argument. I think it's funny you would mention third world countries though. Third world countries usually have no social programs and no wealth redistribution. Their disastrous societies seem to be strong indicators in favor of my position.

Way too simple. Most(but certainly not all) Third World countries have structural and cultural deficiencies not easily solved by redistribution. Too much and off-topic to go into here.As for your general argument on inheritance and distributive justice, this is an issue which has received much attention, as you say. What you need to consider is offsetting the value of the family and its role in acquiring competitive advantage for children(legitimacy of familial goods) against any benefit of wider societal redistribution. You do not adequately consider this in your posts.

[SilentSnow 1]

Way too simple. Most(but certainly not all) Third World countries have structural and cultural deficiencies not easily solved by redistribution. Too much and off-topic to go into here.As for your general argument on inheritance and distributive justice, this is an issue which has received much attention, as you say. What you need to consider is offsetting the value of the family and its role in acquiring competitive advantage for children(legitimacy of familial goods) against any benefit of wider societal redistribution. You do not adequately consider this in your posts.

I thought I made it pretty clear that my position was a compromise between these two values. It's not like I'm suggesting that all children be raised as equals in communes by the state. "I have no problem with wealth being unequally distributed as long as it is earned""You can improve your life a lot, your kid can live with you in a nice house and you can create a much better life for your children.""In this case society is trying to balance the freedom not to be a slave in an oligarchy with the freedom to undertake selfish actions that often make people happy since people are hardwired to favor their children."There isn't much point getting into details though with people who refuse to even discuss the issue. I am a little surprised by the extreme opinions here. I thought that conservatives would at least entertain the notion of justice, fairness and competing on a level playing field. Apparently not.

[brvheart 1,755]

Please... explain to me how you've done more for other people than the idiots Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama... or even me.

What are you specifically asking? That Ghandi, Nelson "necklacing" Mandela and the Dali Lama have done more for people than Shake himself? Or that they've done more for the world than all the people in the purple quadrant? or what? Thanks for the clarification.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Haha I knew Spademan would eventually show up, resort to namecalling and then the fanclub (shakezuma, SA) would hop in behind him.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Haha I knew Spademan would eventually show up, resort to namecalling and then the fanclub (shakezuma, SA) would hop in behind him.

oh oops. I guess you didn't read THIS ENTIRE PAGE.and name calling is two words.crybaby.

[digitalmonkey 929]

When asserting your logical superiority it's best not to contradict yourself on the same page.

He just got a new thesaurus...perhaps he doesn't know his way around this one quite yet.

[digitalmonkey 929]

oh oops. I guess you didn't read THIS ENTIRE PAGE.and name calling is two words.crybaby.

Oh, I did read the entire page. There was no crying, but if it helps you deal then go for it.Also, I choose to spell it namecalling because the '-' adds nothing to the word, imo.imo means in my opinion...is that ok?ok means okay.

[iguapo 0]

The black part of spade must be what's putting him in the green.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Just to be clear, my initial deposit was properly left in my account, so there's no trouble there.

[brvheart 1,755]

I know we talked about it a lot in the original thread. But the way they word the questions on that political compass test is really the worst ever. It leads to so much bias it's ridiculous.