|
On January 10 2011 18:18 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
By choice, again, I'm just referring to the weakness of the free-market ideal of "people choose via putting their money where they want." People with sufficient money can use their money to control the private sector, sure, but a corporation that preys on people without that choice will likely never go down (i.e. McDonalds, and again, Walmart).
Totally agree. The problems with our markets is that they are broken (in an econmic sense) because:
- the consumers do not have the capability and/or motivation to act rational
- the producers abuse the system wherever they can (out of a rational striveing to maximize profit)
Personally, I think, the challenge we face consists in creating a framework that creates markets that are as close as possible to an economically perfect market. Without outside regulation, I do not think that is possible due to the problems above. What form could such a regulation take? Basically, one could start with two simple rules:
- no company is allowed a market share of greater than 10% to ensure sufficient competition (I arbitrairly chose 10%, maybe some simluations or economic experiments can provide a better number)
- products need to be comparable (prices must be stated so that consumers can instantly compare them, despite differenmt package size etc., e.g. price per 100 grams in addition to the package price)
I guess people can come up with a lot of additional or better ideas to bridge the gap between perfect markets as we know them from the economics books and the 'broken' markets we have in real life.
|
On January 10 2011 21:38 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 18:18 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
By choice, again, I'm just referring to the weakness of the free-market ideal of "people choose via putting their money where they want." People with sufficient money can use their money to control the private sector, sure, but a corporation that preys on people without that choice will likely never go down (i.e. McDonalds, and again, Walmart). Totally agree. The problems with our markets is that they are broken (in an econmic sense) because: - the consumers do not have the capability and/or motivation to act rational - the producers abuse the system wherever they can (out of a rational striveing to maximize profit) Personally, I think, the challenge we face consists in creating a framework that creates markets that are as close as possible to an economically perfect market. Without outside regulation, I do not think that is possible due to the problems above. What form could such a regulation take? Basically, one could start with two simple rules: - no company is allowed a market share of greater than 10% to ensure sufficient competition (I arbitrairly chose 10%, maybe some simluations or economic experiments can provide a better number) - products need to be comparable (prices must be stated so that consumers can instantly compare them, despite differenmt package size etc., e.g. price per 100 grams in addition to the package price) I guess people can come up with a lot of additional or better ideas to bridge the gap between perfect markets as we know them from the economics books and the 'broken' markets we have in real life.
Well saying that consumers do not act rationally assumes that you know what "Good" they are consuming.
It can be argued that "irrational" purchases are providing the consumer with some emotional/psychosocial good... ie going to the more well marketed movie provides a better 'experience' than going to the less well marketed movie.
I'd say there are problems with it... but much more of the problems are with the producer side... since most producers are corporations which are distinctly Not rational (as I said earlier, because the corporation isn't what makes decisions, the managers of the corporations make decisions)
I do think the free market needs some level of redistribution/safety net to work well [given that people don't eat in the long term]. Ideally that would be provided by individual charity, but I can see a role for some government redistribution (even if just through progressive taxation).
However, your two ideas are already in place in most cases.
-anti-trust laws... should be better enforced, and probably stricter (they're not based purely on a % market share)
-truth in advertising.. and if you have ever gone to the grocery, all products have those prices per oz listed. In many other cases, products can be innately difficult to compare (SC2 v. WC3 would you compare the prices in $ per kilobyte? probably not... there is no objective comparison of the value)
|
On January 11 2011 00:02 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 21:38 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 10 2011 18:18 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
By choice, again, I'm just referring to the weakness of the free-market ideal of "people choose via putting their money where they want." People with sufficient money can use their money to control the private sector, sure, but a corporation that preys on people without that choice will likely never go down (i.e. McDonalds, and again, Walmart). Totally agree. The problems with our markets is that they are broken (in an econmic sense) because: - the consumers do not have the capability and/or motivation to act rational - the producers abuse the system wherever they can (out of a rational striveing to maximize profit) Personally, I think, the challenge we face consists in creating a framework that creates markets that are as close as possible to an economically perfect market. Without outside regulation, I do not think that is possible due to the problems above. What form could such a regulation take? Basically, one could start with two simple rules: - no company is allowed a market share of greater than 10% to ensure sufficient competition (I arbitrairly chose 10%, maybe some simluations or economic experiments can provide a better number) - products need to be comparable (prices must be stated so that consumers can instantly compare them, despite differenmt package size etc., e.g. price per 100 grams in addition to the package price) I guess people can come up with a lot of additional or better ideas to bridge the gap between perfect markets as we know them from the economics books and the 'broken' markets we have in real life. Well saying that consumers do not act rationally assumes that you know what "Good" they are consuming. It can be argued that "irrational" purchases are providing the consumer with some emotional/psychosocial good... ie going to the more well marketed movie provides a better 'experience' than going to the less well marketed movie. I'd say there are problems with it... but much more of the problems are with the producer side... since most producers are corporations which are distinctly Not rational (as I said earlier, because the corporation isn't what makes decisions, the managers of the corporations make decisions) I do think the free market needs some level of redistribution/safety net to work well [given that people don't eat in the long term]. Ideally that would be provided by individual charity, but I can see a role for some government redistribution (even if just through progressive taxation). However, your two ideas are already in place in most cases. -anti-trust laws... should be better enforced, and probably stricter (they're not based purely on a % market share) -truth in advertising.. and if you have ever gone to the grocery, all products have those prices per oz listed. In many other cases, products can be innately difficult to compare (SC2 v. WC3 would you compare the prices in $ per kilobyte? probably not... there is no objective comparison of the value)
Hm, consumers not acting rationally is, for a psychologist, something liek a proven fact. Humans employ what we would call "fast and frugal" heursitics (I can highly recomend the works of Gerd Gigerenzer on this topic). Problem with these heusristics is that they can be abused, especially by advertising.
I agree with the rest of your points. Comparable prices are quite new in germany (we have them since a few years, only), did not know that they were standard in the US. And I also agree that the producer-side is the one with the higher potential to break the market.
The last point you raised is especially interesting because it concerns intellectual property. Regarding one product, you can certainly not create a market with the current IP laws because they are supposed to generate a monopoly in order to reward creativity or innovation. I have thought about this a lot and I wonder whether a system might be better in which the creator/innovator sets a price for his/her new product and companies can buy the rights to produce/reproduce for that price if they want to (driven, of course by rational cost-benefit-analysis).
That way, a creative person who is too greedy will not be able to sell her product, whereas competition among the companies distributing the product will ensure fair prices in the sense of the market. Just my random ssociations, though. I am pretty certain that this is utopian thinking and that there are a lot of reasons why it may not work. But since it kinda worked with book printing in 19th century Germany, maybe it would be wirth a try.
|
On January 10 2011 16:28 Tasteful123 wrote:
Lefnui, is this your idea of fun? Using your time to feed right wing trolls who came here without any willingness to budge on their ignorance? You can reason all you want with them but in the end it's going to end up with the right wingers equivocating the faults of the right with faults of the left. That is the best you're going to get out of them, if at all.
Yeah, I guess the Republican party is pretty bad - but the Democrats are bad too! Yeah, Fox news is pretty biased - but MSNBC is too!
Any sane person should know the massive difference in the amount and quality of bullshit pouring out of either side... too bad everyone always tries to make it look like both sides are equally bad.
Scruffy, just admit to being a racist. It'll make it easier to believe that you're an actual right winger instead of a troll.
Awww. How cute. Did you make a new account JUST to say that? I'm flattered, really. Anyone want to get a bet going that Lefnui and this new guy will/will not call me a racist to my face at the next big U.S. tournament? (they wouldn't show).
I'm a conservative/libertarian. Call that "XTREEM RIGHT" if you wish. You call people trolls because of your lack of argument/functioning brain.
|
On January 11 2011 02:34 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 16:28 Tasteful123 wrote:
Lefnui, is this your idea of fun? Using your time to feed right wing trolls who came here without any willingness to budge on their ignorance? You can reason all you want with them but in the end it's going to end up with the right wingers equivocating the faults of the right with faults of the left. That is the best you're going to get out of them, if at all.
Yeah, I guess the Republican party is pretty bad - but the Democrats are bad too! Yeah, Fox news is pretty biased - but MSNBC is too!
Any sane person should know the massive difference in the amount and quality of bullshit pouring out of either side... too bad everyone always tries to make it look like both sides are equally bad.
Scruffy, just admit to being a racist. It'll make it easier to believe that you're an actual right winger instead of a troll. Awww. How cute. Did you make a new account JUST to say that? I'm flattered, really. Anyone want to get a bet going that Lefnui and this new guy will/will not call me a racist to my face at the next big U.S. tournament? (they wouldn't show). I'm a conservative/libertarian. Call that "XTREEM RIGHT" if you wish. You call people trolls because of your lack of argument/functioning brain.
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums.
|
On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums.
Well, a few bad apples may do that. On the other hand I have witnessed people calling others trolls when their forum behavior exactly matched the definition of "troll" and refraining from calling them trolls, even complimenting them on quality posts, when they started partitipating in the discussions in a mature way (even if the yrgued pro right-wing positions). Don't give up. 
Edit: Seriously, don't give up. We all need dissenters to check whether we can back up our erguments with reason and evidence. Or as my students use to say "Mehr Dissens führt zu weniger Nonsens" (translated: more dissent lead to leass nonsnse).
|
On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up.
No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation.
If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas.
To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have.
But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice.
|
On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice.
Your willfully ignorant of the meaning of terms and words when reading a dictionary or encyclopedia clearly shows that your ideas have no merit or basis in reality. Your position on what is consider right wing is just one example of your definition not matching up with the actual definition.
|
On January 11 2011 04:53 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. People think your trolling because your willfully ignorant of the meaning of terms and words when reading a dictionary or encyclopedia clearly shows that your ideas have no merit or basis in reality. Your position on what is consider right wing is just one example of your definition not matching up with the actual definition.
Give me one example and I'm sure I can defend my stance. I think you're the one being ignorant.
|
On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice.
Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias.
|
On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 02:34 Scruffy wrote:On January 10 2011 16:28 Tasteful123 wrote:
Lefnui, is this your idea of fun? Using your time to feed right wing trolls who came here without any willingness to budge on their ignorance? You can reason all you want with them but in the end it's going to end up with the right wingers equivocating the faults of the right with faults of the left. That is the best you're going to get out of them, if at all.
Yeah, I guess the Republican party is pretty bad - but the Democrats are bad too! Yeah, Fox news is pretty biased - but MSNBC is too!
Any sane person should know the massive difference in the amount and quality of bullshit pouring out of either side... too bad everyone always tries to make it look like both sides are equally bad.
Scruffy, just admit to being a racist. It'll make it easier to believe that you're an actual right winger instead of a troll. Awww. How cute. Did you make a new account JUST to say that? I'm flattered, really. Anyone want to get a bet going that Lefnui and this new guy will/will not call me a racist to my face at the next big U.S. tournament? (they wouldn't show). I'm a conservative/libertarian. Call that "XTREEM RIGHT" if you wish. You call people trolls because of your lack of argument/functioning brain. Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums.
Uhm right. Yes I've never seen Scruffy actively try to derail threads trying to provoke people into calling him an idiot/racist so he can claim ad hominem and therefore magically win the argument even though his claims have no evidence and no basis in reality. /sarcasm. I mean come on, it may not be trolling, but it's pretty damn close.
How did this thread get derailed so badly? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. Democrats instituted federal spending limits to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. Republicans take congress and immediately try to unbalance that by exempting tax cuts from the law. This is fiscally irresponsible of the Republicans. This makes balancing the budget that much harder and makes federal spending less transparent.
Why are the "right-wingers" in favor of the Republicans in this case (especially libertarians)? This is can make the federal debt much larger. Why not have stricter regulations on federal spending? Which the democrats instituted under Obama!
What more is there to it people?
|
On January 11 2011 05:18 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182778¤tpage=23#445
The argument:
Them: Mein Kampf is right-wing.
Me: How is it right-wing?
Them: *Alot of flaming* It's obviously right-wing. It's the EPITOME of right-wing. Look at wiki or something.
Me: Wiki says it's hard to place, and has been placed left, right and centre by different people.
Them: wikiquote: "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."
Me: Mein Kampf wasn't practical. (Which would make the first part valid in the point we argued, i.e. hard to place.).
Obvious trolling, right?
|
On January 11 2011 06:01 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 05:18 Krigwin wrote:On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182778¤tpage=23#445The argument: Them: Mein Kampf is right-wing. Me: How is it right-wing? Them: *Alot of flaming* It's obviously right-wing. It's the EPITOME of right-wing. Look at wiki or something. Me: Wiki says it's hard to place, and has been placed left, right and centre by different people. Them: wikiquote: "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." Me: Mein Kampf wasn't practical. (Which would make the first part valid in the point we argued, i.e. hard to place.). Obvious trolling, right?
Yes, actually. You got people into a stupid argument. They responded with detailed explanation and evidence as to why you are wrong. You respond with a stupid one-line post dismissing everything they just said. Yes, that is trolling. If you provided more explanation and discussion, you probably would not have been warned.
However, none of this has to do with this thread, just like none of that had anything to do with that thread.
|
On January 11 2011 06:01 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 05:18 Krigwin wrote:On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182778¤tpage=23#445The argument: Them: Mein Kampf is right-wing. Me: How is it right-wing? Them: *Alot of flaming* It's obviously right-wing. It's the EPITOME of right-wing. Look at wiki or something. Me: Wiki says it's hard to place, and has been placed left, right and centre by different people. Them: wikiquote: "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." Me: Mein Kampf wasn't practical. (Which would make the first part valid in the point we argued, i.e. hard to place.). Obvious trolling, right?
You made a useless one-line response that was in essence an offhand dismissal. This was after a series of likewise one-line responses continuing the derailment of the thread with an off-topic stupid argument over books. This was after the person who originally started that stupid argument was banned for doing so. At that point I'm actually kind of surprised you weren't just outright banned for derailing a thread, posting worthless one-liners, and generally being an obnoxious poster/troll, on top of the obvious trolling. And this was all in a very serious thread.
Then to top that off, now you're martyring, derailing another thread, and trolling again. Your posting never fails to impress!
|
On January 11 2011 06:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 06:01 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 05:18 Krigwin wrote:On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182778¤tpage=23#445The argument: Them: Mein Kampf is right-wing. Me: How is it right-wing? Them: *Alot of flaming* It's obviously right-wing. It's the EPITOME of right-wing. Look at wiki or something. Me: Wiki says it's hard to place, and has been placed left, right and centre by different people. Them: wikiquote: "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." Me: Mein Kampf wasn't practical. (Which would make the first part valid in the point we argued, i.e. hard to place.). Obvious trolling, right? Yes, actually. You got people into a stupid argument. They responded with detailed explanation and evidence as to why you are wrong. You respond with a stupid one-line post dismissing everything they just said. Yes, that is trolling. If you provided more explanation and discussion, you probably would not have been warned. However, none of this has to do with this thread, just like none of that had anything to do with that thread.
I dismissed it because they were wrong. That's not trolling. They said Mein Kampf was right-wing which it isn't and which the wiki quote certainly didn't say.
It's the same thing as saying The Communist Manifesto promotes mass-murder. No it doesn't, no matter how many communist states ends up commiting mass murders. Mein Kampf is not right-wing, no matter how many nazi states end up right-wing in practise.
*sigh*
On January 11 2011 06:22 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 06:01 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 05:18 Krigwin wrote:On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote:On January 11 2011 03:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 11 2011 03:35 Mayfly wrote:
Yeah, it's insanely disgusting calling people trolls just because they aren't leftist or just doesn't share your opinion. Sadly, it's common on these forums. Don't give up. No I didn't say it so I could be the martyr or anything. Just an observation. If you argue for right-wing/controversial ideas you're also way more likely to be banned if you're even close to stepping over the line in a heated argument than if you're arguing left-wing/uncontroversial ideas. To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. But yeah, the mods do what they want of course, I'm not saying they have to adhere to free speech or anything since it's their forums. Just saying it would be nice. Put your posts where your mouth is: paste these posts that you got warned for. I'll go ahead and argue that you were warned for blatant troll tactics, not because of whatever ideas you were arguing being deemed right-wing and thus unacceptable. Also, it doesn't help your case when you martyr yourself, question account actions in unrelated threads, and accuse moderators of political bias. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182778¤tpage=23#445The argument: Them: Mein Kampf is right-wing. Me: How is it right-wing? Them: *Alot of flaming* It's obviously right-wing. It's the EPITOME of right-wing. Look at wiki or something. Me: Wiki says it's hard to place, and has been placed left, right and centre by different people. Them: wikiquote: "Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." Me: Mein Kampf wasn't practical. (Which would make the first part valid in the point we argued, i.e. hard to place.). Obvious trolling, right? You made a useless one-line response that was in essence an offhand dismissal. This was after a series of likewise one-line responses continuing the derailment of the thread with an off-topic stupid argument over books. This was after the person who originally started that stupid argument was banned for doing so. At that point I'm actually kind of surprised you weren't just outright banned for derailing a thread, posting worthless one-liners, and generally being an obnoxious poster/troll, on top of the obvious trolling. And this was all in a very serious thread. Then to top that off, now you're martyring, derailing another thread, and trolling again. Your posting never fails to impress!
Hey ho. Making up lies to make me look bad. No he wasn't banned for that, nor is he even banned. I wasn't derailing since it was a fair point to bring up and I wasn't warned for derailing, I was warned for trolling.
Not gonna continue responding to this since it's derailing the thread and people are clearly idiots anyway.
On January 11 2011 06:49 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 06:25 Mayfly wrote:
Hey ho. Making up lies to make me look bad. No he wasn't banned for that, nor is he even banned. I wasn't derailing since it was a fair point to bring up and I wasn't warned for derailing, I was warned for trolling.
Not gonna continue responding to this since it's derailing the thread and people are clearly idiots anyway. ... ? Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Here is a list of his favorite books: I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
Sorry guys, just like the guy who flew the plane into a IRS building, surprise it's someone from the far left. But just remember, the left is peaceful, no matter how many people they kill. Show nested quote +SnK-Arcbound was just temp banned for 2 days by p4NDemik.
That account was created on 2005-03-18 15:52:12 and had 626 posts.
Reason: Stop derailing a serious thread with your bullshit.
Haha still making up stuff. That's not the post he was banned for, nor is he the one that started the derailing. He was banned for something completely different, just check his post history.
Leave me alone now you idiot.
|
On January 11 2011 06:25 Mayfly wrote:
Hey ho. Making up lies to make me look bad. No he wasn't banned for that, nor is he even banned. I wasn't derailing since it was a fair point to bring up and I wasn't warned for derailing, I was warned for trolling.
Not gonna continue responding to this since it's derailing the thread and people are clearly idiots anyway.
... ?
On January 09 2011 08:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Here is a list of his favorite books: I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
Sorry guys, just like the guy who flew the plane into a IRS building, surprise it's someone from the far left. But just remember, the left is peaceful, no matter how many people they kill.
SnK-Arcbound was just temp banned for 2 days by p4NDemik.
That account was created on 2005-03-18 15:52:12 and had 626 posts.
Reason: Stop derailing a serious thread with your bullshit.
|
|
|
Mayfly, don't lose any sleep over these guys. Thanks for defending me as well.
Best case scenario: They end up teaching and converting a few brainless drones at your local community college with their Art History degrees from Devry.
|
On January 07 2011 00:06 Scruffy wrote:
"They showed the WORST fiscal responsibility in our nation's history" - about Republicans
Have you not seen how much the Democrats have spent so far? (its 3.4 TRILLION by the way) And if you read the article I posted instead of assuming,
"Fact: The real threat is the projected future debt from entitlement spending." Pretty much sums it up. You think wars are expensive...The US has about 72 trillion in assets for all citizens combined. The problem is that there is 112 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
The economy has grown more than spending has (inflation adjusted) over the years.
"A key lesson for lawmakers: Avoid debt-reduction strategies that would significantly reduce economic growth-thereby preventing significant debt ratio improvement. In particular, tax increases may reduce the nominal debt yet also slow economic growth. The better way to reduce the debt ratio is by combining pro-growth tax policies with spending restraint."
Tell a Democrat to look up restraint in the dictionary. It seems they don't know the definition.
A) I'm not defending the Democrats except to say they have a better record of fiscal responsibility than the Republicans, which, if you look at any website dealing with the National Debt that ISN'T the Heritage Foundation, you'd see is absolutely true.
B) "The better way to reduce the debt ratio is by combining pro-growth tax policies with spending restraint."
Right.... Right.... We've been hearing that since Reagan came into office. This exact philosophy. History speaks for itself. Reaganomics has sunk this country into debt. Republicans want to act like it's Welfare's fault. Or healthcare's fault. But really, it's because Reagan completely revamped the tax-code and sunk our government's revenue.
The Heritage Foundation will tell you that Reagan's tax cuts DOUBLED government revenue (while providing no credible sources for that claim). Ergo, the Heritage Foundation is either full of complete morons, or liars. Take your pick. Just don't go posting their articles and expect people to take them at their word.
|
On January 11 2011 09:34 Scruffy wrote:
Mayfly, don't lose any sleep over these guys. Thanks for defending me as well.
Best case scenario: They end up teaching and converting a few brainless drones at your local community college with their Art History degrees from Devry.
And by the way, it's to be expected, but I can see this thread took some wrong turns into something ugly.
Just know I don't mean to insult you ever, and I don't feel you've insulted me ever. We just disagree, obviously. But that's okay, right?
If there's any serious, serious problem in this country right now, it's that we have so much certitude and vitriol in our politics that it's literally making people crazy. I like to talk politics, respectfully, and so far I've enjoyed reading your perspective. Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
