CNBC suppresses Republican Debate Poll - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 16 2007 14:53 oneofthem wrote: hahaha my retarded problem is that he is using his money for reactionary and unenlightened causes. further, my retarded problem is a commitment to progressive humanism and concern for the future development of the healthy human community. surely such retarded causes must be unworthy of your inspired sensibilities. i am not interested in forbes, just the interesting event of someone holding him up to be a good political idol. if you want to talk about how being a starting partner of PNAC is a good thing, go ahead. What the heck? If he was using taxpayer's money for these causes then he ought to be held to account. But the fact is that it is his own money and he can choose to spend it however the heck he wants. His donation, as with most charitable donations, to Princeton University was 100% VOLUNTARY. You are in no position to critic the way he chooses to donate his money. For example, why don't you list the charities you donate to, and if for example you listed Tear Fund and World Vision it would be absolutely stupid for me to then say: "you are an idiot because you do not donate to the International Leprosy Mission". He has absolutely ZERO obligation to be committed to donate to Princeton and it's completely within his rights and choice whether or not he decides to continue spending money there or not. If for example you were a donor to the Democrats, then they came out with a policy you weren't happy with, such as right-wing welfare reform (as under the Clinton administration), and you'd rather donate to the campaigns those on the hard left, then who the heck is anyone else to tell you that you're not committed to donating to Clinton? You owed nothing to Clinton in the first place. What's worse in this scenario is that he is spending taxpayer's money, so that you would have a right to have a say in how it is spent, as opposed to Forbes donating out of his own private interests. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are aware that this very attitude of private public business is a symptom of a diseased public discourse, right. if i privately advocate for your murder, is it private. if i privately advocate for a particular view of society, is it private. not to mention the oxymoron status of 'private advocacy,' out from which exotic realm did you pull that moral immunity of 'private affairs.' please grasp the basics, so that you are at least aware of your own fallacies. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, within a property discussion, he 'has the right' to do so, but that does not make what he does any more valid. if he withdrew support because he supported bush rather than gore, that is a stupid and unenlightened choice, and of course, you can challenge this proclamation by making relevant arguments to show how supporting bush rather than gore is more enlightened and progressive. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 16 2007 16:41 oneofthem wrote: except that, you are just 100% not comprehending the issue. i did not object to forbes within the peculiar logic of property, but simply stated that he is shitty. that you instinctively rely on such a technical misrepresentation of my statement shows your unwillingness to discuss the substantive matters at hand, the moral status of forbes' actions. yes, within a property discussion, he 'has the right' to do so, but that does not make what he does any more valid. if he withdrew support because he supported bush rather than gore, that is a stupid and unenlightened choice, and of course, you can challenge this proclamation by making relevant arguments to show how supporting bush rather than gore is more enlightened and progressive. Well that's you changing the argument. Your original reply was, in fact, regarding the fact that he was using his money to somehow influence policy, and the relevant part you quoted was on his withdrawal of funding from Princeton. I figured the reason you quoted it was because that was the extent of your knowledge about him and that it was the only part of the Wikipedia article which spoke of him in a negative light. You didn't for a single moment mention any arguments as to why tax cuts are bad or abortion is bad, you simply made a statement with nothing to back up the opposing views, and rather attacked the fact that he used his money. Now you are changing the debate to say that you were somehow getting at something else, when you never did. If you want to say why he is shitty, then you have to back it up. You don't quote a part of Wiki which makes an unsubstantiated claim about his policies being contradictory and then end it with an attack on how he chooses to spend his money, then expect a debate on the merits/demerits of his policies without even discussing them yourself in the first place rather than a rebuttal of the method you chose to attack him. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore spends his money on raising awareness for global warming which is stupid", and then expect you to justify why it is not when I didn't even give reasons for why it is stupid in the first place for you to rebut. But I'm guessing that you're not really that smart and that like I stated above, rather than actually addressing why tax cuts are in your opinion bad and that abortion is OK you're simply changing what you meant in your first reply now 'cos I've already debunked your original reasoning and line of attack. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i did not say he does not have a right to spend the money in whichever way, (really, do you expect such arguments to hold any water whatsoever) i merely said he is being reactionary and nonprogressive etc. the issue was clearly framed as a discussion on the humanitarian or progressive characteristic of his actions. you merely fail to engage the argument on this relevant level. please make a fair attempt at argument, i am not going to clean up that mess. the more you write, the worse you look. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
oh lawd. steve forbes? "In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer" yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real. Nowhere do you even attempt to discuss the pros and cons of supply side economics or social conservatism. You simply attack his donation to Princeton and how he chooses to allocate his funds. You then go on to state: yes, i was talking about his 100% voluntary commitment to reactionary and unenlightened causes. apparently the privateness of property even extends to a moral insulation over the exercise thereof. you are a little too quick on the trigger there, in your eagerness to defend unenlightened figures. you are aware that this very attitude of private public business is a symptom of a diseased public discourse, right. if i privately advocate for your murder, is it private. if i privately advocate for a particular view of society, is it private. not to mention the oxymoron status of 'private advocacy,' out from which exotic realm did you pull that moral immunity of 'private affairs.' please grasp the basics, so that you are at least aware of your own fallacies. How exactly does this make sense? Are you saying that we should have no private right to spend our money and that for example, instead of you having your own right to spend your money on buying a Starcraft CD with your own earned money from your part time job or whatever someone else should decide for you to buy something else instead? You have a right to privacy if it is within your own property. Privately advocating someone else's murder is not within your private right because you are infringing on other people's private right to life, that's why we have the criminal law to make such so-called 'private rights' illegal. Please grasps the basics of private property rights so you are at least aware of your own fallicies. For more information read up on classical liberalism because it pretty much sums up Steve Forbe's political philosophy (as well as mine). | ||
SilenTLurker
United States250 Posts
| ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
i said he was unenlightened and reactionary, repeatedly. i did not say he does not have a right to spend the money in whichever way, (really, do you expect such arguments to hold any water whatsoever) i merely said he is being reactionary and nonprogressive etc. the issue was clearly framed as a discussion on the humanitarian or progressive characteristic of his actions. you merely fail to engage the argument on this relevant level. please make a fair attempt at argument, i am not going to clean up that mess. the more you write, the worse you look. YOU are the one who did not attempt to engage the argument on a relevant level. Nowhere do you attempt to discuss why he is reactionary and non-progressive. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore is an idiot because he supports global warming" without even providing any reasoning as to why global warming is right or wrong. How am I supposed to have a debate with you on Steve Forbe's policies as being enlightened or not when you don't even offer to suggest why they are unenlightened besides a statement which I'm supposed to take your word on? Please provide reasoning why you disagree with supply-side economics, then we can start having a sensible debate. Note also by saying his policies are unenlightened you have effectively made a statement which contradicts the views of pretty much 90% of economists (whether commercial or academic). Edit: note also I had already provided a reference in my first response to you to the thesis 'Economics in One Lesson' regarding why supply side economics is good. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i made the argument first, it was at a level i set it. you are moving it from its starting point, not me. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 17:19 JesusCruxRH wrote: see, this is an example of relevant debate, although horribly repetitive and insubstantial. YOU are the one who did not attempt to engage the argument on a relevant level. Nowhere do you attempt to discuss why he is reactionary and non-progressive. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore is an idiot because he supports global warming" without even providing any reasoning as to why global warming is right or wrong. How am I supposed to have a debate with you on Steve Forbe's policies as being enlightened or not when you don't even offer to suggest why they are unenlightened besides a statement which I'm supposed to take your word on? Please provide reasoning why you disagree with supply-side economics, then we can start having a sensible debate. Note also by saying his policies are unenlightened you have effectively made a statement which contradicts the views of pretty much 90% of economists (whether commercial or academic). Edit: note also I had already provided a reference in my first response to you to the thesis 'Economics in One Lesson' regarding why supply side economics is good. i feel no need to defend the assertion that, advocating for social conservatism and the aegis of capital (let's face it, supply economics is basically moar profit margin) is horribly unenlightened, since i think respectable society has already moved past the point of dignifying such postures. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 16 2007 17:20 oneofthem wrote: yes, i attacked his withdrawing of donations to the uni as an example of reactionary and unenlightened behavior. i made the argument first, it was at a level i set it. you are moving it from its starting point, not me. OK then, why is it reactionary and unenlightened? He disagrees with abortion. There are many on both pro and anti sides and if he happens to be on the anti abortion, pro-life side then it's not very surprising that he would not want to be funding someone who is pro-abortion. If it was the other way around, would you expect someone who advocates abortion to donate to pro-life groups? Edit: note also that if you want to address the topic of abortion and why pro-abortion is enlightened you have not provided any points or arguments to begin debating on. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
or, read below i did not attempt to argue a position, since i was only making a comment. yes, i realize that you could contend that reactionary policies are enlightened, but i refuse to participate in that discussion. you could however engage the vast body of literature produced on the subject. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
| ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 16 2007 17:21 oneofthem wrote: i feel no need to defend the assertion that, advocating for social conservatism and the aegis of capital (let's face it, supply economics is basically moar profit margin) is horribly unenlightened, since i think respectable society has already moved past the point of dignifying such postures. Well OK if you're not going to defend it then there's no point debating, but remember that most economic academics would disagree with your assertion. Edit: and also it's disappointing that you're unwilling to debate it and justify your reasoning as to supply side economics being profit-focused, because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do understand supply-side economics (as explained in the Economics in One Lesson thesis) and are able to rebut it, rather than just being ignorant of it and someone who's never studied economics post-graduate before. There are economists who are against supply side-economics, such as Josef Stalinger (former head of World Bank), but most economists disagree with his views. Anyhow, since you're not gonna debate it then there's not a lot to discuss. | ||
gameguard
Korea (South)2131 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what luminaries will you draw? hayak? rothbard? entertain me. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 17:33 JesusCruxRH wrote: that you demand your normative tidbits in peculiarly shaped packages is your problem. as i have said before, this is your property logic talking. i have no idea why you would interpret 'forbes is unenlightened' as anything but 'forbes is unenlightened.' You started it with your first comment (and if you can't see why your first comment was so badly worded and structured then you still don't get it). Next time just write something like: "I think Steve Forbe's policies sucks because I believe his stances are not enlightened, I don't want to discuss why I simply want to point out that I disagree with him" rather than trying to bring in his withdrawal of funding and attacking him on the basis that doing so was somehow wrong (ie. that you don't agree with freedom of expression in the form of putting your money where your mouth is). i suggest you reread the relevant comments. | ||
JesusCruxRH
New Zealand159 Posts
On October 16 2007 17:39 oneofthem wrote: as if you have any idea of academic economics. what luminaries will you draw? hayak? rothbard? entertain me. I have an undergraduate degree (three years study) in commerce majoring in economics from the University of Canterbury. Although I am passionate about economics I ended up taking Law instead of post-graduate economics and am currently doing my legal internship (5th year) but you're welcome to look at the credentials of my economics lecturers (www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz), who are mostly right-wing (with the exception of Seamus Hogan). I don't know if you know but New Zealand was the first country in the world to majorly reform supply side economics in the late 80s under Roger Douglas, it's where the term Rogernomics came from, and then later Ruthanasia (and interestingly, where Clinton's policy advisors looked at as a starting point for his social security/welfare reforms in the 90s when he put in schemes like work for the dole and time limits on benefits). | ||
| ||