Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Slimething]

Already quoted you saying that; I know where you live; and you can't define any of the words you use. Next.

 

[dann]

Brilliant! Probably the most consistent example of denial since the black knight!

 

[Puppycow]

I've finished the article now. What can I say? I don't agree with it. It is a critique of pure capitalism (which exists nowhere that I'm aware of) but I don't think that means that pure socialism would be any better. Central planning produces what central planners think people should want, but a market economy allows people to vote with their wallets. Markets are not perfect and work better for some goods than others (for example even in the most capitalistic country most roads are produced as a public good for all). In the US, the market has failed to provide a good system for providing healthcare. A better system, which achieves better health outcomes for less money per capita, is possible (because pretty much every other developed nation has a better system than the US). Most developed countries also provide education as a public good.

But certainly for non-necessary goods like toys, books, music, art, computers, MP3 players, etc. a market system is the best solution. As long as there is human creativity, there will never be a shortage of jobs.

 

[dann]

Well, I don't know what you can say about the article, but I can see what you choose to say (write): You don't like it, because you are a fan of what the article criticizes: the market economy, which "allows people to vote with their wallets", meaning that the people with the big wallets get the big vote, i.e. the good, high-class articles, the tasty, healthy food, the products of high-quality workmanship, whereas those with small or no wallets get to go to bed hungry, malnourished and - if they also buy into the ideology that in this system everyone is the architect of his own fortune - disgruntled with themselves rather than with the economy that treats them in this misanthropic way.
And they even have to consider themselves lucky if they are allowed the privilege of spending their entire lives working for a meagre income for the guys with wallets big enough to buy their services. It is difficult to get more cynical than that!

 

[Slimething]

So why aren't people sneaking into socialist countries? I really, really wish you would. Would we ever hear from you again? No creo!

 

[dann]

The black knight is sneaking back? Never could keep a promise that one!

 

[CFLarsen]

I've finished the article now. What can I say? I don't agree with it. It is a critique of pure capitalism (which exists nowhere that I'm aware of) but I don't think that means that pure socialism would be any better.

Where do you find a country with pure socialism?

Central planning produces what central planners think people should want, but a market economy allows people to vote with their wallets. Markets are not perfect and work better for some goods than others (for example even in the most capitalistic country most roads are produced as a public good for all). In the US, the market has failed to provide a good system for providing healthcare. A better system, which achieves better health outcomes for less money per capita, is possible (because pretty much every other developed nation has a better system than the US). Most developed countries also provide education as a public good.

But certainly for non-necessary goods like toys, books, music, art, computers, MP3 players, etc. a market system is the best solution. As long as there is human creativity, there will never be a shortage of jobs.

So, unemployed people are just lazy, sucking the government tit?

Since you recognize your own prejudice, is it fair to say to you: "You too are a "true believer" aren't you. Hence I'm realizing that this is a probably waste of time." ?

 

[Slimething]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

 

[articulett]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

You were a brave dude for re-entering this Twilight Zone drama of the past--

Some people imagine themselves having expertise in subjects no one else seems to consider themselves experts on. These people seem to be having entirely different conversations than the majority. Rather, they are endlessly winning points in some imaginary battle. It has a name.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.


Those with the syndrome seem unable to realize that they have the syndrome-- it's part of the syndrome. I'm not sure it's curable. It' like a loop... engage them for verbal exercise and repartee only. Warn others. (Those with the syndrome aren't even playing the same game as each other when they are the same threads--they need outside prodding or the conversation dies... I appreciate you stoking it momentarily for our entertainment purposes.)

 

[dann]

The irony is that except for you and Slimething most people are able to see the irony!
That goes for your sig line too, by the way ...

 

[Prometheus]

I dunno, seems obvious to me: no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth, therefore no social system that's been tried has led to Utopia, therefore everyone ought to stop arguing about which failed system (capitalism, communism, socialism, several hybrids of the above, etc) is better than the others and work out a new plan.

 

[articulett]

The irony is that except for you and Slimething most people are able to see the irony!
That goes for your sig line too, by the way ...

You and the voices in your head? Ah... you and Gurdur. Tsk. You got me there.

 

[dann]

I dunno, seems obvious to me: no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth, therefore no social system that's been tried has led to Utopia, therefore everyone ought to stop arguing about which failed system (capitalism, communism, socialism, several hybrids of the above, etc) is better than the others and work out a new plan.

It is self-evident that "no Utopian society has ever existed on Earth". Wiki says: "Utopia (from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place" [hence, "no place" or "place that does not exist"]".
I don't think that I have discussed "which failed system (...) is better than the others". So far I have criticized capitalism, and that's it. I'm not the one who idealizes sweatshops - or anything else, for that matter. Notice that Slimething couldn't back up his accusations in this respect with a single quotation. All he found was a sentence where I said the exact opposite.

You and the voices in your head? Ah... you and Gurdur. Tsk. You got me there.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning, articulett. But I guess that you'll think that the other people telling you that you were wrong were also 'voices in my head' since you don't appear to be able to remember them. It's called denial! I also think that you might benefit from reading your own paranoid, delusional contributions all over again.
That you feel most confident in your abilities, however, is obvious!

 

[SirPhilip]

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment. Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause. Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

 

[CFLarsen]

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment. Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause. Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

You think giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

 

[dann]

Intelligence is a double bladed sword, one is empiricism, the other is weighing one thing against another to determine probability. This is a discipline few are skilled at, as it requires an awareness of how emotional prejudices influence judgment.

True.

Randi isn't above it, here he is associating a prejudice as a primary cause.

True.

Poverty of course (??? dann), is obviously (??? dann) primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense.

I suppose that this is not an attempt at proving your first point by using yourself as an example, but I could be wrong. As you are probably very well aware, over the years a lot of people, also educated ones, have used their common common sense supplemented with the advice of experts and bought stocks in first the booming business of software development and later in Enron, thus ruining themselves.
Since the "environment" as a concept is so vague and universal that it encompasses almost everything except the individual itself, it is very hard to argue against that as a primary influence.

Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

A beautiful example of "of how emotional prejudices influence judgment." Since many (poor) people have children that they cannot support, you choose to blame procreation instead of blaming poverty as if poverty were the result of procreation. So any attempt at helping the destitute Africans raise their children is declared "futile". I guess that you are completely unaware of the causes of impoverishment of people in Africa - and don't really care.

 

[SirPhilip]

You think giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

I just love the way you frame questions. Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

I just love the way you frame questions.

I don't "frame" questions. I go with what you said:

Poverty of course, is obviously primarily influenced by environment and education and common sense. Many people have children they cannot support - this is why giving aid to places like Africa is futile.

You linked environment, education and common sense to over-breeding in Africa, and gave the latter as a reason why aid to Africa was futile.

So, do you think that giving aid to Africa is futile because black people are stupid and they breed too much?

Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

What "stronger instincts" and "behavioral differences" between ethnicities are you talking about in Africa and the Middle East that are particular to these areas?

 

[dann]

I just love the way you frame questions. Like the Middle East, the situation in Africa is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, whether genetic differences determine intelligence I doubt, stronger instincts play a role in priorities, and clear general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities. Why this occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly recognized by everyone.

Nothing but pompous balderdash!
Neither in the Middle East nor in Africa is "the situation" in any way "a self-perpetuating vicious cycle". The massive support from abroad, finance and military, makes it clear that it is by no means self-perpetuating.
"stronger instincts play a role in priorities". What the hell is that supposed to mean?!
"general behavioral differences exist between ethnicities". They do? Which ones? Africans play the drums and the Chinese eat rice?
"Why this (?) occurs hasn't been studied properly, but it is certainly (!) recognized by everyone (!)." (my (!) and (?), dann) No, I don't think that it is. It isn't recognized by me, for instance. If you move people of one 'ethnicity' from one part of the world to another, their "clear general behavioral differences" tend to change immensely. This also is not recognized by everyone, a lot of people actually tend to deny it, which does not make it any less true.

 

[Puppycow]

Well, no answers here. But we have learned that there are adults who still believe this stuff. Go figure!

Puppycow, you can keep these guys fed if you want to. I'm gonna give this thread a rest.

Yeah, I have nothing more to say on this subject either.

I concur with articulett's diagnoses.