Amy, after what ABC's Brian Ross did, nothing surprises me any more about how low, how unprofessionally, and how utterly stupidly a member of the "journalist class" will act.

The fact that Ross hasn't resigned or been fired yet is the greatest indictment of the sorry state of the mainstream media in recent memory. To illustrate how deeply in denial the journalists class is, one need go no further than the bio page of Ross on ABC News:

"Brian Ross is one of the most honored and respected journalists in the country...."

I wasn't sure what Brian Ross did, but I had heard of the incident. I just didn't realize it was him personally.

He should have realized that neither "James" nor "Holmes" are uncommon names and that the chances were good that he'd stumbled upon another James Holmes before he said anything.

Patrick:

As is oft-the-case-today, people using common sense is sadly lacking.

( http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/13/the_dog-eat-dog.html ).
(You called us liars, and stupid, and yet failed to back up what you said at all. Yes, when you pronounce on other people, it's going to come back up - until you either back up what you said, or apologise and admit that you were wrong.)

Actually, I didn't call you a liar, Unix-Jedi. I reserved that comment for Pirate Jo. And she did lie. She deliberately took a sentence out of mine out of context, then when called on it, she equivocated, claiming the excised portion was "meaningless."

However, since you are now claiming that I called "us" liars when in fact that was reserved for one person, who wasn't you, I'm afraid I will have to call you a liar now.

As I often say, "If you don't like being called a liars, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies."

So, bring it it up as often as you care to, Unix. I can ignore you somewhat more easily than you can post a link a launch into your self-righteous tirade. I say "somewhat," because you do seem to find devolving into self-righteousness to be an effortless process.

I'm afraid I will have to call you a liar now.

Shocked, shocked, shocked I am. Really. This is my shocked face.

And yes, you called me a liar in that thread. "I just named three, Jedi. Predictably, because you know you look like a prize moron, you ignored them.". After I said you hadn't, that's calling me a liar.

But since you appear to have realized that you lost badly, but aren't honest, you're going to brazen your way through.

You made a laughable claim that demonstrates that you don't understand the basic words of "strong" and "weak". When slightly mocked for that, you went full-retard.

And at no point did you ever back up what you said. But you called other people liars for quoting you. And idiots. That's offensive.

So, bring it it up as often as you care to,

Ignore it. It's not for your benefit. Its for anybody who doesn't know that you're that big of a dishonest idiot.

Funny how I can prove my point by quoting you.

As I often say, "If you don't like being called a liars, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies."

Who'd you plagarize that from? Regardless. Good advice. I'll wait for you to learn to follow it.

What was that about my "self-righteousness?"

From the pov of this former combat infantryman, less than a tenth of what went on when the guns were firing *ever* makes it back into the real world. Journalists probe for those stories, and sometimes, on a hunch, they play the guilt card.

No, Jedi. Calling you a liar is "You are a liar." That's what calling you a liar looks like. I called you a liar when you lied about me calling you a liar. I hadn't called you a liar, but since you said, "You called us liars," when in fact I called only one person a liar, who wasn't you, you are now a liar.

I did give three institutions in which the strong could not exploit the weak. That you don't like them or wish to reframe the standards that you yourself created is none of my concern. It simply proves to me how dishonest and cowardly you are.

I called someone else a liar. And I'll stand by it. She did not quote me. So, that's another lie of yours. There. You can now boo-hoo to heart's content that I called you a liar a twice. "...Don't. Tell. Lies." She misquoted me. She deliberately took something out of context. And when called on it, she equivocated, claiming that the excised portion was "meaningless."

And no, I did not plagiarize that statement. It's my own creation. I use it when debating birthers, who are seasoned and shameless liars. So, as I often tell them, "If you don't like being called liars/a liar, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies."

And if you wish to continue posting after, imagining that someone is going to take you seriously and say, "Oooh, that Patrick is a lying idiot," you overestimate your own estimation.

Simply put, you aren't taken seriously. You are a semi-amusing droll buffoon. Maybe you should rely less on Alex Jones for your information.

No, Jedi. Calling you a liar is "You are a liar." That's what calling you a liar looks like. I called you a liar when you lied about me calling you a liar. I hadn't called you a liar, but since you said, "You called us liars," when in fact I called only one person a liar, who wasn't you, you are now a liar.

Patrick, it appears that a twelve year old girl has hijacked your posting account(s). You should look into that, maybe change your passwords or something.

Don't be silly. You don't have an account to post here. Anyone can call themselves "Patrick" in their replies and post here.

No, Jedi. Calling you a liar is "You are a liar."

Steve might be onto something, but usually I expect a better level of sense than that by the time a girl gets to 12.

Amazingly enough, in the real world, there's lots of ways to call people liars, other than the simplistic "you're a liar".

Though if that's what you think, it makes a bit more sense why you can't, wait, no, it doesn't, because like the rest of what you said, it self-contradicts.

I hadn't called you a liar,

Not only had you, but I cut and pasted where you did.

You're hardly a masterdebater.

I did give three institutions in which the strong could not exploit the weak.

No, you didn't. You told me to "search" for it, and that "you suppose.. Well, why don't we just CUT AND PASTE WHAT YOU SAID?

Gee, this internetal thing is just golly whiz nifty.

But such a system would have to be governed by ethics.
...
If you can find a system where the structure
...
is basically benevolent or governed by laws where exploitation is punished, then you'll have your answer.

Where did you name 3 systems? You told me about hypotheticals, things I could "Search" for.

Remember where you just repeated

I did give three institutions in which the strong could not exploit the weak.

Guess what I'm calling you? Go, on, guess. I ran it by a panel of 7 year olds, and they all got it right.

As I said there, and you ran away from:
Now, what systems can you point to that you claim exist (and you've enumerated) that meet your claim that the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak?
All I did was predict that you'd be unable to do that.

Guess... I was... right?

Gee. This is my shocked face. Lemme do the "I Told You So Dance."

Patrick: The reason I was gently sarcastic at first is there is no system where the strong are prevented from preying on the weak. None. You can't name them, they don't exist in the real world. Every one is fictional.

Because the real world destroys that fantasy. Every single system that has more than 1 person in it is one where the weak are subject to the strong. It's what weak and strong mean. The definition of them.

It may not be physical strength, but every single system devised by man is subject to the weak being "exploited" by the strong.

Every. One.

And if I'm wrong (the audience holds it's breath), then demonstrate it.

I did name them. I named three. They are on that thread. Find them.

Patrick:

I've told you I've read it several times and I did not see that.

I've pasted what you said, and asked you to clarify.

Now, it's possible I'm an idiot. And even though I pasted what you said, I didn't see them.

So tell me again. As I asked you on the other thread.

What three? Names? Locations?

Let's see what you said, shall we?

Jedi. But such a system would have to be governed by ethics. If you can find a system where the structure is basically benevolent or governed by laws where exploitation is punished, then you'll have your answer.

(First para: No systems named. "If you can find" isn't naming a system. That's a hypothetical that begs the question that you already declared that you know the answer to. You know of them, I've asked, so it's your job to identify. You didn't. 0 Named.)

I suppose you wouldn't know what a good family looks like, huh? That would be a system where the strong do not exploit the weak. Yours must have been something out an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

(Second Para: No system named. A "good family" is inferred, but again, this is a non-precise definition. Good according to? And you can find them, and identify them how? That's not a system, it's an ideal. 0 Named.)

And while they have their share of corruption, I'm certain that there are churches in this world where the powers that be don't exploit the members of the congregation and would act to remove those that did.

(Third para: No system named. Hypothetically corrupt churches that might exist somewhere that meets your requirements. If you can't point to the church, but you're "certain that there are", and that's all you can have, then it's still non-naming, and you're living in a fantasy world. I'd like unicorn poop for my tomatoes. I use cow. 0 named.)

You must think there isn't a single human institution that does a goddamn thing to prevent exploitation.

(4th para: Well, I've been asking you, and you haven't yet named one for me. Apparently, you don't think so either.)

Where do you work, Jedi? Samoa? You must, since you obviously don't believe that a single workplace that prevents exploitation could possibly exist.

(5th para: And we HAVE A CONCRETE SYSTEM! Samoa! We finally, wait, no, it's being used as a counter example as a bad one. Aw, shucks. 0 Named (as the good examples.))

Shall we continue, Jedi? Or do you feel quite stupid enough?

Patrick's named systems: 0
Unix-Jedi's cut-n-paste wizardry: ∞

Whoot!

It gets worse Amy.

I heard a reporter ask the father of the six year old girl that died if he was in shock.

Where do they find these idiots?

Right where Patrick learned how to conduct debate.

Eunuchs-Jedi, in reviewing the thread, I have discovered a heretofore unseen comment of yours in which you actually address my response on that subject. Therefore, I will no longer indulge your silly game of pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. You do know what I'm talking about. You addressed it.

So, until you attain some measure of honesty, Eunuchs-Jedi, I'm quite done with this conversation, and you.

And Rad, I learned to conduct debate only with those who conduct it honestly. In the debate that Eunuchs-Jedi is referring to, my position was deliberately misrepresented. Partial quotes, for instance, were taken as entire quotes, a position that Eunuchs-Jedi, as he revealed in this very thread, fully supports.

I will continue to amuse myself at Eunuchs-Jedi's (and apparently your) expense until the debate is conducted honestly, and not before.

Eunuchs-Jedi, in reviewing the thread, ... -- Patrick at July 22, 2012 12:10 AM

I have tried to read this thread and the original thread, multiple times.

For the most part Unix-Jedi, Radwaste and others have concise, readable replies. You seem to be all over the map.

I can understand not knowing how to use HTML code to block out and annotate, and otherwise attribute people's quotes, but that can be done easily enough with other normal things like quote marks, lines of dashes, etc.

Several people have asked you for concise replies. You reply with "I did name them. I named three. They are on that thread. Find them." If you had a readily defensible argument, your reply would be

A. "a good family"
B. "the church"
C. "whatever the fuck else".

You didn't respond that way. That gives a significant hint that you don't have good data on your side.

That you have carried it to this unrelated thread suggests that you can't argue your side with a rational argument. That Raddy and Jedi called you on it, so your reply is to use Eunuchs-Jedi is resorting to name calling. Again a suggestion of a defensible argument.

========================================

Radwaste and Unix-Jedi -- you two aren't off the hook either. You two both took the troll's bait. You both should know better. ;-)

========================================

All,

This is my personal opinion, but wading through the off-topic crap feels like I'm attending Comic-con surrounded by a bunch of mormons and druids arguing over the meaning of a dog.

Actually, C would be the workplace.

You'll note, Eunuchs-Jedi asked for only three systems in which the strong were prevented from exploiting the weak.

Jenny Had a Chance seems to think that every family in existence has oblivious and indifferent parents in which the older siblings are exploiting the weaker. I'm a little less cynical. I believe that non-dysfunctional families exist.

While my own church is dwindling (as are most churches) and people leave for a variety of reasons, I've never heard anyone complaining of the exploitation. And my church has a rotating power structure. We have no clergy or ordination. Our services are led by readers who are elected for terms, usually three years, and are not subject to term limits.

C is the workplace. Apparently, the cynicism of Jenny Had a Chance applies to this as well. Each and every workplace is led by a clueless or tyrannical monster who is either oblivious to the exploitative devices of their higher level employees.

Sorry, I'm calling B.S. In order for Eunuchs-Jedi to support his position, he would need to prove that each and every family in existence is dysfunctional to the point of allowing exploitation. Ditto with families and churches. An impossible task, you say? Unfair of me? He's the one who framed it. Not me. He asked for any system in which the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak. My neighbor's family, my church, my workplace all qualify, thanks very much.

You'll also note that none of these systems, based on Eunuchs-Jedi's parameters, are required to be absolutely foolproof, only that it be a system in which the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak. So, even if only a single instance exists in the entire system's history, in which a strong agent was prevented from exploiting a weak agent, then based on Eunuchs-Jedi's own parameters, it qualifies.

Jim, sorry I cannot agree with your assesment of the posts of Eunuchs-Jedi and company in that thread, nor my own posts, you have, at the very least, been honest. While Eunuchs-Jedi, Pirate Jo, doombuggy, et al. have all deliberately taken partial sentences out of context and pronounced them "my beliefs," you at least, refrained from doing that.

And no, it is not name-calling to refer to him as "Eunuchs-Jedi." "Unix" is a not a word. The only word in English that is pronounced that way is "eunuchs." I'm not a fan of non-standardized spelling, but Eunuchs-Jedi is so hooked on Ebonics, he's free to spell it any damn way he pleases. But I will use the correct spelling of the word, thanks.

What concern is it of mine if he considers himself a Jedi Knight among the castrati?

Jim P:

Sorry. But when he drops insults like that on regulars, having just shown up, and then runs away from the argument, I've got a problem with that.

That thread - and his behavior in this one - demonstrate his level of "thinking", and his inability to synthesize thought.

So when he starts opining on "Common sense"....
I'm going to point out, he's a dishonest, insulting fool with no common sense of his own.

Now, Patrick:

So, until you attain some measure of honesty, Eunuchs-Jedi, I'm quite done with this conversation, and you.

Oh, you were done when I specifically called out - as I did there - your "named" (which weren't) "systems".
You ran away from that thread, and now you loftily denounce me, despite the fact that I've very specifically asked you for clarification. I was trying to get you to realize something - but you've gone full retard.

I cut and pasted EXACTLY what you said, and you called me a liar, repeatedly. Well, there's your words. Who lied?

Now, if you think that you named systems, despite multiple people not understanding, you're a fool. The dishonest part comes when you double down on stupid and insist you did.

But you didn't. (Using Jim and you C&P together for brevity):

A. "a good family"
B. "the church"
C. "Actually, C would be the workplace."

If that's your concise answer? It's not. Not a single one of those is a freaking system, Patrick..

"What's 5 times 7?" Patrick says "Rutabaga, you lying idiot!"

If that's your answer - and note I asked you to explain all this and you got nasty, not I - you have yet to name one system. Family's not a system. Church isn't a system. Workplace isn't a system.

And even then you told me to "search for..." I didn't ask you that. I asked you where they were. You've insisted you answered that.

You didn't. Because they don't. There is no system, Patrick, where the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak.

None. To claim there is is to use Orwellian NewSpeak.

You'll note, Eunuchs-Jedi asked for only three systems in which the strong were prevented from exploiting the weak.

Again, not true. Simply look at the other thread. I started off being gently sarcastic that you couldn't name the systems. You're the one who picked "three".

While my own church

Which you failed to name. Claiming "my church is perfect" is great. But my contention is the strong aren't prevented from exploiting the weak in it. If they are, and remember, it is you contention that they are, explain how.

C is the workplace. Apparently, the cynicism of Jenny Had a Chance applies to this as well. Each and every workplace is led by a clueless or tyrannical monster who is either oblivious to the exploitative devices of their higher level employees.

.... You are this big of an idiot, aren't you?

So when I asked you for proof that such systems existed, you point to fantasies in your head.

Well, Patrick, thanks. That was my point to you. Those systems are fictional. Idealized. Romantic. Pretty to think about. Not in the real world.

In order for Eunuchs-Jedi to support his position, he would need to prove that each and every family in existence is dysfunctional to the point of allowing exploitation.

Um, that's not how debate works.

And "good family" isn't a system. See, the meanings of words matter.

An impossible task, you say? Unfair of me? He's the one who framed it. Not me. He asked for any system in which the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak. My neighbor's family, my church, my workplace all qualify, thanks very much.

Well, the good news is this proves you can use HTML, so there's no reason you haven't been. Other than that, no, It's not "unfair of you". It's that you've made a claim you haven't backed up and I've been pointing it out.

Your neighbor's family isn't a "system", until you explain how they prevent the "strong from exploiting the weak". That's a system. The rules and methods. Not a fingerwaving point to Shanghai-La. Nor your church. Nor your workplace.

I'd explain more, but obviously, you can't reason. (Which is why I wanted to bring this back out, as you complain about others and their "common sense".)

You'll also note that none of these systems, based on Eunuchs-Jedi's parameters, are required to be absolutely foolproof, only that it be a system in which the strong are prevented from exploiting the weak.

Truely, a dizzying intellect.

So, even if only a single instance exists in the entire system's history, in which a strong agent was prevented from exploiting a weak agent, then based on Eunuchs-Jedi's own parameters, it qualifies.

Er, no. That's not how it works. But this is, at least, some progress. It's still horribly illogical, but it's - painfully - moving forward some.

The question is how did the "system" prevent the "strong" from "exploiting" the "weak"?

Prevent. That's your word, and that it's a systematic feature.

But the strong in a system always are able to use it, that's why they're strong.

If your answer is "Well, someone else stronger made them stop", then your system doesn't do that. If the "weak" have more power, then you're measuring the wrong things.

This is why I gently mocked you, to get you to actually think about what you said.

But instead, you went full-damn-idiot.

But this is progress, in that you're starting to think about how it would work.

Now, if only you'd done that before you ran your mouth? and called other people liars?

Learn from this. If someone asks you for clarification, clarify. If someone asks you how it works, don't claim that you "already explained that".

Or go through life wondering why nothing works, despite the rich fantasy life in your head.

While Eunuchs-Jedi, Pirate Jo, doombuggy, et al. have all deliberately taken partial sentences out of context and pronounced them "my beliefs," you at least, refrained from doing that.

It's called "Quoting", and if you had a problem with it, you could explain what was left out that changed the context.

What I tend to do is "Fisking". I quote damn near everything you said and pound it line by line. Other people prefer to quote less. I find that internet fools have more trouble dealing with fisking, since they tend to insist that they were "misquoted" and therefore that means they're right, and STOP STOP STOP STOP.

Like you've been doing. What have I quoted of yours that changed the context? ... All you have to do is show it.

Meanwhile, back to the main thesis. No system prevents the strong from exploiting the weak. ESPECIALLY not churches. (And if you can't name them, or explain why their "system" works and others don't, it's not really rigorous. But, baby steps, I guess.)

But Churches are a very special case, in which you really have an issue. God. Who is stronger than God? Without getting theological, in short, the system works because someone stronger says so.

Gee.

Workplace? Gee, someone stronger can always fire you. Nazzomuch.

Family? Even though this isn't a "system", I can't see it. So you'd have to explain that, how it works.

Don't worry about the name-calling, Patty. Doesn't bother me at all. No need to be so defensive. But there, I still have to point out, that UNIX is a quite common proper noun. And just like, say, "Patrick", it as a name doesn't need to be "in English" to be used as an identifying tag.

It's unique, unlike, say "Patrick" or "Jim" or "Amy", (or my name), and allows for far more precision and less confusion as to who is speaking.

Because I find precision and clarity important.
In case you hadn't noticed.

Jim P:

http://xkcd.com/386/

UJ,

Understood. Just be careful you don't go to work on a farm. :-p

Jim:

Hey, actually, anal suppositories for horses aren't that annoying. And you don't castrate bulls when they're 3000 pounds....

I'd missed that previously, that's great.

If you found precision and clarity important, you'd run spell check once in a while, Eunuchs.

"Truly," you should consider doing that.

And I have no use for you or people like you. You've just quoted me explaining something, then you insist I haven't explained it? How stupid are you?

By the way, retarded people do not owe their condition to any fault of their own, and using "retard" as an insult is a low class of bigotry all by itself. Talk about calling someone out who can't defend themselves! What do you do for an encore? Challenge nonagenarians on life support to fistfights? You're quite the man, Eunuchs. You chose your name well.

You consider firing someone to be exploiting them? That's a very interesting (and very stupid) premise.

I don't feel the need to explain what was taken out of context, since the words are right there. In written communication, it takes a special class of stupid (or dishonest) to pull a quote out of context, then say, "Why, mercy me! Whatever did I take out of context?"

A non-dysfunctional family isn't a system? Who says? You? Well, Merriam Webster doesn't agree.

I was going to go further with this, but I've decided not to. You are the disciplinarian of this blog, Eunuchs, and I do not answer to you for my comments.

In written communication, out of context quotes are completely inexcusable, and I do not excuse it. It's right there in front of you. You can see it and assuming you speak English, you can use your own two eyes and make sure that you have not misrepresented the other person. Those that do so, I can only assume did so deliberately, ergo, they are liars. I have called people out for this on numerous forums, including this one, and will continue to do so. I have somehow managed to post at this blog since the inception (yes, that's right … no one has been a regular at this blog longer than I have; some, just as long, but no one longer), and somehow, I have managed to avoid quoting someone's written words out of context. Either I'm dazzlingly brilliant, or it's just not that hard to avoid doing. I don't like it. I don't know anyone that does. I have never liked it, and I have no intention of changing my stance on the issue.

Your self-righteous indignation will not stop me from doing so. If you don't like being called a liar, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies.

Wow, Patrick. If all we have to have is a "family" to prevent exploitation of the weak by the strong, wow. How big is this family? Does it have a just and fair ruling parent, or two (or three, by current legislation)? I have been expecting, y'know, content, like examples of how each of these systems worked.

That's what I mean by your not knowing how to present your position.

Meanwhile, the system, capitalism, has no free will and no malice aforethought. There are people who can use it effectively and thos who cannot, and there will always be that discrepancy regardless of whether you may call it exploitative.
Example: Just-in-time shipping reduces inventory costs, and so data systems track consumer interest to regulate production; when a surplus occurs, market price is adjusted quickly to move it.
If you can't understand j-i-t inventory or use it, are you exploited? No.

Even as you are put out of business by those who can.

-----

"This is my personal opinion, but wading through the off-topic crap feels like I'm attending Comic-con surrounded by a bunch of mormons and druids arguing over the meaning of a dog."

See what can be avoided by saying, "Here's what, and here's how"?

There's your clue, Patrick. Sum it up, you should be unassailable. Right?

If you don't like being called a liar, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies.

Oh, when I get called a liar by a fool? Nah, doesn't bother me.

I'm glad you're finally getting fired up and actually being responsive. Maybe soon, you'll actually ponder the meaning of "Weak", "strong", "system", and "named".

Let's go back to what I said.

[Quoting Patrick] And if the false charge against capitalism is that it allows "the strong" to exploit "the weak,"
Fortunately, Patrick can point us to the systems where "The strong" aren't able to "exploit" "the weak".
I'm sure he'll do that .... real soon now.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at July 13, 2012 2:42 PM

And still, you've yet to point me to a system. If you say "A good family", that's not a system. It's a highly subjective - and most importantly, unverifiable claim subject to begging the question (no secret to you), and True Scotsman fallacies.

"Oh, that [specific example], no, no, THAT's not a "good family". "So where is one?"
"Somewhere"

Back to your thesis:
Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs.

Capitalism is a system. What it is is well-defined, and people understand what you mean when you say it. That doesn't mean you can't get into edgier cases, what with government intervention, the real world, and whatnot, and most of Economics Studies are about the real world versus theory, but when you say capitalism, it is a system.

With a definition.

By comparison, you've offered no other systems in rebuttal. (Which was my point). Every man-made system is subject to the weak being exploited by the strong. Subject To.

They might not. But they might.

Because systemically, that's what defines you as 'strong' and 'weak'..

You've just quoted me explaining something, then you insist I haven't explained it? How stupid are you?

No, you didn't explain it, you hand-wove it away. You might have well have used "Magic" as your explanation.

And I detailed exactly why I had problems with what you said.

I don't feel the need to explain what was taken out of context, since the words are right there.

http://www.twistappel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mal-just-shut-up.gif

So, are they out of context, or right there?

A non-dysfunctional family isn't a system? Who says? You? Well, Merriam Webster doesn't agree.

Wonderful. Then you will have no trouble explaining how a "non-dysfunctional family" is systematically defined.

It's a fantasy. I've never seen a "non-dysfunctional family". I've seen a lot who CLAIMED TO BE. And usually, they were the most dysfunctional of all.

But it's not a system, no. It's a wish that you have. It's not a defined system, one that you can point to, especially as opposed to a capitalist system.

Or, if you insist that is your answer, then what you just said is that a non-dysfunctional family is contrary to captalism. As are (some unnamed but "good") churches. And (some unnamed but good) workplaces. (Back to the Firefly .gif for that one.)

That's not an answer, especially if you're going to run down capitalism as "exploitative".

Your self-righteous indignation

Which seems to be more about you, when someone completely cuts and pastes what you said.

Almost like...
http://www.twistappel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mal-just-shut-up.gif

You owe people apologies, Patrick. You called people liars - and you're doubling down on stupid.

See, let me show you. Yes, I probably shouldn't have used the (descriptive) phrase "full-retard". It's not meant to denigrate those who are actually developmentally disabled, but those who aren't, but act otherwise. But it's misunderstood, and detracts from the argument. My mistake. I apologize if anyone was offended by that statement, it was a mistake to use it.

I was wrong, and I admit it.

But that doesn't detract from what you did, which is to ignore repeated requests for clarification, insist that anybody asking was a liar and an idiot, and when clarification was finally inferred, and it was pointed out that the "clarification" didn't clarify anything at all, and was nonsensical... was to start spewing more venom.

Nope. I was wrong in how I described your behavior. Not in the description itself.

If you don't like being called a liar, I have some shockingly profound advice for you: Don't. Tell. Lies.

Oh, when I get called a liar by a fool? Nah, doesn't bother me.

I'm glad you're finally getting fired up and actually being responsive. Maybe soon, you'll actually ponder the meaning of "Weak", "strong", "system", and "named".

Let's go back to what I said.

[Quoting Patrick] And if the false charge against capitalism is that it allows "the strong" to exploit "the weak,"
Fortunately, Patrick can point us to the systems where "The strong" aren't able to "exploit" "the weak".
I'm sure he'll do that .... real soon now.
Posted by: Unix-Jedi at July 13, 2012 2:42 PM

And still, you've yet to point me to a system. If you say "A good family", that's not a system. It's a highly subjective - and most importantly, unverifiable claim subject to begging the question (no secret to you), and True Scotsman fallacies.

"Oh, that [specific example], no, no, THAT's not a "good family". "So where is one?"
"Somewhere"

Back to your thesis:
Capitalism certainly does allow the strong to exploit the weak. It's called massive layoffs and outsourcing of jobs.

Capitalism is a system. What it is is well-defined, and people understand what you mean when you say it. That doesn't mean you can't get into edgier cases, what with government intervention, the real world, and whatnot, and most of Economics Studies are about the real world versus theory, but when you say capitalism, it is a system.

With a definition.

By comparison, you've offered no other systems in rebuttal. (Which was my point). Every man-made system is subject to the weak being exploited by the strong. Subject To.

They might not. But they might.

Because systemically, that's what defines you as 'strong' and 'weak'..

You've just quoted me explaining something, then you insist I haven't explained it? How stupid are you?

No, you didn't explain it, you hand-wove it away. You might have well have used "Magic" as your explanation.

And I detailed exactly why I had problems with what you said.

I don't feel the need to explain what was taken out of context, since the words are right there.

http://www.twistappel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mal-just-shut-up.gif

So, are they out of context, or right there?

A non-dysfunctional family isn't a system? Who says? You? Well, Merriam Webster doesn't agree.

Wonderful. Then you will have no trouble explaining how a "non-dysfunctional family" is systematically defined.

It's a fantasy. I've never seen a "non-dysfunctional family". I've seen a lot who CLAIMED TO BE. And usually, they were the most dysfunctional of all.

But it's not a system, no. It's a wish that you have. It's not a defined system, one that you can point to, especially as opposed to a capitalist system.

Or, if you insist that is your answer, then what you just said is that a non-dysfunctional family is contrary to captalism. As are (some unnamed but "good") churches. And (some unnamed but good) workplaces. (Back to the Firefly .gif for that one.)

That's not an answer, especially if you're going to run down capitalism as "exploitative".

Your self-righteous indignation

Which seems to be more about you, when someone completely cuts and pastes what you said.

Almost like...
[back to .gif]

You owe people apologies, Patrick. You called people liars - and you're doubling down on stupid.

See, let me show you. Yes, I probably shouldn't have used the (descriptive) phrase "full-retard". It's not meant to denigrate those who are actually developmentally disabled, but those who aren't, but act otherwise. But it's misunderstood, and detracts from the argument. My mistake. I apologize if anyone was offended by that statement, it was a mistake to use it.

I was wrong, and I admit it.

But that doesn't detract from what you did, which is to ignore repeated requests for clarification, insist that anybody asking was a liar and an idiot, and when clarification was finally inferred, and it was pointed out that the "clarification" didn't clarify anything at all, and was nonsensical... was to start spewing more venom.

Nope. I was wrong in how I described your behavior. Not in the description itself.

Though, as I did dishes, a thought occured to me.

Family, Church, Workplace, perfect...

Patrick might just be a Westboro Baptist member?

It fits his description...

I've never applied for membership, but somehow, I don't think Westboro Baptist Church would take me. Call it a hunch.

No, when you take my sentence out of context, then dismiss the excised portion as "meaningless" when called on it, instead of, perhaps, asking me what I meant by this part that you dismiss as meaningless, I will call you a liar. And I will not apologize for it.

On the contrary, if you're going to take a butchered sentence, then call it my opinion, you should apologize to me.

On the positive side, thank you for revising your stance on the word "retard." I've been as guilty as anyone using that word as an insult, when I was in high school. Then I had the edifying experience of working as a camp counselor at a summer camp for the retarded. I haven't liked the word "retard" used in that context since then.

Apparently, it didn't take you a summer camp for the developmentally disabled to see that word as inappropriate. Kudos.

System, according to Merriam Webster

: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole :

I think a healthy family meets this definition. It may not be what you had in mind, but it is a system.

No, when you take my sentence out of context, then dismiss the excised portion as "meaningless" when called on it, instead of, perhaps, asking me what I meant by this part that you dismiss as meaningless, I will call you a liar. And I will not apologize for it.

You mean, like I did repeatedly in the thread, and this one?

And that you sneeringly dismissed...

Projection. It's not just for movie theaters.

So you define "healthy family" (which was "good family" before, to be a "system". Which, going back to the original thesis - which I just pointed out to you again, was counter to capitalism.

So "healthy family" is opposed to "capitalism".

Right.

And you still haven't said how to define "Healthy" (or "good") family, and who qualifies.

This is what I was originally mocking you for - everywhere someone, perhaps, asking me what I meant by this your reply - if it happens is, something that is known only to you (if at all). I'd asked you repeatedly for concrete examples, and we're still not to any.

The ones you've given are hardly opposites to capitalism, to the amount that they're even "systems", and every one suffers in concept from the exact problem you complained about.

I think a healthy family meets this definition. It may not be what you had in mind, but it is a system.

Well, we're making progress. So how does "Healthy Family" (and how to have one would be a good idea, so you can point to systemically what makes a "healthy family") run counter to capitalism?

Survivor's guilt??? Yes, and I just agonize when I see someone who has cancer; I'm wracked with guilt over my good health. I torture myself over diabetics, torturing myself over the fact that I can still regulate my blood sugar levels without have to observe the diabetic's strict guidelines.

If I was in a two car collision that I had caused, however inadvertantly, in which the other driver was killed, I might see the sense in harboring survivor's guilt. But because some maniac opens fire in a theatre and I'm not one of the dozen or so that was killed? No, I can't say that I would feel any pangs of guilt over that.

That question is too dumb for words.

Christ, why do you to just fuck and get it over with already?

"I think a healthy family meets this definition. It may not be what you had in mind, but it is a system."

And... if this is granted (despite a lack of proof that this prevents exploitation) you have two more examples to provide.