Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Q Classic]

nothing. he's still wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT
Honestly, Oncle. Let me ask you a question: what could I or anyone say that would make you change your mind?

Hmmmm... got me on that one.

All right. You wouldn't have to write a dissertation yourself, but I love it when people find TRUE logical fallacies in my argument.

OK, not crappy fallacies like "you can't know what Bush wanted" or "you can't know what's in this CIA classified document". It really happens that I give up when someone just finds THE fact or THE syllogism.
But neither you or Imran have done that so far. It seems you took time in responding to unimportant facts and avoided most of my main arguments. I still don't know if it was out of bore, refusal to concede some points, or plain bad understanding of my texts.

*small example*: I took great care in describing starvation as an enslavement tool (gotta love the word), but Imran never really truly answered it. He just repeated: yeah, giving 2$ a day is to someone is better than letting him starve. As if "better" was morally better.
What he would have had to do:
1. demonstrate that the need for food does not alienate one's freedom or judgment
failing that, he would then need to:
2. admit that the supremacy of economic logic, by basing itself on the irrelevancy of minimal life conditions, cannot be supportive of democracy and/or equity (which are democratic values), and thus human rights as generally conceived.
In admitting number 2, he would then have to agree with me that America's foreign policy is not at all based on human rights, social justice, and freedom. Which is the whole point I've been defending and shepherding from the beginning, some 330 posts earlier.
(Remember, my point was not establishing the difference between starvation and half starvation, which in fact certainly doesn't need a thread to be understood).

But I've already taken too long. Good day to you.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
nothing. he's still wrong.

Hey Q-Cubed?

Seems like you liked my quote about democracy, since it's your sig.

Really, I'd like you to remember that the dictatorship side-debate was a JOKE, based on linguistics. We all know that demo-cracy means "power of the people". That was just a pretext for a laugh, not something I really believe.

Please, your sig will just give me a bad reputation in these forums. But then, if that's your goal, here's a new quote that you'll prefer:

The Holocaust is just a minor detail in History.


No context around it. Use it as you see fit.

[Dinner]

Fake Boris & Tripledoc: Now would be an excellent time to stop making yourselves look foolish. Stop digging deeper before you reach Fez's level.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hehe... Fez levels. Indeed, Oerdin. FakeBoris does not realize that there is no such thing as a choice without absense of coercion. So when he sees that people must get a job which pays little (think McDonald's) or else they will starve, he considers this a great injustice. Democracy itself is a coercive system and yet this coercion is against democracy. Very Fez like indeed.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Hey Q-Cubed?

Seems like you liked my quote about democracy, since it's your sig.

Really, I'd like you to remember that the dictatorship side-debate was a JOKE, based on linguistics. We all know that demo-cracy means "power of the people". That was just a pretext for a laugh, not something I really believe.

Please, your sig will just give me a bad reputation in these forums. But then, if that's your goal, here's a new quote that you'll prefer:

The Holocaust is just a minor detail in History.


No context around it. Use it as you see fit.

...Says the one who sports a sig attempting to make Henry Tuttle look bad? Although the truth of his argument was not only proved by the dictionary, but in your above post.(Democracy is power of the people.) I'm not saying that its wrong to have such a sig, but if you're going to dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.
Out of context quotes are funny, deal with it. Don't worry about your reputation, that is determined by how you post.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

...Says the one who sports a sig attempting to make Henry Tuttle look bad? Although the truth of his argument was not only proved by the dictionary, but in your above post.(Democracy is power of the people.) I'm not saying that its wrong to have such a sig, but if you're going to dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.
Out of context quotes are funny, deal with it. Don't worry about your reputation, that is determined by how you post.

It's allright with me. Don't you see the humour with which I dealt the situation? Smileys and an Holocaust quote?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hehe... Fez levels. Indeed, Oerdin. FakeBoris does not realize that there is no such thing as a choice without absense of coercion. So when he sees that people must get a job which pays little (think McDonald's) or else they will starve, he considers this a great injustice. Democracy itself is a coercive system and yet this coercion is against democracy. Very Fez like indeed.

Apparently, Rousseau and Marx agree with me on that one. OK... let's say I agree with them...

Now, is Democracy coercitive? Sure. The difference is that it's based on the asumption that everyone is willing to accept some in exchange for peace.
This is obviously not compatible with the idea of a Corporation, whose sole goal is to make profit. The democratic system has to impose the compromises on them, because they won't on their own. (indiciduals are not perfect, but usually they are not nearly as bad as corps, just because you would have to be one dumbass to base your existence on a single, inaleniable objective like a company does) And, of course, because of a lack of political will from the Western world (that I've taken great care in explaining), no one is making the effort to enforce those compromises...
I'm not falling into the trap anymore. But I've come to the realization that your arguments are much more based on acceptance of the facts than real reasoning. You are exactly the kind of person who would be pissed and angry if you were born on the bad site of the Earth.

And you have not replied to the Quebec GDP argument. Since I was so obviously right on that particular one (I admit of not being on some other points) I take it that you give up on it?

[JohnT]

Honestly, Oncle. Let me ask you a question: what could I or anyone say that would make you change your mind?

Hmmmm... got me on that one....

I still don't know if it was out of bore, refusal to concede some points, or plain bad understanding of my texts.

Talk about misunderstanding! Oncle, the reason I'm not debating you is that it is a fruitless effort, akin to . Why should I waste my life trying to "prove" something that you are admittedly not going to accept? Why bother trying to mold your opinion when your opinion is set?

There is no changing your mind, ergo, there is no need for me to try to change it. QED.

[BeBMan]

Come on, we´re at Poly here. The forum would go downhill if everyone would share your view

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT



Talk about misunderstanding! Oncle, the reason I'm not debating you is that it is a fruitless effort, akin to . Why should I waste my life trying to "prove" something that you are admittedly not going to accept? Why bother trying to mold your opinion when your opinion is set?

There is no changing your mind, ergo, there is no need for me to try to change it. QED.

C'mon John. I am not a zealot. Many people have convinced me to change my views in the last few years about a lot of things (such as death penalty, health care privatization, and drug legalization). I might be so young in fact (as you like to claim!), that it may still be time!

Really, something bugs me. If you think you can't change my views... then you must be somewhat conceding me that they have some strong basis... not indestructible, but certainly not easily refuted neither.
You don't have to waste any more time if you don't like to. Enjoy yourself. The only thing I'd like you to keep in mind: yup, it is possible to convince me. And you can't convince me of the opposite!

[Kuciwalker]

Really, something bugs me. If you think you can't change my views... then you must be somewhat conceding me that they have some strong basis... not indestructible, but certainly not easily refuted neither.

or that you're a stubborn sob

[Imran Siddiqui]

The difference is that it's based on the asumption that everyone is willing to accept some in exchange for peace.

Everyone is willing to accept some coercion in exchange for wealth.

The democratic system has to impose the compromises on them, because they won't on their own.

So Ben & Jerry's never tried to give to charities? So Starbucks doesn't advertise that it engages in 'fair trade'? Was this forced on them by the government?

But I've come to the realization that your arguments are much more based on acceptance of the facts than real reasoning.

Since my arguments are more reasoned than yours, what does that make you?

nd you have not replied to the Quebec GDP argument. Since I was so obviously right on that particular one

No, you were NOT right! Immigrants are a drain as well as a benefit (are you saying they don't take advantage of your nationalized health care?). You keep dodging that obvious point. You have yet to show that the immigrants in the rest of Canada are more prosperous than Quebec's immigrants and that makes up for the amount of government services THEY require. I mean, really, you can't say immigration is the factor that explains Quebec's pitiful GDP growth without proof that it is so.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Everyone is willing to accept some coercion in exchange for wealth.

Yes, ask the sweatshop kids and the Chinese workers who get paid 2$ a day for 10 hours work. They love this kind of coercion. So much, in fact, that the recent history of the world is not about the US supporting and sending weapons to regimes keen on brutalizing the working class to get them to work.
If you really, really don't want to believe me on that one, then know I'll be bringing another thread dedicated to this in a few weeks, when I have more time.
(For now, just consider the Pinochet coup, which was directly orchestrated by Kissinger, on behalf of American mining corporations operating in Chile. Hell, they even GAVE 1 million$ to fund the operation).
(I also suggest you read some history books about Vietnam. I'm not kidding: the US strategy was to destroy the country in order to terrorize other guerillas throughout the world. And it worked quite well).

So Ben & Jerry's never tried to give to charities? So Starbucks doesn't advertise that it engages in 'fair trade'? Was this forced on them by the government?

No it was not, and it never was, and that's probably the reason
1. They are just starting doing it now and (EDIT: STARBUCKS. the charity arguments come later)
2. They are ADVERTISING it. Think a second. They are advertising "fair trade". Like "fair trade" was not an ABSOLUTE necessity. You know how low you've gone when you're doing this.
What you probably don't realize is that "fair trade" is a calculation. For companies like Starbucks, it is a market like any other, and they are entering it because they don't want to lose it. Not much for the product sales (as it is now, fair trade is anything but significant), but rather for the reputation loss they would incur. As you say yourself, their duty is towards the shareholders. Which means they wouldn't be doing it if they thought it was detrimental to their obligations.

(I'm not saying this is any wrong; I'm just saying that the duty towards society should come before the duty towards profit. Think of is as a "social contract" surpasses private contracts reasoning. And, of course, it can't work if we are not enforcing this properly, since a corporation is a private contract between shareholders... well, sorta.)

Also consider that Starbucks is at the end of the coffee trade anyway, so they don't have much to lose. I'm sure they're not as prone to advertise such things as minimum wage increases in the US... Similarly, ask the coffee importers what they think of fair trade.
I've seen companies spend more on advertising the donations than on the donations themselves, which is quite telling.

Now let's talk about charity. Notwithstanding that you are dodging my first argument, which was based on a right-wing research institute to demonstrate that private charity amounts only to an insignificant part of state-regulated wealth redistribution, we'll have to ask the real question.
The first evidence is that corporate charity only obeys PR needs. After all, it's the shareholder's money, and it's not the enterprise's to give away, right?
The second one is that corporations, if they were really defending social welfare through charity, would cease to complain each time their taxes rise (Bush's last tax cut was directed towards corporations and the rich), and would stop lobbying for reduction of work regulations, corporate taxes, and welfare giveaways. Because obviously this kind of "charity" is much more significant than the private one. Of course, this will never happen, because the private donations will always be sexier. I'm sure you wouldn't expect a company to advertise: "hey citizens, buy our cars because we pay our taxes!".
The third point is related: The rich and the enterprises do everything to avoid paying taxes, whether the means be legal, questionable, or illegal.
Tax evasion amounts to 10-20% of Western GDPs, while charity donations are only 0.5-3%. If the individuals behind the corporations and the corporations themselves supported in any way charity, they would just pay their taxes. But they are not doing it, and the government is not doing much to prevent them, mainly because they are intrinsicly tied to the financial elite. (Prime example: the new Canadian premier has a company registered in the Bahamas...)(Prime example 2: the Defense Minister was chief economist of the largest bank in Canada...)(Empirical evidence: I know some very rich persons who are evading tax like crazy, and have no qualms about it).

Since my arguments are more reasoned than yours, what does that make you?

Sometimes I wonder whether you're a paralogism specialist or a brilliant humorist.

No, you were NOT right! Immigrants are a drain as well as a benefit (are you saying they don't take advantage of your nationalized health care?). You keep dodging that obvious point. You have yet to show that the immigrants in the rest of Canada are more prosperous than Quebec's immigrants and that makes up for the amount of government services THEY require. I mean, really, you can't say immigration is the factor that explains Quebec's pitiful GDP growth without proof that it is so.

No. You DO NOT understand. Before I bring this case to Poly justice with a separate thread, I'm giving you your last chance. And I fail to see how I am dodging anything right now. Feel free to explain it further if my answers do not satisfy you

I don't have to show that the immigrants in the ROC (rest of Canada) are more prosperous than Quebec's ones. I only have to show that they are just as prosperous, because they are simply more numerous there than in Quebec.
Maybe these quotes from Satistics Canada will help you:

Real GDP per capita is the most widely used indicator of national standards of living.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/SI/prr2001/2001siis_e.asp?id=gdp

When real GDP is growing near its long-term potential growth rate—a rate which, in turn, is determined by the underlying growth of the labour force and the capital stock, and the pace of technological change—then the economy is generally in good shape.

http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/gdp2.html

So? The only way you can defend your point is by pretending that immigration is an hindrance to the growth of the GDP per capita. Still then, you would need to admit that GDP per capita is the true number you need to take into account when comparing different countries' growth.

But I've done some browsing, and my research showed that:
1. Immigration can only result in a GDP growth. No one can produce 0$ of wealth in a year. Even if it was just an increase of social welfare spendings, it still would result in a GDP growth.
2. Economists are divided about the GDP per capita thing. Some studies claim immigration is beneficial both to the raw and to the per capita GDP, while others (though a minority) claim it only helps the raw GDP but hinders genuine, per capita growth.
3. You also need to consider consumer prices. And while raw growth as percentage points do take this into account, the graph you provided only showed increases in DOLLARS, whose graphical superiority is also explained by higher expenses to buy the same goods.
Therefore, you can't deduce the true growth from the numbers provided. You would have to find a table that also gives inflation rates.

Conclusion: if the per capita GDP growth of Quebec is the same as Ontario, then they have been doing just fine.

[Q Classic]

oncle boris: i know it was a joke. it's still a good quote to put there. as for the holocaust one, that one's just trying too hard.
at least you have someone else quoting you. some posters quote themselves, like *cough* riddler_new *cough*.

anyway:

Yes, ask the sweatshop kids and the Chinese workers who get paid 2$ a day for 10 hours work. They love this kind of coercion. So much, in fact, that the recent history of the world is not about the US supporting and sending weapons to regimes keen on brutalizing the working class to get them to work.

look, nobody's saying that the kids in sweatshops is a good thing. i see it as a necessary evil: industrialization is a brutal process, and unless you plan on forking of millions if not billions of dollars to leapfrog these third-world economies into first-world/information economies, they're going to have to go through the tough and brutal process that is industrialization and modernization.
sure the us government has done some nasty things. but i challenge you to show me any government in a position similar to america's, with that sort of superpower status, that itself didn't do some nasty things to ensure its position in the world. it'd be nice if the world operated on principles beyond realism, but it doesn't. you're going to have powers espousing values other than what they practice: do as i say, not as i do. sure it'd be nice to have economies grow up without having to go through industrialization: but it costs money--money they don't have, money that others aren't quite willing to give, and time for those investments to start paying dividends.

the problem is when you try to force people to do things they don't want to do, you create resentment. you try and force some of those american megacorps, or even transnationals, to be kinder and gentler, if they think the cost is too much, they'll drop the market. sucks, but that's the way the world works.