ApologiesJune 10 2002 at 11:23 PM
|Jester (no login)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
Response to Half-Truth
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. However, you did say something about my argument being faulty before it began very early in your critique of my post, which is what I was taking issue with, not that you didn't move on to the actual argument. I was merely pointing out that the flavour of the argument changes when dealing with statistics, moving into the "your stats are wrong, therefore your argument is wrong" department very quickly, as it did in your posts. You didn't stay there; I don't think you like that any more than I do. But regardless, I didn't mean to implicate you as that kind of debater. You aren't, and if I implied so, here's my formal apology.
Of course, whether you took on my argument head on is another question; in some parts of your post, you were, in others, you were arguing ideologically-related points that I had yet to voice an opinion on, and had no bearing on my argument.
That was the reason for my consistent heading of "I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me." I don't see economics as zero sum, I don't see my examples as zero sum, I'm not a socialist, I don't believe in the forced redistribution of income, and I don't dislike the free market (insofar as it is a useful tool for prosperity). All of these things were (more or less) said in your posts, and none of them are true of my arguement, or of me. I therefore take exception to strong arguments taking apart "my" position when it isn't my position.
In your first post, you talk about the redistribution of wealth, which I have not once advocated in any of these posts. I have advocated trade treaties that encourage standards of production and of human rights pertaining to work conditions and wages, yes. That's not redistributing anything. So I pointed out that I never argued it. If you can show otherwise, I'd be glad to retract that statement.
As in the first, in each post there was at least one thing that you stated that simply wasn't a factor in my argument, but you went ahead and argued against it, using it as a hole in my argument. It would have been, if it was actually IN my argument. Now, the jury's still out on the zero-sum deal; I'm pretty sure I've got that covered, because it doesn't seem like a zero sum game to me. I can come up with positive, negative and equal sums for that game without any difficulty. But if you could perhaps elaborate on what variables I'm missing, and how they cause my argument to deteriorate to zero sum, I'd perhaps change my opinion on that. But I haven't heard them, so I don't have any reason to.
- Zero Sum - Sirian on Jun 11, 8:36 AM
- Point to point - Jester on Jun 11, 2:57 PM
- Genocide my arse - Occhi on Jun 11, 4:09 PM
- Okay... - Jester on Jun 11, 9:17 PM
- No, it isn't just semantics - Occhi on Jun 12, 7:50 AM
- Revisionism - ShadowHM on Jun 12, 9:12 AM
- Should be taking the cases chronologically - Pete on Jun 12, 9:52 AM
- Criteria for court cases - ShadowHM on Jun 12, 10:41 AM
- Is time money? - Pete on Jun 12, 5:46 PM
- I admit to being torn on this one..... - ShadowHM on Jun 12, 8:20 PM
- Sometimes it is better to do nothing . . . - Pete on Jun 12, 8:43 PM
- Amen! (n/t) - ShadowHM on Jun 13, 10:24 AM
- Why "tough to swallow?" - Occhi on Jun 13, 9:28 AM
- Here's why..... - ShadowHM on Jun 13, 10:34 AM
- OK - Occhi on Jun 14, 6:42 AM
- Okay - Jester on Jun 12, 11:13 AM
- Recent doesn't make it important - Pete on Jun 12, 5:35 PM
- I remember that... - Jester on Jun 12, 10:16 PM
- Ain't research fun :) - Pete on Jun 13, 2:41 PM
- Well, part of what we do here on forums has to do with words - Occhi on Jun 13, 9:37 AM
- A minor nit :) - Pete on Jun 13, 2:33 PM
- OK, and Guinness is - Occhi on Jun 14, 6:44 AM
- The nice thing about Stout is . . . - Pete on Jun 14, 7:30 PM
- Great writing, Jester - ShadowHM on Jun 11, 8:02 PM
- Sadly... - Jester on Jun 11, 9:22 PM