The Official "Argue with waf" Thread (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

You really are rather stupid arent you.

Ad homs do not further an argument.

Firstly, these farmers will not just transfer somewhere else.

Yes they will, and they will make a greater profit in that somewhere else due to a larger market being open to them because of free trade.

Orange farmers are good at one thing: farming oranges.

But if we keep them farming oranges it is the equivalent of paying them $(Cost of Australian oranges - Cost of Indonesian oranges) to dig holes and fill them in again. If you do not agree with this assertion, explain how it is wrong.
What if I have one skill, and that is jumping up and down on the spot. Would it be right for society to support me in that case? No, because that skill is redundant, same deal here.

You cannot reasonably expect a person who has only one major skill to simply change his entire lifestyle simply to suit social demand.

You cannot expect society to pay someone to jump up and down on the spot.

Secondly, we are not just talking about "a few farmers here". Australia produced 395,000 tonnes of oranges in the 2003-2004 growing season (http://www.census.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/2829A5E125F18442CA2568A9001393FC?OpenDocument.)
That takes a considerable number of farmers to do, farmers who also have families who depend on the income generated by the farm for survival.

And they can convert their orchards fairly easily to apples.

On your point about industry, the machinery can not be used to process other fruits you ignoramus, there is no demand for it. The apple industry is not going to require five whole factories worth (for arguements sake) of machinery to process apple juice.

If we can produce apples cheaper, and they can produce oranges cheaper, we provide their apples, and they provide their oranges. Hence it is fitting that we produce double the apples by taking over the orange processing facilities to produce apples.

It cannot be used elsewhere in any event because it is designed to process oranges.

Then sell it to indonesia and use the money to buy their apple machines.

Your ideology in this instance is fundamentally flawed WAF, you seek to protect the needs of the individual by enforcing conformity to societal benefit.

You seek to diminish the standard of living for everyone, and have farmers make less money because they're stubborn and protected by a bigotted government.

What it fails to consider is any individual whose needs/wants are adverse to your idea of societal benefit and i think you'll find this is a substantial number.

If a substantial number of people want something which is contrary to what the current market says, a new niche market is created, and it caters for these people.

You cannot proclaim the freedoms of the individual and conformity to ideals at the same time, the two are contrary to one another.

I proclaim the liberties of an individual to be free from the coercive force of the state or other individuals. Legitimate competition by Indonesian farmers is not a coercive force, telling an Australian consumer that they cannot buy Indonesian oranges is.

 

[loquasagacious]

On a side note: loquaciousagacious do you support private collective bargaining collectives, as distinct from unions with special legal rights?

Yes I like this. I dont see any reason for a collective bargaining group to be anymore than that eg most unions are these big bloated organisations providing all manner of services. Services I neither want nor need and dont use but which I pay for if I pay union fees.

I can see merit in obliging an employer to negotiate with a collective group (to redress the power balance between employee and employer) however see no reason why this group must be a union. Nor why employees should be compelled to negotiate via it if they dont want to.

You really are rather stupid arent you.

Yes I am clearly an imbecile, if only I had backed up what I said with green left weekly articles....

Clearly you do not have a grasp of basic economics I recommend you read a microeconomics text book (the compulsory one for Micro1 at any university will do) and gain some knowledge before you attack others.

Firstly, these farmers will not just transfer somewhere else. Orange farmers are good at one thing: farming oranges.

Yes they will be victim to structural unemployment and we should assist in retraining them. Also orange farming involves: simple labourers of various types, unskilled work is everywhere they can get new jobs, horticulturalists this skill set is as applicable to apples or anything else they can get new jobs.

You cannot reasonably expect a person who has only one major skill to simply change his entire lifestyle simply to suit social demand.

I can and I do.

Why exactly should I fund someone to continue in their current occupation when I don't want what they make? Justify protecting them.

Secondly, we are not just talking about "a few farmers here". Australia produced 395,000 tonnes of oranges in the 2003-2004 growing season (http://www.census.gov.au/ausstats/ab...C?OpenDocument.)
That takes a considerable number of farmers to do,

You are extrapolating to a hypothetical number. I think you will find a suprisingly low number of farmers eg The Berri co-op in Mildura will make up the vast majority of that number.

Also oranges is just an example, you can't tackle one example and win the argument you have to tackle the entire theory. eg economic rationalism, utilitarian logic and the entire concept of the free market - good luck.

farmers who also have families who depend on the income generated by the farm for survival.

So what they have families? I have one too, why should mine support theirs?

On your point about industry, the machinery can not be used to process other fruits you ignoramus, there is no demand for it. The apple industry is not going to require five whole factories worth (for arguements sake) of machinery to process apple juice. It cannot be used elsewhere in any event because it is designed to process oranges.

Have you ever spent time in a juice factory? Only few of the machines are orange specific. Also there will be demand somewhere - the machinery could be sold to the indonesians for example. And why won't there be demand?

In our example the orange industry here shuts down and all oranges are now grown in indonesia however conversely the apple industry in indonesia shuts down and all apples are now grown here.

The total ammount of both apples and oranges produced increases, given this quite plausibly there would be demand for "five juice factories".

Your ideology in this instance is fundamentally flawed WAF, you seek to protect the needs of the individual by enforcing conformity to societal benefit. What it fails to consider is any individual whose needs/wants are adverse to your idea of societal benefit and i think you'll find this is a substantial number.
You cannot proclaim the freedoms of the individual and conformity to ideals at the same time, the two are contrary to one another.

I'll let waf deal with this more fully but society is the aggregate of the individual our demands are on aggregate the demands of the market. As individuals we make up the market.

As a closing note: You have resorted to childish insults, I have refrained (despite you being clearly deficient) - this indicates that you have run out of arguments/can not counter mine and that I do not suffer from this problem.

EDIT: Damn the time taken to exhaustively reply to posts.... I was hoping to beat waf to the punch....

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yes they will, and they will make a greater profit in that somewhere else due to a larger market being open to them because of free trade.

No, they won't. Just because it favours the market does not mean farmers across Australia will be willing to give up their entire lifestyle. Its completely unrealistic.

But if we keep them farming oranges it is the equivalent of paying them $(Cost of Australian oranges - Cost of Indonesian oranges) to dig holes and fill them in again. If you do not agree with this assertion, explain how it is wrong.
What if I have one skill, and that is jumping up and down on the spot. Would it be right for society to support me in that case? No, because that skill is redundant, same deal here.

Jumping up and down on the spot is in no way comparable to the farming of oranges. Your assertion works fine in an economic sense but you cannot simply consider the economic aspects of such a situation as this. It fails to account for the loss of income and livelihood that will be suffered by many if you were to implement such a strategy.

And they can convert their orchards fairly easily to apples.

No, they can't. Apples require very different growing conditions to oranges, very different farming methods and very different farming machinery. People are not simply chess pieces on a board that represents the economy, they cannot be moved around at the Chess Master's will.

If we can produce apples cheaper, and they can produce oranges cheaper, we provide their apples, and they provide their oranges. Hence it is fitting that we produce double the apples by taking over the orange processing facilities to produce apples.

Oh, right I'm glad this is coming up now after its been highlighted as a serious fallacy in your argument. In any event, I am certain there would be a rather large cost in this, hopefully not enough to upset your hefty profit margins.

Oh, and never mind the loss of quality that's not really important is it.

You seek to diminish the standard of living for everyone, and have farmers make less money because they're stubborn and protected by a bigotted government.

Thats the most outrageous thing I've heard in a long time. I am seeking to preserve farmer's living standards by allowing them to keep their jobs. If that means the government isn't quite as rich as they could be then that's a worthy sacrifice in my opinion.

I proclaim the liberties of an individual to be free from the coercive force of the state or other individuals. Legitimate competition by Indonesian farmers is not a coercive force, telling an Australian consumer that they cannot buy Indonesian oranges is.

Surely if the Government makes an entire industry redundant and thus results in large-scale job loss this represents a coercive force that impinges on the liberties of an individual???

 

[withoutaface]

No, they won't. Just because it favours the market does not mean farmers across Australia will be willing to give up their entire lifestyle. Its completely unrealistic.

They have two options: cut their profit margin to meet the Indonesian price, or change indsutries.

Jumping up and down on the spot is in no way comparable to the farming of oranges. Your assertion works fine in an economic sense but you cannot simply consider the economic aspects of such a situation as this. It fails to account for the loss of income and livelihood that will be suffered by many if you were to implement such a strategy.

It is perfectly comparable, because jumping up and down on the spot for the difference in price between Aussie oranges and Indonesian ones is exactly what these farmers are doing. They have an option, and that is to meet the Indonesian profit margins, or change industries.

No, they can't. Apples require very different growing conditions to oranges, very different farming methods and very different farming machinery. People are not simply chess pieces on a board that represents the economy, they cannot be moved around at the Chess Master's will.

Wait, but you're saying that the government should be a chess master, telling the Australian consumers what they can and can't purchase, aren't you?

Oh, right I'm glad this is coming up now after its been highlighted as a serious fallacy in your argument. In any event, I am certain there would be a rather large cost in this, hopefully not enough to upset your hefty profit margins.

If the cost of conversion is too much, then the farmers will simply cut their profit margin on oranges to meet what the Indonesian farmers make.

Oh, and never mind the loss of quality that's not really important is it.

Yeah, because obvious price is the only thing that motivates consumer decisions. Don't make such ridiculous assertions.

Thats the most outrageous thing I've heard in a long time. I am seeking to preserve farmer's living standards by allowing them to keep their jobs. If that means the government isn't quite as rich as they could be then that's a worthy sacrifice in my opinion.

If all industries were protected, the farmer would be far worse off than if all were unprotected, and there is nothing special about the orange industry that makes it special and in need of protection.

Surely if the Government makes an entire industry redundant and thus results in large-scale job loss this represents a coercive force that impinges on the liberties of an individual???

The force is not coercive. That's like saying if I'm racing you at the Olympics over 100m and I win the gold because I could run faster that I'm coercively stealing the medal off you.
Large scale job loss is bollocks, because where jobs are lost in the orange industry, they're gained in the apple industry.

 

[loquasagacious]

At AM: They don't have to plant apples and no one will actually force them to, however given that they can make more money by planting apples it is a pretty rational thing to do and so they will.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well I don't know who's Troll you think you've spotted but if you think waf and I are one and the same you are sorely mistaken.

Yes apples may be bought from Korea, however korea would be selling apples to use, indonesia and themselves, indonesia selling everyone oranges and us selling everyone wheat.

Its about comparitive advantage, everyone has a comparitive advantage in something, and they should produce this because if they do they will yield higher profits and total supply will be higher than under autarky.

As I pointed out to Brucemaster these are limited examples designed to illustrate a point, you do not defeat the argument by pointing out the limitations of the example.

As far as a something for nothing yes, yes we would be. Though it makes more sense and is more accurate if you look at it that we are currently loosing eg lower than total possible production/consumption and Dead Weight Loss in individual markets.

We are getting something for nothing in the sense that we stop loosing something and return to the natural state of things.

 

[loquasagacious]

Its ok to be wrong loquasagacious. :uhhuh:
Its ok to be wrong WAF. :uhhuh:

How does that in any way constitute an argument?

I conclude that we have argued, waf and I have pwned you and now you fall back on non-arguments.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I can and I do.

Why exactly should I fund someone to continue in their current occupation when I don't want what they make? Justify protecting them.

Why should your personal preferences have any bearing on another individual's life. Just because you specifically do not want an Australian farmer to produce oranges does that automatically make his work invalid. No, of course it doesn't because it is HIS life work and to him and to many others it is vital and important.

You are extrapolating to a hypothetical number. I think you will find a suprisingly low number of farmers eg The Berri co-op in Mildura will make up the vast majority of that number.

Very true, i am talking in hypotheticals here. I will try and find a specific figure for you but remember that it is not only the farmers but their families that are affected.
Also, converting the land to being able to produce apples instead will take a considerable amount of time (I would imagine) thus there will be a period when farmers have no source of income. How is this problem going to be addressed?

Also oranges is just an example, you can't tackle one example and win the argument you have to tackle the entire theory. eg economic rationalism, utilitarian logic and the entire concept of the free market - good luck.

No, of course you can't but this argument is entirely hypothetical and i am arguing the detriments of the system as a whole through this example which is applicable to any situation in a free trade vs. protectionism debate.
It would take numerous theses to argue sufficiently the benefits/detriments of these theories so unless you're willing to wait a few years for my next response lets be realistic about this.

So what they have families? I have one too, why should mine support theirs?

I don't quite understand how this works are you talking about your tax dollars? If you are then i could just as easily say that you're family doesn't provide me with anything useful so why should i support you? Then we get stuck in this vicious cycle where everyone doesn't provide someone with something so why should anyone support anyone?

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument it perceives individuals as a whole. You cannot ascribe universalities to the individual for the precise reason that they are individuals who ideals, beliefs and values vary greatly.
Your ideas on the individual in fact fail to respect the individual at all because they view all individuals without discrimination. This is impossible, everyone is different and has different needs and wants and yet your ideas treat the individual as if this were not the case.
Furthermore you have this idea of "societal demand' and everything should work towards society's need and we should be completely utilitarian.
Again you fail to respect the individual in this case becasue you deny the differences amongst humans that make us individual. You cannot expect every individual to conform to your ideas on what society needs, its just not feasible.
Your ideas about societal demand and respect for the individual are in direct contradiction with each other.

Humanity is diverse, people are different with different ideals, needs and wants. Your philosophy in this instance shows a blatant disregard for the diversity amongst humans and thus a disregard for humanity itself...

 

[loquasagacious]

Why should your personal preferences have any bearing on another individual's life.

Why should their decision to produce oranges impact on my life in the form of protectionism they enjoy which I pay for in terms of taxes and higher prices?

Just because you specifically do not want an Australian farmer to produce oranges does that automatically make his work invalid. No, of course it doesn't because it is HIS life work and to him and to many others it is vital and important.

It is not me specifically not wanting him to produce oranges it is the market as a whole.

If he can find a market for australian oranges as distinct from oranges period then this market may ensure he survives as an orange farmer. However why exactly do I care if oranges are his life? So what? Why should I (as a consumer in the market and a taxpayer) support him (through protectionism and taxes) in producing something I don't want? Or something I can get for a better price elsewhere?

You keep saying we should support orange farmers however you do not say why, beyond because the exist.

They grow oranges for money, its not their lifes passion. If no one wants to give them money then why should the government step in and give them money - our money; your money and my money - on our behalf. As a market we have already chosen not to give them money yet you suppose that the government should go against the wish of the populace and give them money anyway.

Very true, i am talking in hypotheticals here. I will try and find a specific figure for you but remember that it is not only the farmers but their families that are affected.

Again with the families, a nice emotive touch but we all have families professionals in sydney are as much supporting their families as farmers in 'the bush', the difference is you seem to accept this majority of non-farming familes to support farming families through welfare and protectionism (suprised katie hasn't made an appearance yet).

Also, converting the land to being able to produce apples instead will take a considerable amount of time (I would imagine) thus there will be a period when farmers have no source of income. How is this problem going to be addressed?

So straight after backing down from one assumption (one after another after another if you count the uranium and iran threads) you make another that you "imagine" it will take a long time to convert.

In this limited instance you are semi-correct that it would take time to convert to apples because they need to grow to a level at which they can be picked. However the apples could equally be wheat, rice, canola, tomatoes, capsicums, cucumbers, lettuce or any number of other crops which do not need to grow to maturity in such a manner.

No, of course you can't but this argument is entirely hypothetical and i am arguing the detriments of the system as a whole through this example which is applicable to any situation in a free trade vs. protectionism debate.
It would take numerous theses to argue sufficiently the benefits/detriments of these theories so unless you're willing to wait a few years for my next response lets be realistic about this.

So perhaps my point is you can't win. Many people have written many thesi (made up plural) attacking the theories waf and I are operating under and they have had a couple of hundred years to do so. But no one has succesfully disproven it, if you've read Das Kapita,l Marx has a pretty good go but as I'm sure you've gathered from USSR, N.Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Chezhoslovakia, Cuba, etc that communism doesn't work. In fact I invite you to try the maths, you can mathematically prove these theories you just need abit of calculus. Infact if you look at history abit Lenin was re-introducing capitalism when he died, the vietnamese sat down and set this isn't working its back to capitalism for us and that whole chinese surge of recent years has been abit of good old fashioned capitalism.

In short capitalism, free trade, economic rationalism, etc wins. It wins, theoretically, mathematically and historically.

I don't quite understand how this works are you talking about your tax dollars? If you are then i could just as easily say that you're family doesn't provide me with anything useful so why should i support you? Then we get stuck in this vicious cycle where everyone doesn't provide someone with something so why should anyone support anyone?

Well why should anyone support anyone? They should support someone if they get something out of it, and they should provide support no more than they get back.

I invite you not to support my family, cut the various welfare handouts they get and cut the tax they pay, this is simpler, more efficient and cost effective.

I say strip back all welfare especially rural, middle-class and unemployed and with it strip back taxes - hey presto we've got some growth stimulous.

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument it perceives individuals as a whole. You cannot ascribe universalities to the individual for the precise reason that they are individuals who ideals, beliefs and values vary greatly.

What don't you understand about aggregate? You take everything and add it up, the market (and society) is the sum of its parts. Individuals ideals, beliefs and values are sufficiently the same for all to be represented according to their proportion of the population.

What you are suggesting is akin to counting some groups twice which is the same as drawing a line and saying "rural people over here are worth twice as much as urban people over there", got equality?

Your ideas on the individual in fact fail to respect the individual at all because they view all individuals without discrimination.

You want me to say sorry for failing to discriminate and for taking everyone as equal???

everyone is different and has different needs and wants and yet your ideas treat the individual as if this were not the case.

Already covered.

Furthermore you have this idea of "societal demand' and everything should work towards society's need and we should be completely utilitarian.
Again you fail to respect the individual in this case becasue you deny the differences amongst humans that make us individual. You cannot expect every individual to conform to your ideas on what society needs, its just not feasible.
Your ideas about societal demand and respect for the individual are in direct contradiction with each other.

Refer to above, refer to waf.

The individual is society, society is the individual. I believe in a free society and a free market, not only are these in harmony they are intrinsicly linked, you can't have one without the other.

Humanity is diverse, people are different with different ideals, needs and wants. Your philosophy in this instance shows a blatant disregard for the diversity amongst humans and thus a disregard for humanity itself...[/quote]

 

[The Brucemaster]

Whilst i obviously disagree with your fundamental philosophy i am getting rather bored of debating the semantics of its implementation so i will conclude thusly:

I believe that humanity should not be subject to an entirely free market system because it takes away the right of the individual to exert control over their life. As im sure everyone agrees freedom is one of the fundamental values of our democracy and i believe a completely free market system that abolishes all protectionism would impinge upon the freedoms of many.

I also believe that economic success should not be the measuring stick of a society, the stability and prosperity of the market should not be the sole concern of the government, there are many other factors involved in maintaining a nation entirely separate from the economy.

In relation to the ideas brought up about the nature of the individual in society it is my belief that the individual has free will and he/she chooses whether or not to contribute to society. If they choose to contribute then that individual should also have the right to choose how they contribute to society, society should not force them to contribute based on some obscure idea of demand. If they CHOOSE not to contribute (lets be honest not everyone makes a conscious choice not to contribute) then yes i do not see why the government/society should support them in any way save to at least give them a chance. If it is clear however that the individual does not wish to contribute to society then i see no reason why society should contribute to him/her.
If, however, it is not through choice but circumstance that this individual does not contribute then there must be provisions in place whereby the individual can be supported by the government until such time they are able to become functional members of society.

Finally, i believe there needs to exist a balance between free trade and protectionism. By advocating a complete free trade system we are in fact taking a strong step towards Marx's ideas of a world without international boundaries. The influx of foreign products and loss of labour within Australia could be potentially devastating to the Australian market. This idea of comparative advantage works in theory but if what if Australia came to rely for the most part on foreign products? What happens if we rely on foreign products? If foreign markets somehow encounter problems or if foreign industry suffers problems then this will have a direct negative effect on the Australian market and we will be powerless to do anything about it.
However, i do acknowledge there are benefits to free trade in that it lowers costs ad improves relations with other countries, however, this benefit must be carefully weighed against the detriment to the individuals concerned.
In short, Australian interests must be the primary concern of the Government, not only in an economic sense but socially aswell.

Thankyou ladies and gentleman, farewell and good night.

 

[withoutaface]

Whilst i obviously disagree with your fundamental philosophy i am getting rather bored of debating the semantics of its implementation so i will conclude thusly:

I believe that humanity should not be subject to an entirely free market system because it takes away the right of the individual to exert control over their life. As im sure everyone agrees freedom is one of the fundamental values of our democracy and i believe a completely free market system that abolishes all protectionism would impinge upon the freedoms of many.

I also believe that economic success should not be the measuring stick of a society, the stability and prosperity of the market should not be the sole concern of the government, there are many other factors involved in maintaining a nation entirely separate from the economy.

In relation to the ideas brought up about the nature of the individual in society it is my belief that the individual has free will and he/she chooses whether or not to contribute to society. If they choose to contribute then that individual should also have the right to choose how they contribute to society, society should not force them to contribute based on some obscure idea of demand. If they CHOOSE not to contribute (lets be honest not everyone makes a conscious choice not to contribute) then yes i do not see why the government/society should support them in any way save to at least give them a chance. If it is clear however that the individual does not wish to contribute to society then i see no reason why society should contribute to him/her.
If, however, it is not through choice but circumstance that this individual does not contribute then there must be provisions in place whereby the individual can be supported by the government until such time they are able to become functional members of society.

Finally, i believe there needs to exist a balance between free trade and protectionism. By advocating a complete free trade system we are in fact taking a strong step towards Marx's ideas of a world without international boundaries. The influx of foreign products and loss of labour within Australia could be potentially devastating to the Australian market. This idea of comparative advantage works in theory but if what if Australia came to rely for the most part on foreign products? What happens if we rely on foreign products? If foreign markets somehow encounter problems or if foreign industry suffers problems then this will have a direct negative effect on the Australian market and we will be powerless to do anything about it.
However, i do acknowledge there are benefits to free trade in that it lowers costs ad improves relations with other countries, however, this benefit must be carefully weighed against the detriment to the individuals concerned.
In short, Australian interests must be the primary concern of the Government, not only in an economic sense but socially aswell.

Thankyou ladies and gentleman, farewell and good night.

1. The individual has a choice, but obviously some choices will be more lucrative than others, for the very reason that they benefit society. So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have an incentive to do what's in the best interest of others, but encourage people to do the opposite through ridiculous protectionist policies.
2. Regardless of whether Indonesia is better at both wheat and apples than us, if they're better at apples than wheat, and we're better at wheat than apples, then apples will be produced there, and wheat here, we will trade, and increase our comparitive advantage to what's happening under a protectionist market. Marx's philosophy kept millions of people employed in deadweight industries that stopped the progress of society. For example, when the powered loom was first invented in England, it put a lot of hand loomers out of work, so under your system, we should have forced the powered loom out of the marketplace, and still be paying much more for inferior clothing made by hand.

I don't want to argue free trade anymore, because I believe that I've categorically demolished the same flawed points at least five times, and until such time as the thread's topic deviates to another topic, I'm not going to post here again.

 

[Xayma]

Slightly related to free trade, but to another issue you haven't really recognised yet.

How do you believe overseas products be taxed for their environmental damage? If you allow them to be sold in Australia, and require it be certified first then that decreases effeciency as government agents (or other organisations which are trusted by the government) are required to be overseas to make sure however, not taxing them gives unfair advantages to countries with lax environmental laws, like how Indonesia might allow the slash and burning of rainforests for orange plantations.

 

[withoutaface]

Introduce a tariff (ewwww I hate myself ) relative to how much pollution is generated in producing products for Australia (this is presuming the country doesn't already have a pollution tax). But that's also dependent on what type of pollution we're talking about, and whether it affects Australia or not.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I don't want to argue free trade anymore, because I believe that I've categorically demolished the same flawed points at least five times, and until such time as the thread's topic deviates to another topic, I'm not going to post here again.

I say that even if we do start on a whole new topic the same things going to happen again: You will simply apply your beliefs to the situation, I will apply mine and all we'll get is another 10 or so pages of conflicting political ideology which serves no purpose save to heighten your perceived abilities at "categorical demolition" and to increase my frustration with liberal politics.

I say if we want to have a real debate we don't start with subject matter that is immediately politically biased. Yes, i will suggest something as soon as i can formulate something that is politically neutral (or as much so as possible).

Until such time, I bid you adieu...

 

[withoutaface]

I say that even if we do start on a whole new topic the same things going to happen again: You will simply apply your beliefs to the situation, I will apply mine and all we'll get is another 10 or so pages of conflicting political ideology which serves no purpose save to heighten your perceived abilities at "categorical demolition" and to increase my frustration with liberal politics.

I say if we want to have a real debate we don't start with subject matter that is immediately politically biased. Yes, i will suggest something as soon as i can formulate something that is politically neutral (or as much so as possible).

Until such time, I bid you adieu...

Your beliefs, for anything but the extreme short term for an extreme minority of people, cause massive problems.

 

[The Brucemaster]

HA! Pot. Kettle. Black.

Touche mon frere, touche.

 

[withoutaface]

HA! Pot. Kettle. Black.

So the progression of industry, lower prices for all consumers and higher quality products are all extreme short term positive effects affecting an extreme minority of people? Right-o.

Touche mon frere, touche.

Only faggots refer to people as "mon frere".

 

[The Brucemaster]

Only faggots refer to people as "mon frere".

So much for respecting the individual.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm exerting my right to freedom of speech, and there's no such thing as a right to not be offended.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I'm exerting my right to freedom of speech, and there's no such thing as a right to not be offended.

Yeah because i was clearly talking about rights.