- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Joel does the Funky Chicken at the Marketplace

Posted by: Quincunx on March 26, 1999 at 10:36:03:

In Reply to: Qx fails at reading comprehension posted by Joel Jacobson on March 24, 1999 at 11:28:19:

: : Qx: Actually, I don't think SDF nor I have lost any ability to comprehend or follow a conversation. What next? Are you going to claim property rights over this thread?

JJ: Yes, I am (sort of) examine:

Qx: Then you're making a fool out of yourself. Just thought I'd let you know.

JJ: 1) Person A makes proposition x.

Qx: Proposition x being a bunch of wbsites that are supposedly free=market but basically a breat example of greenwashing.

JJ: 2) Person B claims that x lacks accurately

Qx: Actually it's more than that. It's a dodge of the issue of the importance of the environment. You might not like that so you denied it. Pretty typical considering the low quality of your other postings so far.

JJ: 3) Person C claims Person B is dodging the issue.

Qx: Which is true. What I forgot is that your basically freaking out because I'm calling you on your false religion.

JJ: Step 3 does not follow from the other two, and C is just simply blowing smoke.

Qx: Which is basically a scenario Joel would like to tell his friends at the local frat house if it wasn't for the fact that this thread is at McSpotlight and many others can judge for themselves.

JJ: This is exactly how the conversation was going:

Qx: This is exactly how the conversation was going according to Joel:

JJ: 1) Gideon claims global warming is a serious threat and asks me to find even one piece of information countermanding his sources.

Qx: So you do the dishonest thing and find websites that are obviously products of greenwashing and try to pass them off as coming from credible sources.

JJ: 2) I find several and let him know that I don't think the environment is in any danger.

Qx: 2) You find several bits of grenwashing and let him know that you don't think the environment is in any danger due to your flights of fantasy that all is well with the world through a corporatist lens.

JJ: 3) You tell me I'm dodging the issue.

Qx: 3) I complimented you on the good dodge and you can't handle it.

JJ: Again, step 3 does not follow, and you are just blowing smoke.

Qx: Again, Joel desperately states that step 3 does not follow, and in a mad rush to not lose this debate claims that I am just blowing smoke.

JJ: Gideon gave a specific challenge, which I answered.

Qx: With bits and pieces of greenwashing.

JJ: You came in and accused me of 'dodging.

Qx: Actually, I complimented you on the "good dodge" and you find it necessary to resort to insults since you lost your composure.

JJ: Allow me to reiterate: work on your reading comprehension.

Qx: Allow me to reiterate: Good dodge with the bits and pieces of greenwashing.

: : JJ: Like I said, and made perfectly clear on my post, we don't need to be overly concerned for the environment. It was simple, straightforward, and without any goddamn dodge.

: : Qx: There's no such thing as being overly concerned for the environment

JJ: Okay, let's say we make the value judgement that humanity leave the environment in 'pristine' condition, untouched by humans. That would require the human race to commit "specie-cide"; that's no joke, as some radical environmentalists have actually advocated this. And, yes, concern for the environment at the expense of human beings is, indeed in my opinion, being overly concerned.

Qx: Let me tell you a thing or towo. I've spent a helluva lot more time in the bush than you can ever possibly imagine. If you want to fumble the ball for neo-classical economics while doing the funky chicken there's nothing anybody else can do about it. Nevertheless, there will always be people who can understand that economics should always include the environment and treat human beings as human beings who live on a planet that is finite in its resources.

: : Qx: And if this is what you call a structural analysis then sliced bread is an invention of the future. Either that or provide some real evidence that isn't corporate sponsored. Please?

JJ: Again, brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm certainly not corporate sponsored and I'm the one giving the analysis, not some corporation.

Qx: It's about time you practice what you preach. I typed out "Either that or provide some real evidence that isn't corporate sponsored. Please?" from my last posting and you demonstrated the fact that you "read into" instead of just plain "read".

Also, if you call that an analysis then Milton Friedman is a pink elephant with ballet slippers and a pink tutu.

JJ: Maybe I should rely on left-wing (hint-statist) sources. Sorces taht have a particular interest in spreading fear of massive environmental catastrophe, regardless of its truth.

Qx: Maybe you should rely on the age-old Fibertarian tradition of erecting straw men on a mass scale and feel the agopny of seeing them all collapse.

JJ: And you rape your grandfather every night. You're evil, evil, evil. I'm not trying to say you're in favor of Sovietism. However, if I took on your form of debating I could say that you were both for and against Stalin. I would then try to prove how Stalin was really a little space alien.

Qx: Good straw man and ad-hominem combined. Did Uncle Milty teach that also?

JJ: Go back and read the original post.

Qx: Oh! So you're showing your authoritarian side now! Way to go! If we discuss this again will you promise to do a better dodge next time?

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup