Page 13 of 15 [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next


trickle down econonics- a fairy tale, or what?
trickle down benefits the 99% :idea: 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
trickle down benefits only the 1% :x 82%  82%  [ 28 ]
i'm not sure :shrug: 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
where's my ice cream? :chef: 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 34

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 11:22 am

^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 11:32 am

Aristophanes wrote:
^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.


That's a very poor attempt at trying to disguise your bullshit trolling.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 11:43 am

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.


That's a very poor attempt at trying to disguise your bullshit trolling.

Nope, just trying to get you to answer the question from 2 pages back, I mean just think we could be on a different topic right now if you'd just answer. Are you using your purported non-bias as a rhetorical trick, or are you actually unaware of your own bias? It's very simple, it's not loaded, it's evidenced by anyone that wants to click your avatar and read back a mere 2-3 pages of comments. You're free to not answer, but I'm free to keep asking as well. And yeah, it's a question of credibility, which is not actually personal at all, it's a necessity for any speaker to be taken seriously in a public forum. If you want that credibility then answer the question and earn it.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 11:59 am

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.


That's a very poor attempt at trying to disguise your bullshit trolling.

Nope, just trying to get you to answer the question from 2 pages back, I mean just think we could be on a different topic right now if you'd just answer. Are you using your purported non-bias as a rhetorical trick, or are you actually unaware of your own bias? It's very simple, it's not loaded, it's evidenced by anyone that wants to click your avatar and read back a mere 2-3 pages of comments. You're free to not answer, but I'm free to keep asking as well. And yeah, it's a question of credibility, which is not actually personal at all, it's a necessity for any speaker to be taken seriously in a public forum. If you want that credibility then answer the question and earn it.


Uh huh, from a couple of pages back:

EzraS wrote:
However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism.


Proof that your claims of what you're up to aren't legitimate and that you completely lack credibility. You are just maladroitly gaslighting, bullshit trolling and making a fool of yourself.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 1:37 pm

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=355733&start=45

EzraS wrote:
Well that's one rose colored way of looking at it I suppose. Like I said, if he starts going after nonpartisan non-sensationalistic real news, then I'll become concerned.

Ethos appeal: Inferring your ideas come from nonpartisan sources, thus you have no bias.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=356366&p=7727402#p7727402
EzraS wrote:
I'm not defending either party, I'm just saying it like it is.

Ethos appeal: direct claim of non-bias.

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=356366
EzraS wrote:
I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.

Ethos appeal: claiming you only accept evidence, thus a claim of non-bias.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=356366&p=7731836#p7731836
EzraS wrote:
No I would be dispassionate like I am about most events. Especially remote events that I have no control over and don't affect me directly.

Ethos appeal: claim of dispassionate logic, thus no bias.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=352646&p=7639591#p7639591
EzraS wrote:
I would think more people with autism would be centrist, neutral, objectively detached. Rather than so emotionally caught up in one political party. That seems like such an NT thing to do.

Ethos appeal: again, inferring your own non-bias by applying bias to others: oddly enough using autism/NT as a dividing line to boot, under that logic every autistic is unbiased.

Ethos is the rhetorical concept of credibility, namely how does a rhetor (speaker, writer, anyone using rhetoric to persuade an audience) appeal to an audience through their ethical standards and trustworthiness, or authority on a subject. The list above is a list of ethos based appeals you've made towards your purported neutrality, some are sublte, some are overt. This list was a random sampling, namely I pulled your post history and typed in a random number in the address bar. Evidence was collected from 5 pages between page 64-210 of your posting history. That's 75 posts, of which 32 were political in nature, and of those 32 there are 5 examples of ethos appeals to your non-biased nature, or ~15.6%(~1/7) of all your political posts in this sample included an ethos appeal to your non-biased nature. Source pages have been linked for anyone to verify the quotes I've provided. Context was not taken into consideration because it's not a fluid argument, but raw data collection on the rate at which ethos appeals to non-bias were made.

It's there, and as I said all it takes is a little browsing work. So gaslighting, not even close, it's a 'misstatement' you seem to make quite often. I would have compiled a larger sampling but WP is exceptionally slow right now, and I don't like using a site that feels like I'm still on dial-up.

On a completely unrelated note: If you've never seen "Thank You for Smoking", I highly recommend it. It's an entertaining look at speaking, persuasion, and PR-- all closely related fields. Nick Nailor, the protagonist (or antagonist depending on viewpoint), mentions in a later part of the movie why ethos appeals are a dangerous sword to be wielding in an argument. Plus the vanilla vs chocolate argument he has with his child is classic.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 2:19 pm

Um...:

Aristophanes wrote:
Nope, just trying to get you to answer the question from 2 pages back, I mean just think we could be on a different topic right now if you'd just answer. Are you using your purported non-bias as a rhetorical trick, or are you actually unaware of your own bias?


The question was answered:

EzraS wrote:
I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism.


Therefore this off-topic topic has already concluded. I hope you didn't put too much effort into all that verbose rambling above, because I didn't bother reading it, seeing as how the matter was already concluded.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,694
Location: Reading, England

02 Jan 2018, 2:23 pm

OK, mod time - please get back to the topic at hand rather than analysing each other's failings as posters.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 2:47 pm

EzraS wrote:
Um...:

Aristophanes wrote:
Nope, just trying to get you to answer the question from 2 pages back, I mean just think we could be on a different topic right now if you'd just answer. Are you using your purported non-bias as a rhetorical trick, or are you actually unaware of your own bias?


The question was answered:

EzraS wrote:
I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism.


Therefore this off-topic topic has already concluded. I hope you didn't put too much effort into all that verbose rambling above, because I didn't bother reading it, seeing as how the matter was already concluded.


Common mistake: thinking your opposition in a public debate is who's important. I'm not trying to convince or persuade YOU of anything, it's everyone BUT you who is my concern. Whether you read or don't is really no concern of mine, you're merely a sounding board for my ideas, and vice versa. The evidence has been presented and the audience will make up their mind.

edit: and yes, I'm done now, as per the mod's request, until the next time I see a claim of non-bias of course...



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 3:00 pm

TheAllegedlyQuietOne wrote:
As far as "trickle down" economics, it has simply been sold on false pretense. The original formulation is "if you give people easier access to financial capital, they will employ it to buy machinery/ build factories that can produce more stuff" (as this would be the most long-term profitable use), this will lead to excess production and in-turn, lead to abundance [In other words, it's stuff, not money, that trickles down].

An easy way to increase financial capital is to give rich people more money (as they save more of their income and in theory have the free time necessary to wisely invest it).

What trickle down does not do is give poor people more money, either directly or indirectly, but it might reduce inflation, also often omitted is the original theory assumes a social safety net (or else the majority population won't be able to afford the extra stuff so the rich will stop investing in producing it).

In short, it's a solution to a lack of industrial capital caused by a lack of financial capital. But what about an excess of capital? The 1930's Great Depression can be considered the result of too much capital, and lax financial regulation - - in other words, rich people with too much money and a government that didn't care what they did with it, much of the money finding its way into asset speculation, questionable loans, and other "get rich quick" schemes.


Very interesting analysis. Economics certainly isn't my forte, but I am learning from this nonetheless.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 3:11 pm

^^Way to keep it classy.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 3:13 pm

Thanks :)



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 3:17 pm

Professor is about the highest compliment I could think of receiving: it denotes sophistication, refined intelligence, and critical thinking. So thank you good sir!

edit: see, we CAN get along. lol.



Last edited by Aristophanes on 02 Jan 2018, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,728
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 3:18 pm

You're welcome, wannabe-professor windbag.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 3:40 pm

EzraS wrote:
You're welcome, wannabe-professor windbag.

Funny thing: I've been called 'professor' since I was 12, I'm pretty used to it by now, and I do view it as a badge of honor.

Outside of the normal flow of debate I did mention one thing: A movie called Thank You for Smoking, whether you read that or not, not sure, but I seriously recommend watching it. I can guarantee you'll be thoroughly entertained. That's on a personal level I'm saying it, not as a debater with any type of cause at this point. It's all about language, debate, and public releations and there are some hilarious arguments in there, but also some tried an true techniques. Look it up sometime. If you know who William F. Buckley is (probably the most talented conservative writer of the last half century if you don't), it was based on a book written by his son (who's non-political but also a very good writer).



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,616
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 Jan 2018, 3:42 pm

:lol: Just heard Sarah Huckabee's first address of the new year and she opened up by talking about how so many American's are getting raises to their wages from the corporate tax breaks that were just handed out.. uuuh, really? Somehow I doubt that IF any major corporations are going to increase wages with their tax breaks that they did it instantaneously. The whole soundbite sounds like complete and utter bullshit saying the tax cut is working exactly as Trump intended.. corporations increasing wages. :lol: I VERY highly doubt it.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.