Political Crossfire Forums

[Roy L]

Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers. No. That is not a mere claim, it is a fact, and its accuracy is easily verified by examining samples of educated writing that use the word (in the relevant literal sense, of course).
The above is an assertion. You are simply asserting that it is a fact. ?? Buddy, you need to buy a clue somewhere: the only way to IDENTIFY a fact is by ASSERTING it. Hello?
No, it is you who needs to get a clue. In a debate, you make an assertion, and then you provide substantiation for it. You've only got the first part down. I quoted a good dictionary, which is more than you have done.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Quote: Most others here merely make claims; I identify facts.
No, you are making a claim. Saying that it is used in such a way in "samples of educated writing" is a claim. Calling it a fact does not make it so, no matter how you rephrase it. ?? What a load of nonsense. How else could one identify a fact, other than by stating it?
How are we to know whether you're identifying an actual fact, or making s**t up? Enlighten us, Roy. If you are honest with yourself, you already know the facts I identify. The problem arises when you refuse to know what you already know because it disproves your false beliefs
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Quote: And in most cases, the facts I identify, which disprove the other side's false claims, are self-evident and indisputable.
Actually, it's neither. "Greed" is a very subjective concept. No, people manage to communicate quite well about it.
Not really. You'll note the exhaustive arguments over whether X or Y is greedy on these forums and in this very thread. Durh. Right, because people here, beginning with the OP, are trying to change the definition to make it do the rhetorical work their arguments can't do.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Finding samples of usage that are very different in two pieces of literature would be quite an easy task;
Just not an easy enough task for you to accomplish....?
Read Rand and then read Dickens; come back and tell me they use the term in the same way. <yawn> Still haven't accomplished that "easy task" I see....

I've read them both, and I don't recall Rand using the word in the relevant literal sense. Can you cite an example?
Quote:
Quote: Yes, there are different senses of the word, poetic uses, metaphorical uses, etc. But the basic concept that is relevant to this discussion ("What is so damn wrong with greed") is clear and not subjective in the least.
Oh? Then how come we are 5 pages in with almost no actual discussion of the topic at hand? Why are we still wading through semantics? The answer is obvious. Right: the OP, instead of talking about greed, proposed a new concept and wanted to apply the word "greed" to it.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: though I wonder what your qualification for determining whether said literature is "educated" is. I am a professional writer and editor.
And? How do you go about determining whether literature is "educated?" Accuracy of grammar and usage, clarity of expression, paragraph structure, vocabulary, etc. Quote:
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Your evaluation may or may not be true; ?? What are you talking about? Of course it's true. Any educated person who has read any significant amount of English literature knows that's what the word means. Who on earth do you think you are fooling with this "may or may not be true" nonsense?
Another assertion. You are very bad at making a case. Also, I wasn't even arguing as to whether or not your claim was true (in fact, it's not), In fact, it is.
Quote: Quote: but simply pointing out that it was an unsupported claim rather than a fact. Now, predictably, you are just lying. The fact that the definition I gave is listed FIRST in a good dictionary is actually pretty conclusive support, as is the fact that other good dictionaries' first listings for the word are generally similar.
What's a "good" dictionary? Webster's New Universal Unabridged. Quote: How does one determine whether a dictionary is "good" or not? Clarity, accuracy and precision. Quote: How similar must it be for it to still fall under your nebulous "generally similar?" Semantically equivalent. Quote: All icing, no cake. Liar.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous. <yawn> So, you've decided to join the club of refuse-to-know-niks? You have lots of company....
LOL. Well, I'm convinced! You say that all literature uses the term in one certain way, Liar. I explicitly stated that it was the RELEVANT LITERAL sense of the word. Look up at the second quoted passage at the top of this post. Yep, there it is: the proof that you are a liar.
Whatever that's supposed to mean. It means your method of "argument" is to lie about what I have plainly written. That is normal and expected. Quote: More meaningless qualifiers to distract from the fact that you have been busted.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Quote:
Nice try though. <yawn> Wish I could say the same.... Unfortunately, it appears you have no purpose in this discussion but to waste my time.

[Roy L]

Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
I hate it when arguments get into semantics
Those who do not define their terms are in the unfortunate position of not knowing what they are talking about. One of the great advances in philosophy in the 20th C was the consensus that definition must come before discussion. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on just what the definition of "definition" is...
Actually, he provided a working definition for the purposes of this thread. Unfortunately, this forum is full of people like you who have nothing of substance to say, and instead choose to simply be contrary. No, the unfortunate thing was that his working definition was proposed purely to set up an equivocation -- which he did, the moment he disagreed with how other people use the word.

And if you want to see lack of substance and contrariness, look in the mirror.

[cap'n queasy]

A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Roy L wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

Yeah but the people who aren't earning their way are having problems with obesity, so where does that leave you?

They also have cable TV, cell phones, and cars. That's total BS.

People starving in Sub-Saharan Africa have obesity, cable TV, cell phones, and cars?

What power does America have over their rulers? If we ever want to take out some dictator who forces their people into abject poverty and oppression we get excoriated for being warmongers and blamed for causing something we have no power over in the first place.

The reason that sub-Saharan Africa is poor is because their leaders are totally corrupt. Not because of free enterprise.

It's alway damned if you do or damned if you don't with you guys.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Roy L wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

Yeah but the people who aren't earning their way are having problems with obesity, so where does that leave you? It leaves me wondering why you are trying to change the subject.

[cap'n queasy]

Pffft. You're arguing about a dictionary or something.

I'm on subject with AD discussing the issue.

And no one is starving in America. The rest of the world is kind of on it's own because no one wants America to take out the dictators who are really causing misery.

They just want us to pay to feed them.

BTW All the money we do send gets stolen. You are going to have to find someone else to blame for starving people in the world.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: A.D wrote:
People starving in Sub-Saharan Africa have obesity, cable TV, cell phones, and cars?

What power does America have over their rulers? If we ever want to take out some dictator who forces their people into abject poverty and oppression we get excoriated for being warmongers and blamed for causing something we have no power over in the first place.

The reason that sub-Saharan Africa is poor is because their leaders are totally corrupt. Not because of free enterprise. You really need to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

[cap'n queasy]

You need to quit reading that trash.

[cap'n queasy]

America is going to do business with whoever has what we need, it's not our fault that their leaders exploit their own people so they can keep all the profits for themselves.

[Cato]

LetsGetReal wrote: Why would it be greedy for a man who acquired alot of wealth/goods(in just means) keep it and not share it with those unfortunate in his circle of friends or family?

I think that whether such is greedy depends on the culture in question; however, greed is associated with what is perceived to be unhealthy, or mutually damaging excess. So, I would say that a capitalist who hoards is greedy, as his great wealth demands that some live in abject poverty (wealth is finite, that's why it has value.)

So, in short, I don't believe having 'a lot of wealth' is looked on as greedy in every culture, but I think that it is by many for a pragmatic reason.

[Cato]

cap'n wrote: I agree, and do not see the benefit of attempting to rehabilitate this vice.

Okay, glad we agree cap'n; though, I don't quite understand what you mean by the second part...

Quote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In some cultures you can 'rightfully earn' something by physically overpowering somebody.

Besides, what one may 'earn' is based entirely on circumstance; the child raised in the ghetto who can't affording schooling has decidedly less opportunity than the wealthy child raised in suburbia. This is a matter of circumstance, clearly. Did the former child 'earn' the right to a better start? It would be insane to suggest so.

[Cato]

cap'n wrote: What power does America have over their rulers? If we ever want to take out some dictator who forces their people into abject poverty and oppression we get excoriated for being warmongers and blamed for causing something we have no power over in the first place.

Why would a dictator want to 'force his people into abject poverty'? Are you familiar with the term 'globalization'?

[jawsome]

cap'n queasy wrote: A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Roy L wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

Yeah but the people who aren't earning their way are having problems with obesity, so where does that leave you?

They also have cable TV, cell phones, and cars. That's total BS.

People starving in Sub-Saharan Africa have obesity, cable TV, cell phones, and cars?

What power does America have over their rulers? If we ever want to take out some dictator who forces their people into abject poverty and oppression we get excoriated for being warmongers and blamed for causing something we have no power over in the first place.

The reason that sub-Saharan Africa is poor is because their leaders are totally corrupt. Not because of free enterprise.

It's alway damned if you do or damned if you don't with you guys.

Sub-Saharan Africa is poor due to a number of factors, and I would argue that in many countries (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and much of the west coast of Africa) are definitely affected the most by corrupt leaders. I wouldn't say that's the only reason, but it's a big one.

[Cato]

Poverty perpetuates dictatorships; where citizens can't contribute, there's no funding for institutions, and therein no pay for politicians. The people's support is nothing a politician wants in a country where the people have nothing to offer. Conversely, the support of foreign powers and the wealthy is very desirable; they have much to offer. Appealing the wealthy minority and foreign powers, while shamelessly exploiting the weak and powerless is what defines modern dictatorships. Surely you agree?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Why would a dictator want to 'force his people into abject poverty'?

I would say into is not really that this is their goal, but it is the inevitable result of stealing everything from them.

:lol:

That's pretty obtuse, Cato. I expected more from you.

[cap'n queasy]

Cato wrote: Poverty perpetuates dictatorships; where citizens can't contribute, there's no funding for institutions, and therein no pay for politicians. The people's support is nothing a politician wants in a country where the people have nothing to offer. Conversely, the support of foreign powers and the wealthy is very desirable; they have much to offer. Appealing the wealthy minority and foreign powers, while stepping on the weak is what defines modern dictatorships. Surely you agree?

I would say what defines them is they offer cheap exports because they exploit their people and companies naturally are going to go with the cheapest available resources that they need.

Let's put the blame where it really lies, shall we.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: In some cultures you can 'rightfully earn' something by physically overpowering somebody.


Isn't that the goal of Socialism? To physically overpower free enterprise societies by sheer weight of numbers? Regardless of human rights like that to own property and freely conduct business.

Other examples of such cultures are prison culture and primitive tribalism.

Nice company you are keeping.

[Cato]

Quote: I would say into is not really that this is their goal, but it is the inevitable result of stealing everything from them.

We're agreed that the dictator is a thief and a scoundrel. However, I think that the modern dictatorship is the product of something more than the greed of a junta elite. I think the situation in the third world is one conducive to the rise of dictators; that is, the catalyst of the dictator's rise is the poverty of his nation, and not vice versa. What do you think?

Quote: That's pretty obtuse, Cato. I expected more from you.

I hold clarity in high regard; how am I to know what you mean exactly?

[Cato]

Quote: I would say what defines them is they offer cheap exports because they exploit their people and companies naturally are going to go with the cheapest available resources that they need.

You haven't actually argued against my point...

Quote: Let's put the blame where it really lies, shall we.

Well, okay.. I'd like to too... Perhaps you'd be so kind as to supply an argument for your above assertion?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: I think the situation in the third world is one conducive to the rise of dictators; that is, the catalyst of the dictator's rise is the poverty of his nation, and not vice versa.

You're assuming that there is a rise in poverty and that it is caused by someone who did not cause it. That's what fits your dichotomy, but it is a logical fallacy.

Poverty exists for many reasons, that all can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture in some manner. And Globalization takes advantage of that, but it does not cause it. So do the dictators, who care nothing for their people, upon which Globalization depends

BTW I do not like Globalization. I think it is reprehensible.

[Cato]

Quote: Isn't that the goal of Socialism? To physically overpower free enterprise societies by sheer weight of numbers? Regardless of human rights like that to own property and freely conduct business.

Well, that certainly isn't the end of socialism, as far as I'm aware of it...

Quote: Other examples of such cultures are prison culture and primitive tribalism.

I'm not too sure about the latter example in every case, but okay.

Quote: Nice company you are keeping.

?