Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 01:54 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;164510 wrote:
It's all about economic education, if you want to make sense of it read the book I posted earlier, or another one on the topic. I'm not saying I know it all, not to sound smug. But the best thing to do is just to read how it all works instead of guessing about it with limited knowledge on the internet.


Now, why would any of that sound smug? Honestly, I wrote a response to some of your points, but I am extremely irritated and it showed. I deleted my post; perhaps I will post again at a later date.

It might behoove you, in other conversations you may have, not to presume that because someone does not share your opinion that what they require is automatically greater education on the topic. Although it's true that I have not read the only book that you seem able to recommend, I do not think that my previous posts indicate that I am either unread in, nor completely ignorant of, economics. I have done my best to have a civil conversation with you, despite our obviously different points of view, and your unfounded condescension is insulting.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 04:03 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg;165643 wrote:
Now, why would any of that sound smug? Honestly, I wrote a response to some of your points, but I am extremely irritated and it showed. I deleted my post; perhaps I will post again at a later date.

It might behoove you, in other conversations you may have, not to presume that because someone does not share your opinion that what they require is automatically greater education on the topic. Although it's true that I have not read the only book that you seem able to recommend, I do not think that my previous posts indicate that I am either unread in, nor completely ignorant of, economics. I have done my best to have a civil conversation with you, despite our obviously different points of view, and your unfounded condescension is insulting.


I too complain about the tendency of people on the internet to assume that those who disagree with them "just don't get it" because they lack education/intelligence/sophistication. I think assuming that is very obstructive to a kind of debate in which we can learn something. That's why I am very careful not to assume that. And I even explicitly added that I did not intend the comment to be condescending.

No, my comment was not a simple shot against your education. I did not presume that you are unread in or ignorant of economics in general, or require greater education, I judged objectively from your arguments in our rather lengthy discussion. (In my opinion, of course.)
You seem to hold beliefs that are widely regarded as incorrect by economists, such as exploitation theory or your understanding of the effects of property rights or, well, the very meaning of capitalism. (See post 139, and the ones before.)
They are even known to economists as the most common mistakes the general public makes.

It's not that I think that I'm sooo much more educated, I just happened to recently have read about those specific common mistakes. That's why I notice them. In fact our discussion started with a list I made about common economic mistakes (post 130).

If I notice you making those mistakes, what am I supposed to tell you? Should I lecture you about them? That would be condescending. No, I have to tell you that you hold common mistakes. And that it would be more effective for you to get the official knowledge from professional literature, than for me to lecture you on specific points. I did respond to some of your points, but when I noticed that almost everyone of our disagreements was about the meaning of words or a common economic mistake, I felt there was no point in lecturing you about it all. I referred you to literature specifically because I have limited knowledge and didn't want to come off as a condescending know-it-all smug.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:21 am
@EmperorNero,
All you ask for is for others to read the propaganda that supports your views, not proves them. Do you think reading Karl Marx will make you believe in communism?
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:18 am
@xris,
xris;165683 wrote:
All you ask for is for others to read the propaganda that supports your views, not proves them. Do you think reading Karl Marx will make you believe in communism?


Respond to the other thread.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4282-capitalism-will-bring-world-peace-57.html#post165001
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:12 am
@EmperorNero,

I have now stop being so petty and answer my question.
0 Replies
 
exile
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 02:57 pm
@EmperorNero,
Emperor - Sorry, but just because you and your favorite economists and political thinkers believe something is a mistake, doesn't mean it is. There is room in economics and politics for differences of opinion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/28/2014 at 06:33:54