I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

Sigh. This...




... is not quoting me "word for word". It's you making a claim about what I said earlier. In this case, a false claim. And worse, a claim I had already refuted the last time you made it:





So you claimed I said something. I said "No. I didn't say that, I said this". And instead of you trying to find a quote showing me saying what you claimed I said, you just repeated the same damn claim! Thats... insane.

What's really bizarre is that this entire sub-thread is me attempting to show how government regulation rarely prevents the monopolies (or other free market abuses). It was part of my earlier point that you can either regulate more or less, and I think we should lean towards "less". But then, the ability to follow a conversation is one of the skills you lose when you smoke a lot of pot.



No, it's not. It's what you wrote when making a claim about what I wrote. You have yet to provide a quote showing me actually writing that.



My argument has not changed once. What has happened is that I say X. Someone then responds by claiming I said Y. I respond with "No. I didn't say Y, I said X". Then someone says claims again that I said Y. I tell them again, that I didn't say Y, I said X. It's like you somehow *want* my argument to be different than what it is, and no amount of me telling you that's not it dissuades you from assuming it is anyway. It's freaking bizarre behavior.

For the last freaking time: I am not arguing that government never regulates companies. I am arguing that when it does so, the results of said regulation is often worse than had they not regulated at all. Government regulation changes companies which may be using their market position to their advantage but which are still subject to free market responses, into companies which use their government lobbying to their advantage and which are no longer as subject to free market responses.

Microsoft is a great example of this. Bundled browsers ended up not being a big deal in the long run. Other players in the market figured out ways around it and today we're in no worse shape in that area than we were back then. Basically, the governments actions didn't have any effect on that outcome (whether you consider that good or bad is subject to opinion of course). However, as a result of the lawsuit, MS started lobbying in order to protect itself. The result being that today it influences regulations and standards setting bodies in ways which absolutely do hurt consumers and force people to purchase their products in ways in which all their free market power would not cause.


Government intervention did not help the situation. It made it worse. How many times do I have to clearly explain this to you before it sinks into your brain?

Only because there are some incredibly thick headed people on this forum. I've twice mentioned how SOX regulations (along with some standards setting regulations) have given MS vastly more power to force itself into the market than it ever had before.


Oh. Funny thing happened yesterday in the form of a quarterly company report that had me laughing about the earlier bits regarding MS and mobile devices when I heard it. But I should just listen to what random people on the interwebs say since they have access to internal industry numbers, profit positioning, market projections, and whatnot. Oh wait... they don't!

Interesting side bit and/or blatant marketing stunt. Should catch the next couple Chargers home games (and some bowl games coming up, not sure). Can't say more than that.

Nah. I think I'll go with that it's very hard to get people to challenge their own assumptions. What else can you conclude when you can show clear examples of how frequently government regulation fails to prevent market abuses, but instead often results in public/private corruption, but some people continue to insist that the solution to the problem is *more* government regulation.

It's the same kind of people who dismiss/deride anyone who argues against funding for "green energy" as global warming deniers and/or haters of the environment, then turn around and ***** and moan about evil corporations like GE not paying their fair share in taxes. They clearly can't see past the surface level rhetoric of the issues, but they sure do feel strongly about them anyway!



I call people "experts" when their own personal fortunes are not tied to actually ever being right about anything Joph. Which is the case with a good portion of those who conduct and manage the sorts of studies you're talking about (and moreso with those who analyze them for public consumption). I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the conclusions of people who have no vested interest to be right and every vested interest to derive the results the folks paying their salaries want.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 7:09pm by gbaji

Of course you will.


Which, fascinatingly, is only an issue when their results don't match your ideology


Or people who have no vested interest in being accurate but vested every interest in arguing their ideology and insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with their flawed "I know literally 200x more than you" remarks is just refusing to "challenge their own assumptions", amirite?

Ah, you. Predictable as always

No. It's an issue when their results fly in the face of logic, reason, and easily observable fact. That my ideology happens to coincidentally be based on logic, reason, and facts, is why it so often appears that way to you.



You're mixing cases though. Me deriding so-called "experts" and their studies in other threads is one thing (with one set of reasons for doing so). Me dismissing some random person's beliefs about the effect of the governments actions on Microsoft's monopolistic power is something entirely different. In this case, I'm acting on my own direct knowledge of the damn subject and information I have access to because I've worked in the field in question during the entire time period in question. I've watched the industry change over that time period and I can tell you that MS has vastly more influence and control today than it did 15 years ago.

Given that no one has presented even a shred of reason or support for the opposing position, it's kinda hard to take the arguments seriously. It's like I'm the adult getting a bit tired of explaining for the nth time why ducks can't actually talk in the real world no matter how often they do in cartoons.



Yeah. Cause you're not predictable at all!

Nope. It's that expert opinions should not be blindly accepted. Doubly so when they fly in the face of logic and reason.

There is irony in this post. I just can't quite put my finger on it though...

Something like this?

Of course, lolgaxe. Otherwise you're a communist.

The problem is that your arguments are always grounded in revisionist history (and never supported by actual studies), employ extensive use of logical fallacies, switch stances every page or two per thread, or successfully argue against a strawman.

Usually it's a combination.

Lol! So since my arguments counter experts you believe are correct, I must be wrong? Isn't that exactly the "letting others do your thinking for you" that I was talking about?




Or someone insists that I'm using fallacies instead of actually making an argument themselves.



No. The sheer number of times someone insists "But you said...", and I say "No, I didn't", followed by an exact quote of what I actually said, only to have them repeat "But you said..." again a few posts later is amazing. This is sheer perception. People don't like to argue against my arguments, so they twist my words around, re-interpret it in interesting ways, and then argue against that instead. And when I attempt to correct them and restate my position, they insist I'm changing my stance.

I don't do this. I have *never* done this. And no amount of other posters repeating the claim will make said claim true.




And that's ironic given how often my own positions are mis-stated and then argued against.


What's funny is that in this very thread (actually might have been the AA thread, I lost track), I can show direct examples of someone saying something, me arguing against *exactly* what they said, them insisting that they didn't say that, and me quoting them saying *exactly* what I said they said. And... I can show a direct example of someone claiming I said something, me correcting them and quoting *exactly* what I actually said (which was not what they claimed), and them insisting that I said it and was changing my stance. What the hell?


Yet, somehow in your mind, I'm the one who changes his stance and attempts to change people's arguements to use as a straw man. That's some selective reading there. Can you find quote of me doing this? Cause I can show quotes of others doing it to me easily.



used when others argue against, me? Absolutely. But there's that whole "see most in others, that which you know is in yourself" thing going on here.

If your argument relies on someone else providing a conclusion for you, then you are not applying critical thinking skills. If your supporting source is data and you then use that data to arrive at a conclusion, then you are thinking for yourself. If your supporting source is someone else saying "This is the answer", then you are not.

It's amazing how many people not only fail to use the first method, but even when it's pointed out to them absolutely can not see how they are different. Remember the whole "facts vs opinion" argument we had some months ago. Amazing how many people could not tell the difference. For most people, opinions they agree with are "facts". They have no objective means by which to tell the difference. That was frankly a bit of a surprise to discover. I've always assumed that most people posting here knew that they were using weak arguments, but did so because it was easier and they had lots of voices supporting them, so they didn't have to make stronger arguments. But that thread made me realize that many posters here apparently just can't tell fact from opinion at all.


Shocking. And it makes critical thinking impossible.