You're the one who keeps trying to define this within the context of capitalism,
When did this happen outside of the echoing confines of your skull?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- War and Peace theory of shopping.
War and Peace theory of shopping.Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
When it didn't benefit his political party as much as the opposition.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
ITT: Gbaji doesn't know how free markets work.
Just as Planned.
"In this thread", nothin'.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Adding the second part of the sentence you quoted, since it's kinda relevant.
When you jumped into a argument about whether the boycott was an example of capitalism or socialism and repeatedly chose to talk only about capitalism and how it related to the subject at hand. Do you just forget what you wrote earlier or something?
Smasharoo wrote:
You're the one who keeps trying to define this within the context of capitalism, while carefully avoiding mentioning the 800lb socialist gorilla in the room.
When did this happen outside of the echoing confines of your skull?
When did this happen outside of the echoing confines of your skull?
When you jumped into a argument about whether the boycott was an example of capitalism or socialism and repeatedly chose to talk only about capitalism and how it related to the subject at hand. Do you just forget what you wrote earlier or something?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
When you jumped into a argument about whether the boycott was an example of capitalism or socialism and repeatedly chose to talk only about capitalism and how it related to the subject at hand. Do you just forget what you wrote earlier or something?
Well not since you quoted them here...oh wait.
Well not since you quoted them here...oh wait.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji used to be smarter than this. 
Baby, what caused the brain damage?
Baby, what caused the brain damage?Smasharoo wrote:
When you jumped into a argument about whether the boycott was an example of capitalism or socialism and repeatedly chose to talk only about capitalism and how it related to the subject at hand. Do you just forget what you wrote earlier or something?
Well not since you quoted them here...oh wait.
Well not since you quoted them here...oh wait.
I'm not going to quote the entire conversation.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm not going to quote the entire conversation.
No, and certainly not the presumably easy to establish parts that make your point. Here, I'll help you out, I think this is what you were referring to:
Quote:
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Baby, what caused the brain damage?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not going to quote the entire conversation.
No, and certainly not the presumably easy to establish parts that make your point. Here, I'll help you out, I think this is what you were referring to:
Quote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not going to quote the entire conversation.
No, and certainly not the presumably easy to establish parts that make your point.
Like the whole thread? Why quote it? Alla's already collected it into a thread for you to read. You want to pretend that you didn't jump in and defend the "boycott is capitalism in action, so why do you have a problem with it?" argument, you're free to do that. Don't drag me into your delusion though.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
A choice NOT to buy something is just as important to liberty as a choice TO buy something that you like, for whatever reason.
So a boycott is totally a capitalist maneuver, no matter why you are boycotting a product or a store. It might be because the service is bad there. Or their stuff is awful/breaks a lot/is not good value for money. Or it may be any other number of consumer discontents with the product, like you don't want to buy garlic from China that has been bleached white, or diamonds from Africa that are funding a civil war, or it's from a company that has been caught illegally dumping asbestos.
Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 6:57pm by Aripyanfar
So a boycott is totally a capitalist maneuver, no matter why you are boycotting a product or a store. It might be because the service is bad there. Or their stuff is awful/breaks a lot/is not good value for money. Or it may be any other number of consumer discontents with the product, like you don't want to buy garlic from China that has been bleached white, or diamonds from Africa that are funding a civil war, or it's from a company that has been caught illegally dumping asbestos.
Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 6:57pm by Aripyanfar
Aripyanfar wrote:
A choice NOT to buy something is just as important to liberty as a choice TO buy something that you like, for whatever reason.
Correct. But being free to buy or not buy something isn't a defining attribute of capitalism. It's something which may be present under capitalism (or any of a number of other economic systems), but isn't itself "capitalism".
Quote:
So a boycott is totally a capitalist maneuver, no matter why you are boycotting a product or a store.
No, it's not. I'm just not sure how much more clearly I can state this. What you're doing (several of you actually) is confusing a component of something with the thing itself. It's like saying that because a brick house is made out of bricks, that a brick is therefor a brick house. It's not. It's a brick. It can be used to build a brick house, or it could be used for something else.
Quote:
It might be because the service is bad there. Or their stuff is awful/breaks a lot/is not good value for money. Or it may be any other number of consumer discontents with the product, like you don't want to buy garlic from China that has been bleached white, or diamonds from Africa that are funding a civil war, or it's from a company that has been caught illegally dumping asbestos.
Sure, which is why it's far more relevant to look at the motivation for the boycott than to declare that a boycott is an application of capitalism and thus anyone who likes capitalism shouldn't have a problem with the boycott. The boycott is in support of a socialist mandate, thus anyone participating in said boycott is promoting socialism, not capitalism. The motivation matters. It's arguably all that matters in this case.
Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 6:57pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Correct. But being free to buy or not buy something isn't a defining attribute of capitalism. It's something which may be present under capitalism (or any of a number of other economic systems), but isn't itself "capitalism".
No. It's the free market. You know, as individual agents being free to interact or not interact with the market in a fashion they see fit. For any reason whatsoever. No justification needed, because; freedom.That free market.
So no, it has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a dystopian socialist dream theater.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
No. It's the free market. You know, as individual agents being free to interact or not interact with the market in a fashion they see fit. For any reason whatsoever. No justification needed, because; freedom.That free market.
Kinda like how voting for your king means you live in a democracy, right?
Edited, Mar 25th 2013 4:19pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
No. It's the free market. You know, as individual agents being free to interact or not interact with the market in a fashion they see fit. For any reason whatsoever. No justification needed, because; freedom.That free market.
Kinda like how voting for your king means you live in a democracy, right?
Edited, Mar 25th 2013 4:19pm by gbaji
Right, because you elect a hereditary ruler for who rules for life.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
No. It's the free market. You know, as individual agents being free to interact or not interact with the market in a fashion they see fit. For any reason whatsoever. No justification needed, because; freedom.That free market.
Kinda like how voting for your king means you live in a democracy, right?
Right, because you elect a hereditary ruler for who rules for life.
/whoosh!
Just because you are making a choice doesn't mean that whatever system is applicable to you and your choice is defined by the presence of such choices. Making a purchasing choice doesn't mean that you've got a free market. Making a choice of leaders doesn't mean that you've got a democracy. I didn't think I'd have to spell this out.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Nor does government regulation or requirements completely negate the concept of a free market. And the customer choice to purchase or not purchase pizza from a specific vendor when all vendors are under the same umbrella of regulation is, in fact, a free consumer decision.
He probably didn't "get it" because your comparison was so heavy-handed as to be absurd.
He probably didn't "get it" because your comparison was so heavy-handed as to be absurd.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
**** this noise, I'm on to the Brothers Karamazov theory of shopping.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel you just don't get it. The very existence of government is an anathema to freedom. Laws, regulations, and taxes are the cages and bonds that bind you, forever preventing you from being truly free.
Just as Planned.
Samira wrote:
@#%^ this noise, I'm on to the Brothers Karamazov theory of shopping.
I think another of Dostoevsky's works embodies this conversation better.
Edited, Mar 25th 2013 10:29pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
The Idiot. Oo, oo, it's The Idiot, isn't it?*
*I didn't like The Idiot at all. It was SO depressing.
*I didn't like The Idiot at all. It was SO depressing.
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel you just don't get it. The very existence of government is an anathema to freedom. Laws, regulations, and taxes are the cages and bonds that bind you, forever preventing you from being truly free.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
Nor does government regulation or requirements completely negate the concept of a free market.
Correct. I never said otherwise.
Quote:
And the customer choice to purchase or not purchase pizza from a specific vendor when all vendors are under the same umbrella of regulation is, in fact, a free consumer decision.
Sure. In the same way that moving my arms around is a free decision as well. But if I do so in such a way as to impact my closed fist with someone's face, we call that harmful, while if I do so in order to perform CPR on someone and save their life, we call it helpful. The objective and end result kinda do matter here. Ignoring the objective and desired end result of someone choosing to boycott a store's product and just declaring it "capitalism" is somewhat meaningless. You're attempting to claim that no one who agrees with capitalism should disagree with the boycott, but that's just silly. Why it's being done matters more than what you're doing in this case.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 301
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (301)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- War and Peace theory of shopping.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC