Okay, but WalMart?

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

That's opposite what I'm saying.  The thing that I said was not sensible is the statement that it is false that the status quo American does most their shopping at Wal-Mart.

What is a "status quo" American?

[Bartholomew Jones]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is a "status quo" American?

Quit pretending.  Most people in America shop at Wal-Mart.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

That's opposite what I'm saying.  The thing that I said was not sensible is the statement that it is false that the status quo American does most their shopping at Wal-Mart.

"When consumers have to go get something for dinner or immediate use, it's Wal-Mart.  That's where they shop from day to day.  No sensible American will contest that."

I see you've now qualified this with "most"

Do you have numbers to back this claim up?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

"When consumers have to go get something for dinner or immediate use, it's Wal-Mart.  That's where they shop from day to day.  No sensible American will contest that."

I see you've now qualified this with "most"

Do you have numbers to back this claim up?

This isn't in terms of numbers.  It's in terms of culture.

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Quit pretending. 

Quit trolling. Every time I ask you a question about your claim you refuse to answer. That's not acceptable around here.

[Bartholomew Jones]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Quit trolling. Every time I ask you a question about your claim you refuse to answer. That's not acceptable around here.

You people always accuse of trolling when someone has strong faith convictions.  The motive behind trolling is amusement.  My motive is persuasion, in every case, without regard to people like you.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You people always accuse of trolling when someone has strong faith convictions.  The motive behind trolling is amusement.  My motive is persuasion, in every case, without regard to people like you.

Do you prefer I call it 'arguing in bad faith'? How about 'violating the rules of the forum that you agreed to'.

How can you possibly "persuade" when you refuse to back up your claims or even explain what your words mean, then simply insist people believe you because 'you said so'.

You've been exposed to Trump for too long. This is right out of his playbook, and it is pathetic to suggest this argument is based on "faith". Give me a break. 

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You people always accuse of trolling when someone has strong faith convictions.  The motive behind trolling is amusement.  My motive is persuasion, in every case, without regard to people like you.

Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them. On a science forum, backing up assertions when asked is pretty much obligatory.

[Bartholomew Jones]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do you prefer I call it 'arguing in bad faith'? How about 'violating the rules of the forum that you agreed to'.

How can you possibly "persuade" when you refuse to back up your claims or even explain what your words mean, then simply insist people believe you because 'you said so'.

You've been exposed to Trump for too long. This is right out of his playbook, and it is pathetic to suggest this argument is based on "faith". Give me a break. 

You have to do with Trump.  I have to do with truth.

Just now, StringJunky said:

Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them. On a science forum, backing up assertions when asked is pretty much obligatory.

That makes sense when the topic is in terms of statistical questions.  Mine isn't.  I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them. On a science forum, backing up assertions when asked is pretty much obligatory.

That makes sense when the topic is in terms of statistical questions.  Mine isn't.  I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

I'm also accusing corporations in general of faulty business practices.  Also I'm accusing the SEC for not addressing financial statement fraud since the days of Enron, when they did nothing besides implement Sarbanes-Oxley.  They refuse to mandate a secondary audit by a competing public accounting firm to audit the working papers and final audit report of corporate financial statements.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Strong convictions, as well as weak ones are worthless with data to support them.

Think you meant “Without”

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Think you meant “Without”

Yes. It was too late to edit.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You people always accuse of trolling when someone has strong faith convictions.  The motive behind trolling is amusement.  My motive is persuasion, in every case, without regard to people like you.

When dealing in facts, faith isn’t the issue. Having faith the moon is made of cheese carries no weight in a discussion of the moon’s actual composition.

16 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

 

That makes sense when the topic is in terms of statistical questions.  Mine isn't.  I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

Which requires the presentation of evidence. Not faith.

[J.C.MacSwell]

My understanding of anti-trust laws is that they aren't written to eliminate unfair competition, but to guard the state against the worst effects of it,

It's easier to make the case that a corporation is competing unfairly (not necessarily illegally) than breaching anti-trust laws, unless they are clearly and specifically acting illegally,

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My understanding of anti-trust laws is that they aren't written to eliminate unfair competition, but to guard the state against the worst effects of it,

It's easier to make the case that a corporation is competing unfairly (not necessarily illegally) than breaching anti-trust laws, unless they are clearly and specifically acting illegally,

Ah yes, new money, if only we (the landed gentry) could do without it... 😣

Edited December 15, 2020 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm accusing Wal-Mart of breaching Antitrust law.  The evidence is in the shutout of all the proprietor retail stores of yesterday.  Wal-Mart is too massive for arms length businesses to survive without compromising integrity.

!

Moderator Note

This is the most focused of your arguments. Please show how Walmart shut down ALL the small owner-operated stores. Please show how cheating is the only way to compete with Walmart. Otherwise, this is soapboxing (claims without support shouted loudly).

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

When dealing in facts, faith isn’t the issue. Having faith the moon is made of cheese carries no weight in a discussion of the moon’s actual composition.

I'm not using faith as a basis for argument.  I'm accusing zapatos of using it as a basis of bias.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This is the most focused of your arguments. Please show how Walmart shut down ALL the small owner-operated stores. Please show how cheating is the only way to compete with Walmart. Otherwise, this is soapboxing (claims without support shouted loudly).

 

Then crucify it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Then crucify it.

Supporting our arguments is a cross we all must bear.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Then crucify it.

!

Moderator Note

It's rather pointless listening to your arguments if you won't finish them. Please don't start a thread with an argument you're unwilling or unable to support. Thanks for understanding why this is important to us here, and why we feel this methodology gives meaning to our discussions. Otherwise, it's just opinion, which isn't as interesting as a well-supported and reasoned argument (in this case, argument meaning "coherent reasoning designed to support a point of view", as opposed to an angry quarrel).

 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm not using faith as a basis for argument.  I'm accusing zapatos of using it as a basis of bias.

Imagine that...

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Supporting our arguments is a cross we all must bear.

I saw what you did there.

[Bartholomew Jones]

Delete duplication.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[CharonY]

Especially if arguments are based on things that one can simply look up. In this case one would look for e.g. market share for groceries, which is somewhere between 50-60%. If one is not willing to anchor ones argument on any facts, one is basically just making this up. 

[Bartholomew Jones]

 

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Supporting our arguments is a cross we all must bear.

Not so.  Truth, taking strikes is the cross.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Especially if arguments are based on things that one can simply look up. In this case one would look for e.g. market share for groceries, which is somewhere between 50-60%. If one is not willing to anchor ones argument on any facts, one is basically just making this up. 

"Simply looking up," these days, is very unnatural; and against nature.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Not so.

I was calling out the pun about crucifixion and cross-to-bear. It's a humor thing.

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Arguing truth.

Who's truth? Yours? Too subjective.

3 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Taking strikes is the cross.

This is a HORRIBLE way to learn. Doesn't it assume that you can't be wrong? That anyone who gives you a "strike" (argues against your position) is automatically wrong? Doesn't this also compound the mistake by reinforcing that you have to continue in the face of adversity, as opposed to considering you might be wrong?

 

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

"Simply looking up," these days, is very unnatural; and against nature.

I find your lack of curiosity very unnatural.