Mortgage crisis impacting the world economy

[ParanoiA]

I've not suggested any further actions so you can't portray my position as a slippery slope. I believe each economic control action has to be looked at independently.

 

But the slippery slope is the logic you're using to justify your position. Your position seems to come from the idea that if what I do, economically, hurts you, then I shouldn't be able to do it. Now, I realize you didn't put forth that logic, that logic was inferred by your position.

 

So, now I'm wondering if you're using any particular logic in your position, and if this logic extends beyond this position. If not, why not?

 

Because you're using me as a platform for ideological spin-doctoring, in addition to failing to acknowledge other people's valid points when they're made. And I don't appreciate it. And it's not how we do things here.

 

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but isn't a valid point a subjective thing? Also, why is it so bad to argue with you about your views? Maybe you didn't want to do that, but you did post them...

[Pangloss]

But the slippery slope is the logic you're using to justify your position. Your position seems to come from the idea that if what I do, economically, hurts you, then I shouldn't be able to do it. Now, I realize you didn't put forth that logic, that logic was inferred by your position.

 

No, I'm justifying one specific action on the specific consequences that that one specific action would have had. Had that action been taken, the consequences would have been less dire. There's not one shred of slippery slope reasoning in sight of that argument.

 

I'm not arguing that anything you do that hurts me needs to be regulated. That's what pisses me off about Hammer8's spin-doctoring of my posts. My argument is that each specific action needs to be weighed with the idea in mind that intervention MAY be necessary.

 

That's why people pull that BS, because it works on observers who are only half paying attention. They do it, half the readers catch it and ignore it, but a few people will miss it and jump on the bandwagon, and thus the herd of blind followers is increased.

 

Sorry, not interested, and I'm not going to allow that "debate" method to be utilized here towards ANY member of this forum. Period.

 

 

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but isn't a valid point a subjective thing? Also, why is it so bad to argue with you about your views? Maybe you didn't want to do that, but you did post them...

 

It isn't. What's bad is the deliberate misrepresentation, the disrespect, the perjorative dismissals of personal opinions, the use of the straw man, etc. See above.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not arguing that anything you do that hurts me needs to be regulated. That's what pisses me off about Hammer8's spin-doctoring of my posts. My argument is that each specific action needs to be weighed with the idea in mind that intervention MAY be necessary.

 

That's why people pull that BS' date=' because it works on observers who are only half paying attention. They do it, half the readers catch it and ignore it, but a few people will miss it and jump on the bandwagon, and thus the herd of blind followers is increased. [/quote']

 

Actually I got it from you:

 

Better the free to make those mistakes and to learn from them than to abdicate all personal responsibility to an encompassing state.

 

Sure. Just so long as your mistakes don't hurt me.

 

I know that's not all you said, but I'm not asking you about that, I'm asking you why you don't believe you should be consistent with this notion. How is "specific action on the specific consequences" not just patching holes in bad logic? And is that tied in with your seeming compromise sought right out of the gate rather than respectable contest?

[Pangloss]

I am being consistent. I think when people's mistakes hurt other people government has a right and a duty to investigate and decide whether or not intervention in future acts of that kind are necessary. That doesn't mean it should always step in.

 

I've said this three times now. The least you can do is have the courtesy to acknowledge that that is my opinion rather than trying to convince everyone that I meant something else (something more suitable to your agenda).