CQ wrote:
>In a previous post, flip said...
>
>
>
>>That doesn't make sense. If the price was fixed at something other than
>>the market level, once you remove the fixing, the price should adjust.
>>
>>
>
>Um, no. The price will remain where it was fixed unless the people who
>colluded to fix it co-operate in bringing it down. This is a concept so
>simple it is hard to imagine you don't really grasp it and I have to
>think you are merely being obstinate for the sake of argument.
>
>
>
>>I see you haven't been able to come up with any rational arguments.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that wasn't an argument, flip, but a sarcastic comment on your
>blind acceptance on the RIAA's "party line". I see it went over your
>head.
>
>It is hard to counter irrational statements such as yours with rational
>arguments, flip, although many have succeeded in doing so lately.
>Apparently you are either just too stupid or too blinded by the light of
>your own perceived moral superiority to see this.
>
>
>
>>Sorry, people who steal music aren't 'perfectly law abiding and morally
>>upright".
>>
>>
>
>Do you not understand the meaning of the word "otherwise" or are you
>again just being obstreperous for the sake of perpetuating an argument?
>
>
>
>>The price is lower than it's ever been after adjusting for inflation.
>>
>>
>
>That is simply not true, not in the case that Mr.Jones cited for one
>example. Others would be easy to come up with but that one will do to
>expose your statement as typically untrue. You just go ahead and say
>things, don't you? They don't need to be true or even a little bit true,
>you just toss them out and hope they fly and then if they don't you will
>ignore them and go on to something else.
>
>
>
>>I realize that you don't care about people with morality.
>>
>>
>
>Why sure I do flip. I just don't care for people who wear their moral
>superiority on their t-shirts and bumper stickers and think that the
>louder they declare themselves to be morally superior then the more
>morally superior that makes them.
>
>Hypocrites like you, in other words.
>
>
>
>>You're intent
>>on stealing the music
>>
>>
>
>That is an assumption, of course. All my arguments here have been of
>principle, nothing else. Of course, you wouldn't be able to see that.
>
>
>
>>and nothing anyone could possibly say would change
>>that.
>>
>>
>
>Nothing YOU could possibly say at this point would change my opinion of
>anything, flip. You have proven yourself repeatedly to be morally
>bankrupt and have engaged in all manner of morally questionably acts in
>order to get across the point that you are morally superior to the people
>you are speaking down to. Methinks thou dost protest too much, and all
>that.
>
>
>
>>That's not my problem - it's yours.
>>
>>
>
>Well, my biggest problem right now is I am not smart enough to stop from
>arguing with someone who will not consider any other side of an issue
>aside from his own but will engage in deception, obfuscation, side-
>stepping, putting words in other's mouths and other manipulative debating
>tactics in order to perceive some sort of "victory" in what is, after
>all, supposed to be just an exchange of ideas.
>
>I'm going to get over that problem right now, though.
>
>Goodbye.
>
>
Same issue i faced and finally had to surrender to. Logic wins, it's the
emotion that refuses to let it go. You're rational and logical and
taking in all information, even that which disagrees with you. He
seriously is unable to process any information that is not congruent to
his belief system. He seeks the keywords of "steal" "moral" and "anal"
(though i suspect the latter is usually paired with "small boys" in his
scanning). i tried to open his eyes to the world of diverse opinion for
days in another thread. He could not acknowledge that a person who
believes differently about anything could also be morally upstanding or
even law-abiding. His assumption was that to take the side of protesting
the RIAA and other practices associated with it, you are colluding to
perform illegal activities. Nor could he admit a difference between
criminal and civil law-breaking. Well, not for more than a couple days,
as he resorted to "theft" and "stealing" before too long.
Believe me, if you read this, don't pursue any more responses to him. He
takes it as a victory, concluding that surrender means conceding that
we've been wrong the whole time. We know better, so just let him have
his soulless, empty victory. The conceit of the morally pompous makes
them their own best friends, after all. Who else could ever match up,
except maybe God on a good day? And even that is in question, lacking
evidence of Its existence.
Ah, to wax philosophical without being told i'm a morally bankrupt
anarchic hethan. But yeah, give up before you yourself go nuts wondering
how anyone could be that dense.
joe t.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|