Partly true. Externalities are effects that change the value of goods for persons not engaged in a transaction, of which regulation is an example. (I want clean air and water; I don't care about your process for manufacturing widgets. Widgets are not my concern, but I get my clean air and water, and your widgets are more expensive, a negative externality for you.) Calling government regulation a force outside the market is missing the entire point.
By introducing or maintaining government regulators, however, you open the doors for regulatory capture, and the operating market is the competition for influence over regulators, rather than the open market.
uh, supply and demand is truly only to account for price.
No. Supply and demand account for value, not price. Price is given in some other good for which the determination of value is separate and distinct. During periods of high inflation, it's not goods becoming scarcer or demand increasing that changes the amount you pay for them. Supply and demand change the value of the currency during periods of inflation or deflation, changing prices throughout the market.
It doesn't account for availability and/or sustainability,
Actually, it does. It's called supply.
and was never intended to do so.
It was never intended to do anything. The law of supply and demand was not created by direct human action with any intentions; it has been observed to be true.
Virii is not a word. If you really feel you must use a Latin plural, use vira, but Latin had no plural for virus. If it had one though, it would most likely have been vira. (Neuter second declension nouns ending in -us were extremely rare and there existed several conflicting plural formations. The ending -ii however only exists for masculine or feminine nouns ending in -ius.) Had it been masculine, the plural would be viri (the closest word to virii), but it was neuter and viri means “men” or “man’s” (plural nominative or singular genitive/possessive of vir).
I don't care what crackpots send you emails, but what linked to does not refute anything I said. It says that it may be useful for mild post-operative pain (similar to placebo). (My preferred post-operative pain treatment is bourbon, but pick your own poison.) if acupuncture is so effective for pain relief, try using it during an operation. Try having a tooth pulled with acupuncture and gas or novacaine.
If I'm going to get a placebo for something, I'll take a pill rather than be a pincushion for some nutjob that rejects germ theory for some vitalistic prescientific bullshit.
Nah, they're reducing everything but the EU budget, but it's pretty even across the board. Their expert panel recommended against continued funding for quackery but Parliament are the experts at patronage, and kept it in.
In them, test subjects were given real opiate pain meds, and/or placebo opiates, in various combinations. After about a week of getting used to the drugs, then either a chemical which blocks opiate uptake in the brain was administered, or a placebo version of it.
What, pray tell, is a placebo opiate?
No one is really sure why, but the real blocker blocked either the real opiates or the placebos from relieving the pain equally well, and the placebo version of the blocker most often didn't work on either, but where it did, it was about equally likely to block real opiates and let the placebo versions still work, or vice versa. Various versions of this experiment have gotten many rather quirky results, but never ones that really make sense by any known theory of how placebos work.
Actually, no. Pain cannot be measured or quantified on any absolute scale, and clinical trials require (subjective) self-reported approximations of pain, and that leads to non-uniformity of results. (There are many other reasons, but this one of the simplest. Placebo effects are fairly well understood.)
Saying that people do it "willingly" is meaningless when the problem at hand is that people are being manipulated and lied to.
Sorry, but the problem being people manipulated and lied to would cause a recursive witch-hunt into the history of mankind. The problem is not people being manipulated and lied to. The problem is people being too credulous.
No, there is no health benefit to acupuncture, homopathy, or chiropractic. There is no research indicating these modalities are as effective or more effective than conventional medicine.
Alternative medicine that works is just called medicine.
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely...
As I quote you, from the first point you brought their name up: "Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist."
In the part above, you're correct.
This is argument of the form "A's name contains X, therefore A is a type of X." This is exactly what you're now saying you didn't do.
In this part, you're not. I did not imply a logical conclusion in that statement. It was a declaratory statement of fact.
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations.
Of which you are apparently ignorant.
Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism,
And to federalism, local democratic institutions, and numerous other things you don't identify.
to trade unions,
Hahahaha. Go read more about the origins of fascism. It arose from the labor movement everywhere it's been tried.
and to any other socialist groups that operate in their respective countries.
Fascist parties which do not so identify explicitly state that they are against socialism generally.
Yes, they said (and say) many things. That doesn't make them true. They opposed other parties and agitated for a one-party state, like other totalitarians.
Both types are anti-socialist, but the ones with "socialist" in their name can't admit it because it would make them look stupid, so they work around that by specifically criticizing every form of actual socialism.
No, they criticized the existence of other parties.
You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists.
Christ, do I have to quote you back to yourself again? "They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists."
That does not imply deduction or causation. That was to refute your previous post:
If fascism is a form of socialism, how come every single fascist party everywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist?
Not a single fascist party anywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist without redefining socialist to mean something extremely vague.
This was your entire post, so you appear to find what they called themselves persuasive. As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
Yes, and then you diverted from whether or not fascism is socialist to whether or not they were antisocialist.
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
No, you brought it full circle. Congratulations. May you continue to think the entire world revolves around your prejudices and that political philosophies cannot be subjected to rational taxonomy.
I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
Which is the definition of socialist only in a right-wing fantasyland. Marxist socialism advocates for worker control of the means of production. Democratic socialism advocates for private control of the means of production accompanied by a strong welfare state and strong regulation.
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely and the second because you said
If fascism is a form of socialism, how come every single fascist party everywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist?
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations. You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists. I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
Celebrating saving $1 trillion over 10 years for the US government is like being on a 10-minute diet while you're in the bathroom and celebrating the tremendous accomplishment when looking at the scales.
That's not the bureaucratic definition. That's a practical definition. (The bureaucratic definition is either 50 miles or 76 miles, depending on whether you're coming or going. (No, I'm not kidding; NASA calls it spaceflight once you get above 50 miles, but reëntry (end of spaceflight) occurs when descending to 76 miles.) You seriously misunderestimate the stupidity and omnipresence of the bureaucratic mentality if you think they could adopt anything so practical a definition as the approximate boundary where ends most atmospheric drag.)
Umm, no. NY State is about the size of England and half of Wales. You don't casually go to the opposite side of the state. (I live halfway between NYC and Buffalo; I don't go to either on the weekend.)
Nazis went after every type of political ideologue around them. No major political party since then has called itself fascist either. Falangists never called themselves fascists, either, but their ideology also arose from the nationalist syndicalist movement, an early branch off of socialist labor ideology, like the original Italian Fascist Party.
What a party names itself, however, is not a good indicator of the party's ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
Partly true.
Externalities are effects that change the value of goods for persons not engaged in a transaction, of which regulation is an example. (I want clean air and water; I don't care about your process for manufacturing widgets. Widgets are not my concern, but I get my clean air and water, and your widgets are more expensive, a negative externality for you.) Calling government regulation a force outside the market is missing the entire point.
By introducing or maintaining government regulators, however, you open the doors for regulatory capture, and the operating market is the competition for influence over regulators, rather than the open market.
uh, supply and demand is truly only to account for price.
No. Supply and demand account for value, not price. Price is given in some other good for which the determination of value is separate and distinct. During periods of high inflation, it's not goods becoming scarcer or demand increasing that changes the amount you pay for them. Supply and demand change the value of the currency during periods of inflation or deflation, changing prices throughout the market.
It doesn't account for availability and/or sustainability,
Actually, it does. It's called supply.
and was never intended to do so.
It was never intended to do anything. The law of supply and demand was not created by direct human action with any intentions; it has been observed to be true.
Virii is not a word. If you really feel you must use a Latin plural, use vira, but Latin had no plural for virus. If it had one though, it would most likely have been vira. (Neuter second declension nouns ending in -us were extremely rare and there existed several conflicting plural formations. The ending -ii however only exists for masculine or feminine nouns ending in -ius.) Had it been masculine, the plural would be viri (the closest word to virii), but it was neuter and viri means “men” or “man’s” (plural nominative or singular genitive/possessive of vir).
You should fix that to “less than lethal” or better yet “mostly harmless.”
James Randi, hallowed be his name, is irrelevant. Congratulations. You know how throw in non sequiturs.
I don't care what crackpots send you emails, but what linked to does not refute anything I said. It says that it may be useful for mild post-operative pain (similar to placebo). (My preferred post-operative pain treatment is bourbon, but pick your own poison.) if acupuncture is so effective for pain relief, try using it during an operation. Try having a tooth pulled with acupuncture and gas or novacaine.
If I'm going to get a placebo for something, I'll take a pill rather than be a pincushion for some nutjob that rejects germ theory for some vitalistic prescientific bullshit.
Nah, they're reducing everything but the EU budget, but it's pretty even across the board. Their expert panel recommended against continued funding for quackery but Parliament are the experts at patronage, and kept it in.
Thank you. I thought I was going crazy.
Or because they're bullshit, well researched (and debunked), and spuriously claimed anyway by malevolent or ignorant and naïve charlatans.
In them, test subjects were given real opiate pain meds, and/or placebo opiates, in various combinations. After about a week of getting used to the drugs, then either a chemical which blocks opiate uptake in the brain was administered, or a placebo version of it.
What, pray tell, is a placebo opiate?
No one is really sure why, but the real blocker blocked either the real opiates or the placebos from relieving the pain equally well, and the placebo version of the blocker most often didn't work on either, but where it did, it was about equally likely to block real opiates and let the placebo versions still work, or vice versa. Various versions of this experiment have gotten many rather quirky results, but never ones that really make sense by any known theory of how placebos work.
Actually, no. Pain cannot be measured or quantified on any absolute scale, and clinical trials require (subjective) self-reported approximations of pain, and that leads to non-uniformity of results. (There are many other reasons, but this one of the simplest. Placebo effects are fairly well understood.)
Saying that people do it "willingly" is meaningless when the problem at hand is that people are being manipulated and lied to.
Sorry, but the problem being people manipulated and lied to would cause a recursive witch-hunt into the history of mankind. The problem is not people being manipulated and lied to. The problem is people being too credulous.
No, they talked about it, but they are still funding homopathy.
No, there is no health benefit to acupuncture, homopathy, or chiropractic. There is no research indicating these modalities are as effective or more effective than conventional medicine.
Alternative medicine that works is just called medicine.
They may not like being discredited, but they have been discredited time and time again. They have no scientific basis.
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely...
As I quote you, from the first point you brought their name up: "Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist."
In the part above, you're correct.
This is argument of the form "A's name contains X, therefore A is a type of X." This is exactly what you're now saying you didn't do.
In this part, you're not. I did not imply a logical conclusion in that statement. It was a declaratory statement of fact.
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations.
Of which you are apparently ignorant.
Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism,
And to federalism, local democratic institutions, and numerous other things you don't identify.
to trade unions,
Hahahaha. Go read more about the origins of fascism. It arose from the labor movement everywhere it's been tried.
and to any other socialist groups that operate in their respective countries.
Fascist parties which do not so identify explicitly state that they are against socialism generally.
Yes, they said (and say) many things. That doesn't make them true. They opposed other parties and agitated for a one-party state, like other totalitarians.
Both types are anti-socialist, but the ones with "socialist" in their name can't admit it because it would make them look stupid, so they work around that by specifically criticizing every form of actual socialism.
No, they criticized the existence of other parties.
You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists.
Christ, do I have to quote you back to yourself again? "They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists."
That does not imply deduction or causation. That was to refute your previous post:
If fascism is a form of socialism, how come every single fascist party everywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist?
Not a single fascist party anywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist without redefining socialist to mean something extremely vague.
This was your entire post, so you appear to find what they called themselves persuasive. As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
Yes, and then you diverted from whether or not fascism is socialist to whether or not they were antisocialist.
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
No, you brought it full circle. Congratulations. May you continue to think the entire world revolves around your prejudices and that political philosophies cannot be subjected to rational taxonomy.
I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
Which is the definition of socialist only in a right-wing fantasyland. Marxist socialism advocates for worker control of the means of production. Democratic socialism advocates for private control of the means of production accompanied by a strong welfare state and strong regulation.
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely and the second because you said
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations. You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists. I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
As long as you have a deliverable address, you mind sharing it?
Celebrating saving $1 trillion over 10 years for the US government is like being on a 10-minute diet while you're in the bathroom and celebrating the tremendous accomplishment when looking at the scales.
Yes, I understand the reasons for the nuanced meaning, but it still prevents the bureaucracy from defining a boundary.
That's not the bureaucratic definition. That's a practical definition. (The bureaucratic definition is either 50 miles or 76 miles , depending on whether you're coming or going. (No, I'm not kidding; NASA calls it spaceflight once you get above 50 miles, but reëntry (end of spaceflight) occurs when descending to 76 miles.) You seriously misunderestimate the stupidity and omnipresence of the bureaucratic mentality if you think they could adopt anything so practical a definition as the approximate boundary where ends most atmospheric drag.)
Actually, there is. It's called the Kármán line, and it's 62 miles or 100 kilometers.
Umm, no. NY State is about the size of England and half of Wales. You don't casually go to the opposite side of the state. (I live halfway between NYC and Buffalo; I don't go to either on the weekend.)
I say "London, England" when I'm referring to that one, because I've never been there, but I have been to three other Londons.
Nazis went after every type of political ideologue around them. No major political party since then has called itself fascist either. Falangists never called themselves fascists, either, but their ideology also arose from the nationalist syndicalist movement, an early branch off of socialist labor ideology, like the original Italian Fascist Party.
What a party names itself, however, is not a good indicator of the party's ideology.
If that's socialism, then WTF is Washington D.C.'s $5.55 spent by the federal government for every $1 of tax collected there?