Erm, no. That thing is the launch pad, it launches the applications (or so it seems to me, I pushed on an icon - it started an application window.) Minimize the window and it disappears. Some are implying that by clicking on the launch pad icon that started the application first time again, it will reopen the minimized window.
So the same icon maximizes a window and starts a new one? This one thing alone is a reason for me to bash Unity over the head with a hammer, and throw it out of my machine (which I did.)
1. My last experience with windows is XP. Never moved on to anything beyond that. That's a good GUI AFAIC.
2. On one of the machines I didn't have any settings, it was a new notebook. On the other I didn't see the icons. I don't know why, but why would I file a bug about something I am not going to use anyway?
3. If I don't see a window icon somewhere for a window, then I minimize it and again, I don't see an icon anywhere, then I assume the window is gone. Closed. If I have to click on the startup link for it again, it means to me I am launching a new instance of the app. If that's not how it works - it's broken from my perspective.
4. Whether my opinion is 'shared by all' or not is really irrelevant, isn't it? I am not 'all'.
To each their own, but by example, tablets and phones deal with the scenarios you're talking about and not in a way that has been around for decade.
- my desktop is not your phone.
"Get off my lawn!" needs a place on the scale.
- certainly, I am no longer the youngest person in the room (too bad for me) but I am not telling you what you should use. I am explaining my choice based on my preference. Is it 'interesting'? I don't know. But I am sure I am not the only one feeling this way.
Have the Ubuntu 11.04 on a couple of machines, but immediately switched to classic desktop on both. This thing is ridiculous, retarded and useless to me. I am not an Apple user, I don't own any iProducts and don't want to in no small part because I absolutely despise their way of doing interfaces. I hate the 'ribbon' garbage as well, BTW.
Anyway, from point of view of a developer, this GUI is a POS. No way I am going to use something that takes a chunk of my screen like that, gets rid of the battery power/network status icons (and whatever else I want to see on the launch bar). I honestly do not have patience to figure out where the application window goes once I attempt to minimize it. Is the window closed then and the application is killed? Is it somewhere on the background, and if so, how do I get it back? Where is the minimized window icon? That crazy search window that pops up only when I want to see the normal menu with the usual items in them - the entire idea of a menu tree is gone?
Anyway, you may want to use your computer as some sort of a weird appliance... I need a predictable, stable system, things should be where I am used to them, not hidden and removed in ways that defy any logic. The minimize/close/maximize window icons will be on the right side of my windows and there will be a normal tree like menu with items where I will find them every time I look there and there will be an icon for every window on the bottom of the screen, period.
A university system that wasn't designed to maximize profit
- false. The university system was always designed to maximize profits. What they did not have was government giving loans left right and center, thus increasing the demand in nominal terms, while destroying the currency and forcing tuition fees up, while simultaneously driving savings and thus the investment capital out to other places, that wanted that capital more and weren't punishing people for success in business. The only driving force behind innovation is need that comes out of the market and causes manufacturers to compete. When you have government money simultaneously increase the demand while shifting supply elsewhere, expect that other place to increase innovation and wealth, while your place only to increase consumption and debt.
- by definition inflation is expansion of monetary supply.
Rising prices are only a symptom of expansion of monetary supply. Inflation is created by counterfeit fiat - government counterfeits the money by printing it without having any backing behind it.
Money can and is printed while prices fall
- yes, this only means that the printing is not fast enough to offset the deflation, which is the preferable state of economic affairs for those, who are not in debt (thus not for governments, but instead for savers) and for consumers, who enjoy lower prices and higher standard of living by having more purchasing power.
This is what USA had in 19 century and what China will have this decade, as they let their currency appreciate and finally can start consuming their own products and stop subsidizing the West.
The rich benefit from society and must support it
- society benefits from the rich much more than they benefit from it.
The 'rich' are a minority, so when they create jobs that employ most of people, they benefit the society. When they organize capital and tools and land and labor to create products that the society needs, they benefit the society.
Any person who creates jobs and products by organizing capital and labor is the real producer and benefits the society much more than anybody who simply ends up working 9-5.
Saying they 'must support it' is ridiculous on the face of it. It's exactly where China finds itself today - giving USA money AND giving it products and getting nothing back but worthless IOUs they can't get rid of without crashing the US bond and dollar.
Must they support US and give it everything (products/money) just because they are the producers and they became rich off of that? Hmmmm. I think very soon they will realize they absolutely do not have to.
It is robbery when the rich do not pay taxes.
- it is robbery when somebody, who benefits society a thousand or maybe a million times more than any other person is forced to pay income taxes.
The kind of societies were the rich don't pay taxes and there is no government do exist on earth, and nobody in his right mind wants to live there.
- there are plenty of places where there are governments and yet the people are not forced to give up their income. Welcome to the real world of competing communities. Lucerne and Hong Kong and Singapore are not really such terrible places to live in. Sure, they have some taxes, but in Lucerne for example you can negotiate to pay 100K a year and then nobody cares what you make at all.
The american rich, with a few notable exceptions, are socipathic egoists who will
- who create jobs and bring products to the market that the rest of 'society' wants and needs?:) You make me cringe.
by lobotomizing government, bring your whole society down.
- I don't live in USA, it's not a free market society, which I personally prefer. It's a centrally planned economy, which is dying. So are most European economies as well. They are dying precisely because they are socialist welfare states where people believe they can live and produce nothing and must be supported by those who do.
This is coming to an abrupt end. If one good thing is to come out of this coming destruction is that the people will be forced to compete and produce again and socialist ideas will be finally shown for what they are - destructive to economy and society.
It will dawn them at some point that being rich in a broken country is less fun than it seems.
- oh, it's really not that bad. In fact during such times most money can be made by providing goods and services for new type of money - real money.
Ever wonder why an education bubble is brewing? Why tuition goes up 15% per year, every year, for decades?
- government money is in it, and like with all other things, that have gov't money in them, prices go up in education as well, while quality goes down, as the market is no longer competitive and is manipulated by the government instead.
The tiny portion of Americans who control the country have made their choice. The rest of us get to suffer the consequences.
- in a democracy (however it's implemented) the mob rules.
The mob has ruled that it wants bread and circuses and it wants somebody else to pay for all that, thus in USA and other Western nations the taxes are 'progressive', there are all these 'safety nets' and somebody else is paying for all of that.
The reason there is huge inflation (money printing) is because those, who are in minority, but who were forced to pay for all of this with very high taxes used an ingenious jiu-jitsu move against those, who are basically robbing them through the power of the majority vote. The 'rich' got into the government (since that's the force that is used against them) and then they used that force to do the opposite in by magnifying the effect of what it was doing in the first place - getting the gov't to grow much further and much faster, and getting ahead of itself and getting away from any sane fiscal policy and getting into a position where debt and printing was the only way to fund it.
Inflation is the counter-balance to the imbalance that is caused by the majority (mob) rule - inflation is taxes upon all, who work 9-5, upon all who have assets denominated in those fiat currencies.
Inflation devalues the currency in which the taxes are paid, and that's the goal - to devalue the currency, because those, who were forced to pay for the majority got sick of it (understandably) and rightfully so as well.
By inflating the money supply, the taxes are paid in devalued money and as long as the real wealth can be transferred around to more productive assets (commodities, foreign businesses, agricultural land), those with more resources can basically reduce the burden placed upon them by this so called 'social obligation' society - bread and circuses culture, welfare state, where those who work must subsidize those who do not.
There is nothing surprising about this, it's all part of the circle of life.
In 2008 no one could predict when exactly they will destroy themselves
- my signature begs to differ, enough people saw the incoming crash with high precision from a number of years before 2008, they saw it specifically because they understood the precise reasons for it.
Frankly, your foam-in-the-mouth pseudological rhetoric seizure made his point rather well. You are just another crazy libertarian, although that's slightly redundant.
- what are you, too lazy to type in your user name / password?
The only 'foam-in-the-mouth' BS is spouted by the appropriately named user Myopic (18616).
As I said, you ARE clear. What you are clear about is how fucked up your thinking is, and you have not a single shred of evidence for any of your claims and you dismiss evidence that is right in your face.
What I was saying is that libertarians were making arguments
- 1. how do you know these were libertarians? I clearly showed the argument I made on the 4th of September in my original comment.
What argument are 'libertarians' making?
2. If somebody who is a libertarian was making an argument, does it mean the argument is part of 'libertarian ideology' in any way?
which fail in the way that libertarians arguments always do.
- So are you saying that all libertarian arguments always fail OR that if a libertarian makes an argument, then this argument is inherently wrong because a libertarian made it?
But you are saying: "always do", which is also a bunch of baloney. As a libertarian I make all kinds of arguments, for example that there should be no government printing of money because this steals value of all money and leads to a financial and an economic collapse. Prove that this argument is wrong.
Here, I will show you a libertarian who made a clear argument in 2005-6 that there will be an economic collapse that will start with the housing bubble bursting.
The video from 2006 is in my signature here, the guy explained in vivid details how and why this will happen. He was betting money on it too, and he was correct on every point.
This proves that your statement that all libertarian arguments are wrong to be false.
These specific arguments, in this thread, were not about the government, but these non-governmental arguments still are vapid, meaningless, and wrong just as governmental libertarian arguments are.
- SHOW ME. Show me which argument made by which person in the comments here are made by libertarian BECAUSE the commenter is a libertarian and the argument should not be just made by a 'libertarian', but be ideological.
Show me, otherwise you are full of crap (which is clear anyway).
Is that the problem?
- 'problem'? No, I am commenting on how full of shit you are, that's all. There is no 'libertarian' argument here at all. You like to say that somebody who is a libertarian made an argument based on libertarian ideology and the argument is wrong because libertarians are always wrong.
This gets moderated '+5'? Just shows how full of crap this place is.
In any case, you have not swayed me
- there is no swaying of you, I know that. You are not swayed because you never had a point in the first place, what you wrote was simply a bunch of nonsense, which you wanted to write REGARDLESS of the story or comments here. You just felt like writing this for whatever reason.
libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
- a bunch of nonsense. YOU are dismissing any argument any 'libertarian' (or whoever you perceive to be a 'libertarian') is making BECAUSE you perceive them to be a 'libertarian'.
To you, 'libertarian' is some sort of a dirty word and you like to use that for political purpose. As I said - it's ok, no kittens are hurt. However you are on a defensive for a reason. You know that you have no logical argument of any kind.
Space aliens are trying to dismiss..." without saying that the aliens were making space-alien-exclusive arguments. It's hard to know if that is exactly what you are objecting to, because I'm not paying very close attention to you.
- you are not paying any attention to anything, that much is clear. To you 'libertarian' and 'space alien' IS the same thing, becuase you couldn't understand either but you like to trash things you do not understand and on/. you get applauded for it.
I think the Slashdot libertarians were making typical libertarian statements that once again ignored the main question of a topic.
- this makes no sense at all./. libertarians were making statements that WHAT? Government wants them to stop eating sugar?
This was a researcher, not a government, government is in fact NOT going alone with him, he is showing that FDA does not go alone with him, because sugar is not an 'acute' toxin, he showed in his video that it was government that promoted use of sugar through the first place in various programs, from 'juice for kids' to basic subsidies to the sugar lobby.
In your blind hatred towards libertarians you are making statements that are totally devoid of any meaning.
I can understand people being against libertarian ideas, but what you are purporting 'libertarians' are saying is 1. not true (as I showed in my first reply), 2. makes no sense, 3. would never make any sense, because there is no reason for a stance that is based on libertarianism against a guy, who is not government and is providing evidence that shows that what government does is wrong.
Again, your comment made no sense, the moderators made no sense, this feels like a twilight zone, but it's OK, one thing is clear: no kittens were hurt during this thread.
Why is everyone parroting the trope that "everything is toxic in large quantities" without asking whether the modern Western diet is above the threshold of excess? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
- OK, that's statement 1.
I feel like the libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
- that's statement 2, which I took for some sort of a 'conclusion', but it's really not, it's an unconnected statement, which has nothing to do with your previous statement (1).
It's like you are taking 2 separate things, putting them together for no reason at all, and this incoherent mess passes for 'insightful' here.
Now you are saying:
the premise that libertarians in this thread are in fact parroting the trope?
- I am telling you with my previous reply: I am a libertarian, it's proven by my quotes I made for other stories, I provided what's called facts.
I am also telling you that I posted a comment many months ago, which references the 'Sugar Bitter Truth' video and I was making an actual libertarian claim, that government is the cause of problems via its regulations and subsidies and that FDA is inefficient. I based this on the video in question - if the presenter of the video is wrong, then my conclusions were wrong, otherwise they are correct and I am not a nutritionist.
When I first opened this thread there were about a dozen posts shown, and nine or ten of them were all saying "this is stupid! anything is toxic in extreme quantities, therefore this guy is an idiot!" But of course, I'm sure you'll agree, that doesn't make any sense.
- the ONLY thing that I will agree to is that YOUR statement that those people are 'libertarian' or that they are basing their comments on some 'libertarian' ideology is a load of crap.
Re:Sugar is not only toxic but it's addictive.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Fruits are loaded with sucrose, glucose, fructose, and dextrose. Are you telling people not to eat fruit?
- and if you and those who moderated your comment watched the video, you would have known that consuming sugar in form of fruits is fine, because with fruits you consume fiber, which moderates sugar intake.
Your comment should be moderated 'ignorant', not 'informative'.
Here is a small subset of comments to prove my libertarian position 1234567 and you can certainly find many more.
So how come your conclusion is so highly accepted here (5Insightful) in the face of it being obviously erroneous and having all qualities of a flamebait I wonder?
First of all, classical Keynesian economics was pretty much the default until the mid-seventies in every western country, including the US.
- and so? Your point is? They are all fucked up, no question about it.
Secondly, you defined "Keynesian" above - or implied it - as including pretty much all mainstream economics, whether they believe in classical Keynesian, Neo-Keynesianism, or Monetarism, or any of the other offshoots.
- anything that is promoting inflation, again, your point is?
you did this when you responded to the point that deflation is considered by economics as a disaster by implying that such economists are "Keynesian" and somehow as stupid as astrologists. And that's OK, because actually virtually all mainstream economic theories are built on Keynesianism, which isn't anything like as discredited as some like to pretend.
- the entire economic and monetary outcome that is hitting the West, starting with USA (EU maybe will return to the sound money, who knows) is just a real proof of how void of any value the Keynesian ideas are.
I don't think you'll find many economists (or anyone else for that matter) who agree that depressions (which is what a period of deflation is) are a great thing.
- a load of crap.
Deflation was the normal state of affairs in USA in 19 century, as its dollar was appreciating in value by factor of 2, and nobody can claim that USA was anything but productive, extremely innovative. It became world's largest producer and creditor while in monetary deflation, and it provided its citizens with the highest level of wealth out of all other countries within that time frame.
Your example you gave then is meaningless, because it clearly wasn't the case in 19 century USA, while the money was deflating people created the most manufacturing jobs than ever before, invented the most stuff than ever before, created the most goods and prices were constantly falling.
You are wrong on historic facts.
Deflation kills business. It's as simple as that.
- load of crap. USA paid out all of its creditors in during the 19 century after building an entire manufacturing industry and became largest producer and debt free - that was the ultimate win for deflation, as deflation forced people to want to repay their debts, unlike what is happening now - when they simply want to print them away.
Deflation helps one group of people, and one group alone: people who hoard green pieces of paper.
- I guess all those people, who buy stuff cheaper year to year are not helped at all then. I guess it's a terrible thing that food and clothing and energy and other products became cheaper year to year, must have hurt those poor people like hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, no. That thing is the launch pad, it launches the applications (or so it seems to me, I pushed on an icon - it started an application window.) Minimize the window and it disappears. Some are implying that by clicking on the launch pad icon that started the application first time again, it will reopen the minimized window.
So the same icon maximizes a window and starts a new one? This one thing alone is a reason for me to bash Unity over the head with a hammer, and throw it out of my machine (which I did.)
not on my machines they are not.
No. Difference of opinion only happens when there is some logic that can be applied to discern a legitimate opinion, in your case it does not apply.
Yes. Eclipse guys figured it out some time ago with perspectives. That makes too much sense, so it won't be done.
(BTW, Eclipse guys, WTF with the GNU/Linux version REQUIRING Java 1.5 to run? JRE 1.6 won't do, you must have 1.5?! Shit!)
Yes, I want to see this guy suck the tiniest cock on the Internet. Pffft. Isn't there a website for that, which is not /.?
1. My last experience with windows is XP. Never moved on to anything beyond that. That's a good GUI AFAIC.
2. On one of the machines I didn't have any settings, it was a new notebook. On the other I didn't see the icons. I don't know why, but why would I file a bug about something I am not going to use anyway?
3. If I don't see a window icon somewhere for a window, then I minimize it and again, I don't see an icon anywhere, then I assume the window is gone. Closed. If I have to click on the startup link for it again, it means to me I am launching a new instance of the app. If that's not how it works - it's broken from my perspective.
4. Whether my opinion is 'shared by all' or not is really irrelevant, isn't it? I am not 'all'.
Oh, I wonder what you'd say if you saw my mobile phone with nothing on it but buttons.
this looks more like a tiny cock is being swirled around the guy's mouth rather than tiny tongue. It looks strange at best.
He should put some money into designing an anatomically correct, dynamic mouth replica for this, not toy around with a straw.
To each their own, but by example, tablets and phones deal with the scenarios you're talking about and not in a way that has been around for decade.
- my desktop is not your phone.
"Get off my lawn!" needs a place on the scale.
- certainly, I am no longer the youngest person in the room (too bad for me) but I am not telling you what you should use. I am explaining my choice based on my preference. Is it 'interesting'? I don't know. But I am sure I am not the only one feeling this way.
? that's the dumbest reply to my comment here yet, I never used Vista.
Have the Ubuntu 11.04 on a couple of machines, but immediately switched to classic desktop on both. This thing is ridiculous, retarded and useless to me. I am not an Apple user, I don't own any iProducts and don't want to in no small part because I absolutely despise their way of doing interfaces. I hate the 'ribbon' garbage as well, BTW.
Anyway, from point of view of a developer, this GUI is a POS. No way I am going to use something that takes a chunk of my screen like that, gets rid of the battery power/network status icons (and whatever else I want to see on the launch bar). I honestly do not have patience to figure out where the application window goes once I attempt to minimize it. Is the window closed then and the application is killed? Is it somewhere on the background, and if so, how do I get it back? Where is the minimized window icon? That crazy search window that pops up only when I want to see the normal menu with the usual items in them - the entire idea of a menu tree is gone?
Anyway, you may want to use your computer as some sort of a weird appliance... I need a predictable, stable system, things should be where I am used to them, not hidden and removed in ways that defy any logic. The minimize/close/maximize window icons will be on the right side of my windows and there will be a normal tree like menu with items where I will find them every time I look there and there will be an icon for every window on the bottom of the screen, period.
A university system that wasn't designed to maximize profit
- false. The university system was always designed to maximize profits. What they did not have was government giving loans left right and center, thus increasing the demand in nominal terms, while destroying the currency and forcing tuition fees up, while simultaneously driving savings and thus the investment capital out to other places, that wanted that capital more and weren't punishing people for success in business. The only driving force behind innovation is need that comes out of the market and causes manufacturers to compete. When you have government money simultaneously increase the demand while shifting supply elsewhere, expect that other place to increase innovation and wealth, while your place only to increase consumption and debt.
blah blah blah says some AC.
. Prinitng money does not equal inflation.
- by definition inflation is expansion of monetary supply.
Rising prices are only a symptom of expansion of monetary supply. Inflation is created by counterfeit fiat - government counterfeits the money by printing it without having any backing behind it.
Money can and is printed while prices fall
- yes, this only means that the printing is not fast enough to offset the deflation, which is the preferable state of economic affairs for those, who are not in debt (thus not for governments, but instead for savers) and for consumers, who enjoy lower prices and higher standard of living by having more purchasing power.
This is what USA had in 19 century and what China will have this decade, as they let their currency appreciate and finally can start consuming their own products and stop subsidizing the West.
The rich benefit from society and must support it
- society benefits from the rich much more than they benefit from it.
The 'rich' are a minority, so when they create jobs that employ most of people, they benefit the society. When they organize capital and tools and land and labor to create products that the society needs, they benefit the society.
Any person who creates jobs and products by organizing capital and labor is the real producer and benefits the society much more than anybody who simply ends up working 9-5.
Saying they 'must support it' is ridiculous on the face of it. It's exactly where China finds itself today - giving USA money AND giving it products and getting nothing back but worthless IOUs they can't get rid of without crashing the US bond and dollar.
Must they support US and give it everything (products/money) just because they are the producers and they became rich off of that? Hmmmm. I think very soon they will realize they absolutely do not have to.
It is robbery when the rich do not pay taxes.
- it is robbery when somebody, who benefits society a thousand or maybe a million times more than any other person is forced to pay income taxes.
The kind of societies were the rich don't pay taxes and there is no government do exist on earth, and nobody in his right mind wants to live there.
- there are plenty of places where there are governments and yet the people are not forced to give up their income. Welcome to the real world of competing communities. Lucerne and Hong Kong and Singapore are not really such terrible places to live in. Sure, they have some taxes, but in Lucerne for example you can negotiate to pay 100K a year and then nobody cares what you make at all.
The american rich, with a few notable exceptions, are socipathic egoists who will
- who create jobs and bring products to the market that the rest of 'society' wants and needs? :) You make me cringe.
by lobotomizing government, bring your whole society down.
- I don't live in USA, it's not a free market society, which I personally prefer. It's a centrally planned economy, which is dying. So are most European economies as well. They are dying precisely because they are socialist welfare states where people believe they can live and produce nothing and must be supported by those who do.
This is coming to an abrupt end. If one good thing is to come out of this coming destruction is that the people will be forced to compete and produce again and socialist ideas will be finally shown for what they are - destructive to economy and society.
It will dawn them at some point that being rich in a broken country is less fun than it seems.
- oh, it's really not that bad. In fact during such times most money can be made by providing goods and services for new type of money - real money.
Anyway, good night.
Ever wonder why an education bubble is brewing? Why tuition goes up 15% per year, every year, for decades?
- government money is in it, and like with all other things, that have gov't money in them, prices go up in education as well, while quality goes down, as the market is no longer competitive and is manipulated by the government instead.
The tiny portion of Americans who control the country have made their choice. The rest of us get to suffer the consequences.
- in a democracy (however it's implemented) the mob rules.
The mob has ruled that it wants bread and circuses and it wants somebody else to pay for all that, thus in USA and other Western nations the taxes are 'progressive', there are all these 'safety nets' and somebody else is paying for all of that.
The reason there is huge inflation (money printing) is because those, who are in minority, but who were forced to pay for all of this with very high taxes used an ingenious jiu-jitsu move against those, who are basically robbing them through the power of the majority vote. The 'rich' got into the government (since that's the force that is used against them) and then they used that force to do the opposite in by magnifying the effect of what it was doing in the first place - getting the gov't to grow much further and much faster, and getting ahead of itself and getting away from any sane fiscal policy and getting into a position where debt and printing was the only way to fund it.
Inflation is the counter-balance to the imbalance that is caused by the majority (mob) rule - inflation is taxes upon all, who work 9-5, upon all who have assets denominated in those fiat currencies.
Inflation devalues the currency in which the taxes are paid, and that's the goal - to devalue the currency, because those, who were forced to pay for the majority got sick of it (understandably) and rightfully so as well.
By inflating the money supply, the taxes are paid in devalued money and as long as the real wealth can be transferred around to more productive assets (commodities, foreign businesses, agricultural land), those with more resources can basically reduce the burden placed upon them by this so called 'social obligation' society - bread and circuses culture, welfare state, where those who work must subsidize those who do not.
There is nothing surprising about this, it's all part of the circle of life.
In 2008 no one could predict when exactly they will destroy themselves
- my signature begs to differ, enough people saw the incoming crash with high precision from a number of years before 2008, they saw it specifically because they understood the precise reasons for it.
Frankly, your foam-in-the-mouth pseudological rhetoric seizure made his point rather well. You are just another crazy libertarian, although that's slightly redundant.
- what are you, too lazy to type in your user name / password?
The only 'foam-in-the-mouth' BS is spouted by the appropriately named user Myopic (18616).
As I said, you ARE clear. What you are clear about is how fucked up your thinking is, and you have not a single shred of evidence for any of your claims and you dismiss evidence that is right in your face.
You are clear.
What I was saying is that libertarians were making arguments
- 1. how do you know these were libertarians? I clearly showed the argument I made on the 4th of September in my original comment.
What argument are 'libertarians' making?
2. If somebody who is a libertarian was making an argument, does it mean the argument is part of 'libertarian ideology' in any way?
which fail in the way that libertarians arguments always do.
- So are you saying that all libertarian arguments always fail OR that if a libertarian makes an argument, then this argument is inherently wrong because a libertarian made it?
But you are saying: "always do", which is also a bunch of baloney. As a libertarian I make all kinds of arguments, for example that there should be no government printing of money because this steals value of all money and leads to a financial and an economic collapse. Prove that this argument is wrong.
Here, I will show you a libertarian who made a clear argument in 2005-6 that there will be an economic collapse that will start with the housing bubble bursting.
The video from 2006 is in my signature here, the guy explained in vivid details how and why this will happen. He was betting money on it too, and he was correct on every point.
This proves that your statement that all libertarian arguments are wrong to be false.
These specific arguments, in this thread, were not about the government, but these non-governmental arguments still are vapid, meaningless, and wrong just as governmental libertarian arguments are.
- SHOW ME. Show me which argument made by which person in the comments here are made by libertarian BECAUSE the commenter is a libertarian and the argument should not be just made by a 'libertarian', but be ideological.
Show me, otherwise you are full of crap (which is clear anyway).
Is that the problem?
- 'problem'? No, I am commenting on how full of shit you are, that's all. There is no 'libertarian' argument here at all. You like to say that somebody who is a libertarian made an argument based on libertarian ideology and the argument is wrong because libertarians are always wrong.
This gets moderated '+5'? Just shows how full of crap this place is.
In any case, you have not swayed me
- there is no swaying of you, I know that. You are not swayed because you never had a point in the first place, what you wrote was simply a bunch of nonsense, which you wanted to write REGARDLESS of the story or comments here. You just felt like writing this for whatever reason.
libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
- a bunch of nonsense. YOU are dismissing any argument any 'libertarian' (or whoever you perceive to be a 'libertarian') is making BECAUSE you perceive them to be a 'libertarian'.
To you, 'libertarian' is some sort of a dirty word and you like to use that for political purpose. As I said - it's ok, no kittens are hurt. However you are on a defensive for a reason. You know that you have no logical argument of any kind.
Space aliens are trying to dismiss..." without saying that the aliens were making space-alien-exclusive arguments. It's hard to know if that is exactly what you are objecting to, because I'm not paying very close attention to you.
- you are not paying any attention to anything, that much is clear. To you 'libertarian' and 'space alien' IS the same thing, becuase you couldn't understand either but you like to trash things you do not understand and on /. you get applauded for it.
Cheers.
I think the Slashdot libertarians were making typical libertarian statements that once again ignored the main question of a topic.
- this makes no sense at all. /. libertarians were making statements that WHAT? Government wants them to stop eating sugar?
This was a researcher, not a government, government is in fact NOT going alone with him, he is showing that FDA does not go alone with him, because sugar is not an 'acute' toxin, he showed in his video that it was government that promoted use of sugar through the first place in various programs, from 'juice for kids' to basic subsidies to the sugar lobby.
In your blind hatred towards libertarians you are making statements that are totally devoid of any meaning.
I can understand people being against libertarian ideas, but what you are purporting 'libertarians' are saying is 1. not true (as I showed in my first reply), 2. makes no sense, 3. would never make any sense, because there is no reason for a stance that is based on libertarianism against a guy, who is not government and is providing evidence that shows that what government does is wrong.
Again, your comment made no sense, the moderators made no sense, this feels like a twilight zone, but it's OK, one thing is clear: no kittens were hurt during this thread.
Do you even know what you are saying?
Why is everyone parroting the trope that "everything is toxic in large quantities" without asking whether the modern Western diet is above the threshold of excess? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
- OK, that's statement 1.
I feel like the libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
- that's statement 2, which I took for some sort of a 'conclusion', but it's really not, it's an unconnected statement, which has nothing to do with your previous statement (1).
It's like you are taking 2 separate things, putting them together for no reason at all, and this incoherent mess passes for 'insightful' here.
Now you are saying:
the premise that libertarians in this thread are in fact parroting the trope?
- I am telling you with my previous reply: I am a libertarian, it's proven by my quotes I made for other stories, I provided what's called facts.
I am also telling you that I posted a comment many months ago, which references the 'Sugar Bitter Truth' video and I was making an actual libertarian claim, that government is the cause of problems via its regulations and subsidies and that FDA is inefficient. I based this on the video in question - if the presenter of the video is wrong, then my conclusions were wrong, otherwise they are correct and I am not a nutritionist.
When I first opened this thread there were about a dozen posts shown, and nine or ten of them were all saying "this is stupid! anything is toxic in extreme quantities, therefore this guy is an idiot!" But of course, I'm sure you'll agree, that doesn't make any sense.
- the ONLY thing that I will agree to is that YOUR statement that those people are 'libertarian' or that they are basing their comments on some 'libertarian' ideology is a load of crap.
Fruits are loaded with sucrose, glucose, fructose, and dextrose.
Are you telling people not to eat fruit?
- and if you and those who moderated your comment watched the video, you would have known that consuming sugar in form of fruits is fine, because with fruits you consume fiber, which moderates sugar intake.
Your comment should be moderated 'ignorant', not 'informative'.
As a libertarian I question your conclusion.
Here is a comment I posted on a story from the 4th of September - which has the link to the "Sugar - the bitter truth" video.
Here is a small subset of comments to prove my libertarian position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and you can certainly find many more.
So how come your conclusion is so highly accepted here (5Insightful) in the face of it being obviously erroneous and having all qualities of a flamebait I wonder?
First of all, classical Keynesian economics was pretty much the default until the mid-seventies in every western country, including the US.
- and so? Your point is? They are all fucked up, no question about it.
Secondly, you defined "Keynesian" above - or implied it - as including pretty much all mainstream economics, whether they believe in classical Keynesian, Neo-Keynesianism, or Monetarism, or any of the other offshoots.
- anything that is promoting inflation, again, your point is?
you did this when you responded to the point that deflation is considered by economics as a disaster by implying that such economists are "Keynesian" and somehow as stupid as astrologists. And that's OK, because actually virtually all mainstream economic theories are built on Keynesianism, which isn't anything like as discredited as some like to pretend.
- the entire economic and monetary outcome that is hitting the West, starting with USA (EU maybe will return to the sound money, who knows) is just a real proof of how void of any value the Keynesian ideas are.
I don't think you'll find many economists (or anyone else for that matter) who agree that depressions (which is what a period of deflation is) are a great thing.
- a load of crap.
Deflation was the normal state of affairs in USA in 19 century, as its dollar was appreciating in value by factor of 2, and nobody can claim that USA was anything but productive, extremely innovative. It became world's largest producer and creditor while in monetary deflation, and it provided its citizens with the highest level of wealth out of all other countries within that time frame.
Your example you gave then is meaningless, because it clearly wasn't the case in 19 century USA, while the money was deflating people created the most manufacturing jobs than ever before, invented the most stuff than ever before, created the most goods and prices were constantly falling.
You are wrong on historic facts.
Deflation kills business. It's as simple as that.
- load of crap. USA paid out all of its creditors in during the 19 century after building an entire manufacturing industry and became largest producer and debt free - that was the ultimate win for deflation, as deflation forced people to want to repay their debts, unlike what is happening now - when they simply want to print them away.
Deflation helps one group of people, and one group alone: people who hoard green pieces of paper.
- I guess all those people, who buy stuff cheaper year to year are not helped at all then. I guess it's a terrible thing that food and clothing and energy and other products became cheaper year to year, must have hurt those poor people like hell.
Oh, wait, no, that's inflation that does that.
Go fuck yourself.