Psychopaths

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it's a matter of fact.

...only on Bizarro World.

There was a financial crisis, and that has led to a recession, the worst since the Great Depression, and there is still high unemployment threatening another dip in the economy creating a double-dip recession, and there is now a financial crisis in Europe that is likely a result of the original financial crisis as well.

Yes, that's a fact.

...only on Bizarro World.

Make up your fuckin' mind.

[laklak]

Does it only take one contrary example to disprove a statement? If so, then the statement "regulation is good for business" is disproved by my statement "I had to close my business due to new Federal regulations". Now, you can call me a "liar" if you think that a) the Feds did not, in fact, promulgate new regulations, b) I never actually owned a business c) I never closed the business or d) I closed the business but for different reasons. The only one of those I can "prove" is the first - I can link to the relevant documents detailing the new regulations (if I can even find them in the fucking morass of verbiage on the USDA websites, that is). The other three you'll have to take on faith.

I guess we could argue over the definition of "new". In fact, the regulations already existed, but were never applied to businesses that only operated intrastate. The "new" part was the decision by the USDA to expand the scope, if not the wording, of the regulations. Secondly, we could argue over whether "good" means "good for a single business" or "good for a single industry" or "the common good". That's where one's individual perspective comes into play. One man's "good" is another man's "fuck me I don't have a goddamned income any longer".

EDIT - Hang on, I missed one. We could argue over the meaning of "closed". In my case, I sold the concession trailer, stopped manufacturing my products, stopped selling to my customers and inactivated my sales tax number. I did not, however, dissolve the corporation. So, is the statement "I closed the business" a "lie"?

[Schneibster]

I don't see any more point in arguing with Scientologists than any other kind of cranks.

Like Libertardians.

laklak, we had this out a couple months back. Turns out, gee, well they really prolly oughtta prevent people from doing that stuff if they're going to sell over the Internet. You couldn't refute it.

Guess you forgot.

[Cunt]

I don't see any more point in arguing with Scientologists than any other kind of cranks.

Like Libertardians.

How do you feel about insulting the mentally disabled by using bigoted language referencing them in insulting a political group?


I think less and less of your writings every time you do it.

What's next? Insulting Scientologist without even knowing who they are or what they do?

[Coito ergo sum]

Does it only take one contrary example to disprove a statement? If so, then the statement "regulation is good for business" is disproved by my statement "I had to close my business due to new Federal regulations". Now, you can call me a "liar" if you think that a) the Feds did not, in fact, promulgate new regulations, b) I never actually owned a business c) I never closed the business or d) I closed the business but for different reasons. The only one of those I can "prove" is the first - I can link to the relevant documents detailing the new regulations (if I can even find them in the fucking morass of verbiage on the USDA websites, that is). The other three you'll have to take on faith.

I guess we could argue over the definition of "new". In fact, the regulations already existed, but were never applied to businesses that only operated intrastate. The "new" part was the decision by the USDA to expand the scope, if not the wording, of the regulations. Secondly, we could argue over whether "good" means "good for a single business" or "good for a single industry" or "the common good". That's where one's individual perspective comes into play. One man's "good" is another man's "fuck me I don't have a goddamned income any longer".

EDIT - Hang on, I missed one. We could argue over the meaning of "closed". In my case, I sold the concession trailer, stopped manufacturing my products, stopped selling to my customers and inactivated my sales tax number. I did not, however, dissolve the corporation. So, is the statement "I closed the business" a "lie"?

+1

And, of course Da Scheib said that it was an example of a "lie" to say "regulations are bad for business." One does not need to disprove the assertion "regulations are good for business" in order to disprove the assertion that it is a lie to say regulations are bad for business. You cited one good example of how a regulation or regulations were "bad for business." Therefore, it is not a lie to say that regulations are bad for business. Da Schneib is, as a result, proven wrong. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. And, let's see if he admits it. Probably not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One big box.

[Cunt]

<...crickets chirping...>


That is my way of implying, by the sound of crickets, that there is no sound of Schneibster admitting where he was wrong. Just for clarity...

[Jason]

<...moose humping...>

If two moose hump in the woods and no one is around to hear it...

[laklak]

I don't see any more point in arguing with Scientologists than any other kind of cranks.

Like Libertardians.

laklak, we had this out a couple months back. Turns out, gee, well they really prolly oughtta prevent people from doing that stuff if they're going to sell over the Internet. You couldn't refute it.

Guess you forgot.

I don't need to refute it, what you expressed in our earlier discussion was your opinion. Based, no doubt, on your personal experiences and your personal and political philosophies. I hold a differing opinion, based on my personal experiences and my personal and political philosophies. That does not mean that either of us are dishonest, or are lying - all it means is that we disagree.

[Schneibster]

As I recall I pointed out that without the regulations you didn't like, there was nothing limiting you but your own morals, which although good are demonstrably not enough to limit bad behavior by others with less moral character. You were unable to suggest a means of ensuring that people without your character don't take unfair advantage.

I thought that was a pretty clear outcome.

What didn't happen was you didn't tell me I was abusing you by saying so. If I may point it out.

ETA: Just so it's clear, yes, you'd lose customers, but the public health risk of a person with less moral character than you selling contaminated product and absconding with the money, since it's inherently interstate commerce, was what was at issue. And the only way around that either of us was able to come up with was audits that would cost government more than it costs industry to do the inspection things that you couldn't afford to do. My impression was, you couldn't afford to be in the business you wanted to be in, and I'm unaware where in the Constitution it says you get to.

[Schneibster]

And before you start talking about whether it's good for business or not, be prepared to cope with the health costs of hundreds or thousands poisoned by bad food that someone with less character than you sells before leaving for the Caymans with the money. We're talking millions to tens of millions, minimum, and that assumes no one dies.

I figured you saw that coming and decided discretion was the better part of valor. Maybe I was wrong.

[laklak]

Oh, you weren't abusing me, we just disagreed on the necessity for that particular regulation. You had valid points and I can understand your position, but I favor more reliance on existing laws and market forces then you do. Well, than I think you do, based on the political opinions you post.

I generally stop posting on a particular subject when I think we've defined our respective positions and further discussion wouldn't be useful. In that particular discussion you'd thought out your positions and made them clear, I hoped I'd done the same.

I think the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. Except for the primacy of bacon over cheese, of course.

[Schneibster]

I thought it was fine. OTOH, it looks pretty much like PZ's adventure at the creation museum.

[laklak]

Yeah I know, you just wouldn't listen to reason.

[Schneibster]

People who face reality are like that. You'll get used to it.