|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:17 PM |
|
|
Definition of analogy from Wiktionary: "The use of a similar example or model to explain or extrapolate from." Keyword there being "similar". So if your example is similar (like mine, with computers being compared to an island), then it's an analogy.
Quote:
So what? As long as you don't hire workers to work on your computer.
They don't stop being a means of production just because workers are using them.  Anyway, computers allow for self-employment relatively easily. If you had an assembly line, there isn't much chance that you could operate it by yourself. But when you have a computer, you can do a lot of things just by yourself. Computers allow you to produce your own programs, which you can then sell. They also allow many other numerous things.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Definition of analogy from Wiktionary: "The use of a similar example or model to explain or extrapolate from." Keyword there being "similar". So if your example is similar (like mine, with computers being compared to an island), then it's an analogy.
"similar" does not mean THE SAME (1-on-1).
Quote:
They don't stop being a means of production just because workers are using them. Anyway, computers allow for self-employment relatively easily. If you had an assembly line, there isn't much chance that you could operate it by yourself. But when you have a computer, you can do a lot of things just by yourself. Computers allow you to produce your own programs, which you can then sell. They also allow many other numerous things.
That's not the problem I have with capitalism 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"similar" does not mean THE SAME (1-on-1).
It has to be similar enough to work as an analogy. My computer example fulfills that criterion.
Quote:
That's not the problem I have with capitalism
At the moment, we're not talking about capitalism in general, we're talking about my example and the facet of capitalism it addresses. But, as I told you on CH, if you don't like that I used a computer, replace "computer" with something else, say, "factory".
Let's say you and John Smith go to an auction. They are auctioning off a factory. John Smith is poorer than you are. Uou can afford to spend more money than he can. So let's say you're both bidding for the factory, and he bids a million, since that's the most he can afford to pay, and you bid two million, so you get the factory. On the way home, Joe Smith says, "Hey, I want your factory. I need it more than you do." This is true. And it is your fault that he doesn't have a factory. But does he have the right to your factory? Sure, giving him your factory would be a nice thing for you to do, but does he have the right to your factory? I would say that he definitely doesn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It has to be similar enough to work as an analogy. My computer example fulfills that criterion.
I wasn't talking about your analogies, but mine which you classified as "flawed" (simply because they were analogies, not comparisons).
Besides, the factory example you provided was already addressed by both me and JJ. Factories are not personal objects. And even if they are, "selling" something shouldn't be not regulated at all, so someone can get economical power (example: monopoly).
I am reluctant to continue this subject, especially here.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 04:52 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:53, 29 Aug 2008.
|
The reason quote wars are uninteresting is because for the most part nobody is actually saying anything. I mean, mvass and theDeath - go back and look at your 1 on 1 discussions. Pages and pages of posts that are just simply reactionary. When you post in this way, there's a lot of words but no substance really. It's also very easy to get caught up in this sort of exchange when you don't really want to, AND it's also easy for such threads to become inflammatory. Not to mention, quote-war threads are nearly impossible to follow for a newcomer.
When I involve myself in a discussion of a serious topic, I try think of what I want to write WITHOUT resorting to quoting another post in the thread. Certainly, I do my share of quoting, and often I DO want to respond directly to what other people are saying, but I do try to frame my post without quotes before I start to write, and then incorporate quotes - as needed - to demonstrate how my new point applies to what was said before. I'm not perfect at it - and I get drug into quote wars probably more often than I should.
Let me put it this way. Next time you are replying to a post in a serious topic, try to reply without using a single quote. Certainly, address the post you are replying to, but do it without actually quoting anything. I think you'll find that your reply will have much more substance, and that's because you will actually have to think about something meaningful to say. It will be much harder to write, but you might find that if try to do this on a semi-regular basis, other posters will become involved in the discussion naturally. As you do this more often, you'll become better at it, and the threads will be overall more interesting.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 05:03 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Remember than an analogy also has to be something that could theoretically happen. So your example about beating a guy up, dragging him home, and injecting him with poison that makes all attempts to move him fatal for 9 months is not a good analogy.
And I may have missed your response to the factory example. I looked over the Capitalism thread, and didn't see any responses to it, whether by you or JJ. And besides, it's not selling that I'm talking about. I'm talking about entitlements. The question is not "Can the factory/computer be sold?" but "Opportunity was (supposedly) destroyed. Does that mean that he should get the factory from you? If not, why not?"
Corribus:
Okay. Point taken. Thanks. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay. Point taken. Thanks.
Yes well actually it's what I've been trying to say to you, but you claim I just do it to "give up" on it
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Corribus says "Quote wars aren't much fun to read or participate in." You say "Quote wars sux. I'm tired of them and there's no point in talking to you." See the difference?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus says "Quote wars aren't much fun to read or participate in." You say "Quote wars sux. I'm tired of them and there's no point in talking to you." See the difference?
Remember this thread? It didn't start with quote wars, but it simply is not possible it seems in a TheDeath-mvass discussion.
I learn from history.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2008 06:31 PM |
|
|
No, it's indeed possible. When they started, I just got tired of the discussion. But usually I could keep away from quote wars if I tried. It's a matter of habit. Half of this thread serves as an example of this.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
