 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
hash3m,
This topic concerns accurate currency from a Joe's Law perspective
Then I'm here pointing out the absurdities.
You are pointing out "absurdities"? What are these "absurdities" that you are pointing out? If you point out that your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System has severe limitations in it scope, as you do repeatedly, then you point out the severe limitations of your viewpoint; what does that have to do with my viewpoint?
When you read something that doesn't fit into your viewpoint, it may even challenge your viewpoint, your reaction is to repeat some dogmatic nonsense and then begin characterizing your reaction as some argumentative victory?
Now, within your dogma, you attribute "economics" with concern? Your viewpoint attributes a human emotion to your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System?
Your economic system is concerned? Is your economic system as concerned as you are, less, or more concerned?
Did your economic systems concern make you publish libel, out of it's concern? Are you merely acting on behalf of your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System's concern, or is your continued libel more a reaction resulting from your concern?
Is the System you believe in concerned, at all, that your subjective value judgment concerning the libel you publish is a measurable example of cost to me?
If your System made you do it, with your System's concern for it's subjective value judgments, then can I ask your System to call you off, to make you stop producing and publishing all the libelous falsehoods you aim at me?
Example:
Can I ask your System, with it's concern for subjective value, the System that makes you libel, if that is the responsible, and the accountable entity, the one with the concern, can I ask your System to actually point out something absurd, through you presumably, rather than merely claiming (falsely) that you have, or even can, point out something absurd?
This topic concerns accurate currency from a Joe's Law perspective
Then I'm here pointing out the absurdities.
Cost is a measurable tool used by people when people desire to produce, and then they do produce a more accurate measure of value when employing that tool accurately.
Is that sentence above a challenge to your System's concerns, or is it, as your words appear to suggest, that the above sentence is an absurdity?
Why do you continually blame wrong things, absurdities for example, produced by your Straw-Man, your vaporware? Does your other vaporware construction tell you to do it? Does your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System's concern dictate to you that you must create a Straw-Man and then you must blame your Straw-Man for being absurd, or do you have a hand in this libelous enterprise?
What exactly is absurd? Is it absurd to claim that a system can be concerned, or is that just your way of diverting the topic even further from the topic?
So far you claim that the word "accuracy" is "ad hoc".
You claim that "fraud" is objective.
You claim that cost is objective.
You claim that "subjective" value is a concern of some thing that speaks to you, something you call "ecnomics".
The first claim where "accuracy" is "ad hoc" has been hashed out, by your own admission, to be a paranoid emotion you suffer concerning what I may or may not do, again by your own admission, and then that miss-association (accuracy is ad hoc) has been a reaction to your paranoid emotion, a product of your own surreal imagination.
Accuracy is accuracy. Ad hoc is not accuracy. When you fear something surreal, you miss-associate "accuracy" with "ad hoc" - and my guess is that your actual concern, and not the concern of some nebulous System, is that you are challenged by something that you prefer not to see, something you prefer to ignore, and therefore the easy way out, for you, is to produce libel. My guess is that your knee jerk reaction to things that challenge you is to shoot the messenger.
Next you claim that "fraud" is objective, and from the eyes of the fraud, or the libeler, as the fraud or the libeler plans the fraud or the libel, the statement may be true; fraud, or libel, is an objective plan produced by the fraud or libeler, and then fraud becomes an executed plan once the fraud or the libeler executes the plan to fraud or libel. We went through this claim already. From the victims perspective the fraud or the libel can also be an objective process whereby the victim ends up paying an objective cost associated with the libel or the fraud; however the victims' objective measure is a cost while the frauds objective measure is a gain, at the expense of the victim. That is hardly the stuff of objectivity, and perhaps not completely absurd.
A third party to a fraud can have another opinion concerning the fraud, and now there are three different viewpoints concerning the supposed objectivity to the fraud. If all three were concerned with some measure of accuracy, then all three would be concerned with some measure of accuracy, and if all three knew what was accuracy, then all three would know that accuracy can't be measured differently by all three subjective viewpoints.
Accuracy, the actual thing, is a universal measure of fact, not subject to miss-interpretation. Miss-interpretation is the opposite of accuracy. A person does not need to be involved; a monkey can be involved in an accurate measure. A monkey can measure the chances of surviving a jump down out of a very tall tree, for example, and come up with the accurate measure that the fall won't be pleasant. If the monkey, or a human being, measures the distance accurately, relative to the harm a fall from the distance would cause, then the data, from an accurate perspective, may inspire the monkey, or the human being, to avoid that fall. A fearful monkey, one who miss-steps on a regular basis, a monkey who miss-steps while fearing things that do not exist perhaps, may be a monkey that falls while failing to perceive the impending fall accurately. An accurate perception is what it is, and to call it "ad hoc" is what that is.
How many words are needed to confuse something simple, or are those words conveying accurate meaning that could be worth knowing?
Cost is objective and measurable, nominal, and cardinal.
How does that claim above measure up to the following:
If I give a Ferrari away, I do it, and I do it for reasons that may not be understood by you.
Yes, precisely my point. We don't know the exact reasons people do what they do. All we know is that since they are humans, their voluntary actions occurred because they preferred doing it over not-doing-it.
"We" don't know the exact reasons people do what they do, and notice the use of the word "exact", which is an accurate measure, an exact measure, and which is not an inaccurate measure, "exact" is not "inexact".
If I give a Ferrari away for free, economics says I therefore valued having nothing over keeping the Ferrari.
"We" don't know the exact (accurate) reasons but economics knows a reason?
Is the reason told to us by "economics" an accurate reason, or is it not accurate?
If the reason is charity, then does "economics" know it, or does "economics" fail to know it? If "economics" says something; are "we" required to obey or will we suffer libel if "we" don't obey as told?
If the reason is "dumping", and "economics" ignore it, do "we" have to ignore it too?
[size=MODERATORS]
I agree with some of your ideas, I just think that generally you use faulty reasoning and derive insane conclusions
Please note the employment, again, of libel. The "fellow" forum member hash3m, continues to publish false, derogatory, inflammatory, and criminal misrepresentations of another forum member, despite repeated attempts to plead with the repeat offender to ceases publishing the offensive text. The employment of the word "insane" is unbecoming, at the very least. It is disingenuous. It is measurably inaccurate. It is false.
Please note the employment of ambiguity and then the employment of false representations, of the facts, being presented as fact. If the libeler could produce some support for these libelous false claims, then wouldn't the libeler do so, assuming, of course, that the intent was to expose these supposed "insane conclusions"?
So far as I can tell, the views "on it" are limited to your views on one word, where your views address the topic by addressing the one word, and that word is "accuracy".
I'm here pointing out my views on it all, by citing valid economic evidence.
So far as I can tell, your views on the topic, on that one word, are false. Accuracy is not "ad hoc" as you have claimed, and as you have previously confessed, your false claim was inspired by another misperception you confess to having perceived.
Here:
When you get around to publishing text that is relevant to the topic you will, or you won't, and perhaps instead you will publish text that claims to be addressing the topic while not doing so.
The whole reason I put the effort into distinguishing the subjective feelings of "accuracy" from the objective fact of fraud is because I believe you will ultimately try to argue against some forms of voluntary exchange on the basis of "inaccuracy." I believe you will try to illegitimate some forms of voluntary transaction by labeling them "inaccurate."
When you move from the topic back to your preferred dogma handed down to you from your "economics" that speaks to you, with it's concern, then you can do that too, and you can claim that you are then "citing valid economic evidence"; while the accurate measure of "validity" is only accurate from either your subjective view, or from the viewpoint of the "economics" being that uses you to speak for it.