Voters steer Europe to the right

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 15 of 23

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE

KPO

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
KPO: You've said, or at least implied, that it isn't inherent in human nature to subvert the natural,

No I haven't, I've questioned whether this is the 'whole point', and suggested that subverting the natural is perhaps a by-product of the true aims of civilisation. In any case it's a massive ASIDE, since I was only talking about an economy being analogous to a natural system.

Quote:
Also, you've pointed out that in your opinion, capitalism in "natural", while socialism is "unnatural".

No. A natural solution. Just like as citizen was pointing out, barter and trade are natural solutions or 'offshoots' to humans creating surpluses. We're talking about human technology and its natural development or evolution.

Somehow just with the word 'natural' I managed to set off three of you (Jkiddo has just joined in) with the misconception that I view a capitalist dog-eat-dog society as the natural, prescribed order of things. This is the problem I get as a centrist arguing with anyone on the left or the right - they tend to project the views of their bitter political opponents onto me. Moderate views disagreeing with them are uncomfortable to them, they're only happy arguing with extreme views from the other side.

Heads should roll

KPO

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:07 PM

Quote:
What's interesting to me is when you look at GDP those big countries appear at the top.

Per capita? Otherwise that's not interesting at all... The per capita list on wiki looks similarly dominated by small countries, with just the big euro countries a bit higher up.

Quote:
Regardless, it makes bugger all difference if you were saying it is natural, or if you were saying it's like natural, since the objections are largely the same (objections you've ignored rather than argued against).

Why do I have to prove anything about what the point of civilisation is? It's like you don't understand what an analogy does.

Quote:
You said Capitalism is (or is like) a natural system.

Nope, I said neither. I said capitalism is a 'natural SOLUTION' - in the evolution of human innovation.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm not saying capitalism mirrors the natural order of things, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest etc., and so that's why we should have it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly what you said.

!!!

Lol, where did I say it? Ridiculous - just admit that you jumped to a wrong conclusion about what my point was.

Quote:
May I suggest that we give up this he said-she said bullshit? Perhaps you could restate your position and we can try this again from the top?

No, I'll just take you through my perfectly fine original post and its one contentious sentence step by step:

1. "Economies are like natural systems in my view"

Here KPO is suggesting that,
A) An economy is a natural system
B) An economy is like a natural system (ie. a metaphor)

2. "Capitalism allows an economy to be natural"

What is being described as being 'natural' here?
A) Capitalism
B) Still the economy

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No. A natural solution. Just like as citizen was pointing out, barter and trade are natural solutions or 'offshoots' to humans creating surpluses. We're talking about human technology and its natural development or evolution.

Point one, I didn't say natural off shoot, as I have already said. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said off shoot, to denote that it developed from, not that that development was natural.

Point two, you CLEARLY stated that Capitalism was "like a natural system", and that this naturalism stemmed from how like survival of the fittest it was. That you now claim you meant something different entirely, when your words are clearly displayed, is mind boggling. You said it was like a natural system, those were your first set of words and they mean an entirely different thing to your claim that you were merely saying that Capitalism was a "natural development". Trying to equate the two, or indeed ignore the other and claim others are making it up, is equivocation and frankly dishonest.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Somehow just with the word 'natural' I managed to set off three of you (Jkiddo has just joined in) with the misconception that I view a capitalist dog-eat-dog society as the natural, prescribed order of things.

No, somehow by saying "Capitalism is like a natural system", you've gotten it into your head you weren't saying "Capitalism is like a natural system". Therein lies the problem. We're reading what you wrote, you wish we weren't.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This is the problem I get as a centrist arguing with anyone on the left or the right - they tend to project the views of their bitter political opponents onto me. Moderate views disagreeing with them are uncomfortable to them, they're only happy arguing with extreme views from the other side.

It is, but us centrist will keep trying to bring you extremists around I'm sure.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Why do I have to prove anything about what the point of civilisation is?

I think we've all come to the conclusion that you don't believe you have to back up anything you say.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It's like you don't understand what an analogy does.

Actually it's more like you don't remember anything you've said in a previous post.

Quote:
Nope, I said neither.

Quote:

Lol, where did I say it? Just admit that you jumped to a wrong conclusion about what my point was.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Economies are like natural systems in my view; Capitalism allows an economy to be natural and therefore be healthy and vibrant

Economies are like natural systems. Capitalism allows an economy to be natural. Therefore Capitalism is more natural, or Capitalist Economies are more natural, either way it's the same thing.

Just admit that you said what you did, and you are now trying to back peddle.

Or at least admit that what you wrote wasn't what you meant.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
May I suggest that we give up this he said-she said bullshit? Perhaps you could restate your position and we can try this again from the top?

No,

Well I didn't hold out much hope of you even attempting to be reasonable, so honestly that response doesn't come as anything of a shock.

Quote:

I'll just take you through my original post and its one contentious sentence step by step:

1. "Economies are like natural systems in my view"

Here KPO is suggesting that,

A) An economy is a natural system
B) An economy is like a natural system (ie. a metaphor)

2. "Capitalism allows an economy to be natural"

What is being described as being 'natural' here?

A) Capitalism
B) Still the economy

Or maybe we can take them as you originally wrote them, that a Capitalist Economy is natural, or more natural or like natural, or however you want to portray it this instant. Really the fact that you have this overwhelming need to lurch from appeals to nature, to putting words in my mouth to equivocation, to spin and false dichotomies says more than I ever could. It's like listening to Prime Minister's Questions.

KPO

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:28 PM

Quote:
Point one, I didn't say natural off shoot

I never said you did, I quoted 'offshoot' - which you still haven't realised, is in itself a 'natural' metaphor (what plants, ie. natural systems do).

Quote:
You said it was like a natural system, those were your first set of words

See my little comprehension exercise above.

Quote:
your claim that you were merely saying that Capitalism was a "natural development". Trying to equate the two,

The two points stand distinct:
An economy is like a natural system.
Capitalism is a natural development of human innovation.

The second point only came as a rebuttal to your assertion: "There's nothing natural about an economy or capitalism."

I wanted to make a distinction between the way I see capitalism, as natural innovation - and socialism, which I see as something else.

Heads should roll

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:34 PM

But by that logic, isn't every innovation a natural innovation? Because it's a conclusion drawn from a problem or situation at hand?

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I never said you did, I quoted 'offshoot' - which you still haven't realised, is in itself a 'natural' metaphor (what plants, ie. natural systems do).

Bullshit. I've already dealt with that at length, the only person not realising anything is you. It's really rather pathetic that you cling so desperately to your equivocation after it's been fairly evenly demolished.

But then the one constant so far here is how you ignore anything said that you can't argue against. It seems you have to do that a lot to support your arguments, beats the hell out of actually supporting something you've said though, eh? Still waiting for that. Personally I find twisting other peoples words, claiming you haven't said things you have and other such idiocy a poor substitute.

Quote:

See my little comprehension exercise above.

See my dismissal of your spin above.

Quote:

The two points stand distinct:
An economy is like a natural system.
Capitalism is a natural development of human innovation.

But that wasn't your two initial points was it. You said a Economy is like a natural system, and that Capitalism allows an economy to be natural. Those two points are clearly not supposed to be taken separately. The end result of taking what you said is that a Capitalist Economy is 'natural', an acceptable short form of that would be Capitalism. Your spin is really not persuasive, no matter how much you repeat yourself.

Quote:

The second point only came as a rebuttal to your assertion: "There's nothing natural about an economy or capitalism."

No, a rebuttal is where you make an argument, you've failed to do that. You've not made any argument as to why an Economy is or is like a natural system. You've made no argument as to why Capitalism is conducive to it's naturalness. You've made no argument as to why that is desirable. You've made no argument whatsoever.

KPO

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:57 PM

Quote:
Economies are like natural systems. Capitalism allows an economy to be natural. Therefore Capitalism is more natural,

No. Well all right, in one sense - Capitalism allows a natural system to be natural. Like a growing plant, or animal, that is allowed to grow 'naturally' without too many 'unnatural' binding restrictions that will deform it. One could think of socialism loosely as putting a tree in a restricting glass dome, to make sure all the branches grow to the same length - whereas capitalism allows the tree to grow freely, naturally, in the expectation that the tree as a whole will be stronger.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No. Capitalism allows a natural system to be natural. Like a growing plant, or animal, that is allowed to grow 'naturally' without too many 'unnatural' binding restrictions that will deform it.

So a Capitalist Economy is 'natural', and an acceptable short form of Capitalist Economy would be Capitalism.

EDIT:
Oh, I'd also point out, that an Economy isn't a natural system, nor particularly like a natural system.

KPO

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:06 PM

Yeah ok, capitalism could be called 'more natural' - in the sense I described. Not in every imaginable sense though, and as you've been pointing out that wouldn't be necessarily a good thing.

Heads should roll

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE