Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Why are these forums dead?
I Read This
November 19, 2018, 17:55:37 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Why are these forums dead?  (Read 22426 times)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« on: July 03, 2009, 16:13:23 EDT »

While its true that the 3 bloggers stopped posting, it isn't as if politics has stopped.  If anything, politics has become a bit more interesting, now that we have a candidate who isn't blatantly and obviously bad like Bush was.  The central debates in these forums have been between those who lean Libertarian and those who lean Socialist, and with the Republicans pushed aside, that is the exact debate to be center stage in government today.  The socialist leaners accuse the libertarian leaners of causing the economic collapse with their deregulatory attitudes, while the libertarian leaners accuse the socialist leaners of swinging too far in the other direction with their handover of power to the government in their attempts to deal with the situation.

We have the perfect thing to argue about, and we aren't even talking actively anymore.  I barely even understand the issues nowadays, because I have no one to argue about it with, or motivate me to research further.  I feel we are missing out on a good opportunity.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 11:00:35 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2009, 02:28:47 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis. 
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 12:19:37 EDT »

Wodan, I see your point.

A while ago I decided to stop making first posts.  I found that when I post them others aren't generally that interested in them.  I decided just to react to what others post, but others haven't been posting much for a while.  I've been having discussions on other sites.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 07:24:51 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis. 


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 14:25:40 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 14:27:33 EDT by Psy » Logged
Blue Boy from Red Country
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2009, 19:00:31 EDT »

Wodan, I see your point.

A while ago I decided to stop making first posts.  I found that when I post them others aren't generally that interested in them.  I decided just to react to what others post, but others haven't been posting much for a while.  I've been having discussions on other sites.


Kind of what happened with me too... For weeks I kept poking my head in to see that no new posts have been made; I had an inkling to post one myself, but decided not to.

I'm a bit tired of politics. Now that I'm satisfied that my country is being led by people with some sense, I don't care as much about the minutiae. All of the politics I hear anymore is noise anyway; people who shout out without taking the time to think. (I can't believe how paranoid some people act now that Obama is president.)

Of course, I've also been considerably busy as of late too. ::shrug::
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2009, 06:18:55 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.

Non sequitur. As usual.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2009, 06:26:12 EDT »

Quote from: Blue Boy from Red Country
Kind of what happened with me too... For weeks I kept poking my head in to see that no new posts have been made; I had an inkling to post one myself, but decided not to.

I'm a bit tired of politics. Now that I'm satisfied that my country is being led by people with some sense, I don't care as much about the minutiae. All of the politics I hear anymore is noise anyway; people who shout out without taking the time to think. (I can't believe how paranoid some people act now that Obama is president.)

Of course, I've also been considerably busy as of late too. ::shrug::
I think that a lot of people were interested in debating politics around the time of the US presidential election.  They've become a bit less interested now.  I don't expect that to last forever though.  Although many criticisms of Obama are over the top many are not.  And, like a wise man once said, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you Wink.

Politics has been very interesting in the UK recently.  Most of parliament have been caught fiddling their expenses, it has been a huge scandal.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2009, 10:46:35 EDT »

Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.

Non sequitur. As usual.
The fact you think it is non sequitur proves my point.

How it is non sequitur when you have two incompatible views on value and one person keeps debating value when ever value is part of the debate?  Before one can logically analyze anything to do with economics one has to first tackle the definition of value.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2009, 04:41:21 EDT »

I tell you that your LTV bullshit isn't interesting. You blather on about how arguing over LTV is like arguing over the shape of the solar system.

The second does not follow from the first. This is the definition of "non sequitur". Literally "no sequence", but more usually translated as "it does not follow".
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2009, 07:42:07 EDT »

One day I may explain why Psy is talking about the solar system.  I may then explain how that relates to this article about the wearing of Burqa's and Hegel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/sarkozy-burka-french-parliament

Doing this would of course require discussion of the maturing of wine and volcanoes.

I don't think anyone would thank me for doing that though, so I won't bother.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2009, 10:16:07 EDT »

I tell you that your LTV bullshit isn't interesting. You blather on about how arguing over LTV is like arguing over the shape of the solar system.

The second does not follow from the first. This is the definition of "non sequitur". Literally "no sequence", but more usually translated as "it does not follow".
It does as a prerequisite for debating anything dealing with value thus why I said the fact you think it is non sequitur proves my point.  You think that post LTV theories (like the subjective theory of value) are commonsensical axioms even though they have all failed in controlled experiments while LTV has been proved possible in controlled experiments.   Meaning LTV is not bullshit but a scientific theory that has been proved possible by scientific methods while the Subjective Theory Value hasn't (at least not yet).

Thus when debating anything to do with value bringing up LTV is brining up the best guess science has at describing value while bringing up post LTV theories is bringing up what economists believe value is.  So basically you are saying that bringing science into a debate is non squitur as you rather stick with popular unproven beliefs (which seems anti-intellectual to me)    
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 10:36:14 EDT by Psy » Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2009, 10:18:04 EDT »

One day I may explain why Psy is talking about the solar system.  I may then explain how that relates to this article about the wearing of Burqa's and Hegel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/sarkozy-burka-french-parliament

Doing this would of course require discussion of the maturing of wine and volcanoes.

I don't think anyone would thank me for doing that though, so I won't bother.

I was using the solar system as a metaphor
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 10:20:03 EDT by Psy » Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2009, 11:06:59 EDT »

I was using the solar system as a metaphor

Are you not thinking about Marxist relativism, dialectic materialism etc?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!