Wrong troll I have proved nothing for you. Your continued refusal to accept responsibility is just another of the signs. Be good to your self and it will get better.
Tories release first attack ad against Mulcair
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Wrong troll I have proved nothing for you. Your continued refusal to accept responsibility is just another of the signs. Be good to your self and it will get better.
Since part of your trolling schtick is to carry on a conversation with yourself there isn't much point in my saying you are welcome. But you would be, anytime you put that behind you. Feel free.
This truly, without a shadow of doubt, supplies incontrovertible evidence. Although there is absolutely no chance you will understand how, without having it explained to you.
I don't expect that you could understand the rules of evidence if they were explained to you and primarily because you would be more interested in screwing up a perfectly good lesson. It is reversible you know.
Again with the cute little refusal to look at the whole mesage. But feel free to be embarrassed for me. Perhaps it will be a turning point for you.
That's ironic, and funny because of it.
I doubt it, my empathy and sympathy only lasts so long. So it unlikely it will be a turning point that would facilitate or force me to ease up on, or otherwise give respite to ideological trolls, like yourself.
Just one little sally on the reality question!
Long ago in my University days, I wrote a major essay on the thesis (taken from Hannah Arendt, that; "Modern philosophy founders on the paradox that all that is real is irrational and all that is rational is unreal."
Reality is not a simple opposition to idealism. And reality is not the possession of some individual opposed to others.
Long ago in my University days, I wrote a major essay on the thesis (taken from Hannah Arendt, that; "Modern philosophy founders on the paradox that all that is real is irrational and all that is rational is unreal."
Reality is not a simple opposition to idealism. And reality is not the possession of some individual opposed to others.
To get somewhat back on topic, if the doubters look at the IEA website as recommended, they will find the question of subsidies is thoroughly analysed.
The IEA identifies no less than 250 forms of subsidy used by various countries to varying degrees.
The IEA identifies no less than 250 forms of subsidy used by various countries to varying degrees.
That last is nicely put. What is your feeling now on the subject of unreal rationalism and irrational realism? And don't worry if it appears likely to be over my head, It probably is, but I am curious anyway.
A challenge to developers of any sort of energy. A challenge to anyone attempting to achieve a level playing field, and a delight of lawyers and accountants.
Yes, an interesting philosophical thesis.
But reality is reality, the state of things as they actually exist.
If you wish to pull this thesis into the discussion, I suggest you beware what it will mean to the reality you forward against the deniers.
I'm not sure what that means. IF I am right that it is a warning, you will have to be more explicit.
Meantime, the very real world has been distorted by the subsidies, possibly all of which had rational justifications as individual programs but that now do nothing but drag us down technologically, financially, and environmentally. The International Energy Agency has put together a site, " to increase the availability and transparency of energy subsidy data as this is seen as an essential step in building momentum for global fossil-fuel subsidy reform."
http://www.iea.org/subsidy/index.html
It is hope the information will encourage informed debate on whether the subsidy represents an economically efficient allocation of resources or whether it would be possible to achieve the same objectives by alternative means.
It was always over my hven though the essay was a triumph. At the time, I saw it almost as a war between rationalist and idealist philosophers. Now I see both as part of the Human condition.
In science, for example, a strict rationalist for example, would be intellectually sterile and uncreative. The leaps that have brought some of the great insights would not happen to such a one. The realist conviction alone would lead to fantasy.
It hurts my head to think about it now.
Probably a good thing to have gone through it back in the day then. I know at my age it is tough to avoid the calcification.I agree about the strict rationalist though, whether in science, literature, finances, politics, whatever... It is more a stricture on ones own abilities than on anything else. Kind of self determinism trying to go macro.
Is it free enterprise when you have a relatively tiny percentage of the population influencing most of the important political and economic decisions made?
A Free Market is an ideal that will never be completely realized, the best we can hope for is a fair market and that requires enough regulation and oversight to prevent monopolization but not stiffle entrepreneurship and innovation. I don't see the current federal government being any different than the last on patronage and serving their owns special interests at the expense of the overall economy in the long term, if anything it's going to be far worse based on the science behind climate change(which I accept).
And executives often work against their own shareholders, how does that benefit long term economic health, think of Conrad Black living a billionaire lifestyle on a millionaire salary, the money coming from his shareholders.