Poll of the Day > capitalism is just a pyramid scheme

(+) Yeah! (+)

lmao

that's why the government is against them, because they dont want competition

... Lol, since when is the government "against" capitalism? What have you been smoking?

Gaawa_chan posted...

... Lol, since when is the government "against" capitalism? What have you been smoking?

I think he means the govt is against pyramid schemes. Lame joke but I think thats the idea

You're gonna have to show your workings on this one, chief.

Gaawa_chan posted...

... Lol, since when is the government "against" capitalism? What have you been smoking?

i very clearly

did not say that

hera posted...

i very clearly
did not say that

The government is against them (pyramid schemes).
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
Ergo, the government must be against capitalism.

However, you introduced a logical contradiction at the end.
The government doesn't want competition for their pyramid scheme.
Therefore, they are not against them.
Thus, the government is in favor of capitalism because it's their pyramid scheme.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The government is against them (pyramid schemes).
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
Ergo, the government must be against capitalism.

However, you introduced a logical contradiction at the end.
The government doesn't want competition for their pyramid scheme.
Therefore, they are not against them.
Thus, the government is in favor of capitalism because it's their pyramid scheme.

We don't agree often, but I do agree here.

universal basic income

There's a big misunderstanding about what capitalism even is. Capitalism isn't the ability to exchange currency for goods and survices, nor is it what is meant by "command economy"

Lokarin posted...

There's a big misunderstanding about what capitalism even is.

There's also a big misunderstanding of what the actual flaws in capitalism are.

Capitalism isn't the problem. Humans are the problem. Human greed and willingness to subvert any system we create is what causes inequality. Any other economic system would be just as open to exploitation (and often has been, as is obvious to anyone who studies history). Doing away with capitalism tomorrow wouldn't magically solve every problem of the modern day overnight.

Short of finding a way to completely rewire the human brain to fundamentally alter human nature, or creating completely unbiased AI and putting them in charge (though that would come with an entirely different host of potential problems), we're kind of forever fucked.

I think at a larger scale you can pretty much forget about free will and look at people like a bunch of molecules in a complex soup. Just like how an individual electron may choose to jump around randomly, but as a group they usually only ever do one predictable thing.

Anyway I've seen bad socialists and good socialists. There is more diversity in socialist opinion than there is anywhere else. No one had a real common leader, and they all filled in the blanks themselves. That inevitably leads to people who are basically closer to genocidal Stalinists infecting the worker's rights socialists like cancer.

But yeah I'm not religiously devoted to capitalism, everyone obviously hates corporations, we obviously see how they put profits over all else, obviously constantly buying off the government. Are we really not smart enough, in this current day, to stop bashing rocks together? I see all the insanely complex technology we made but an effective method of government is too hard for us to grasp? And yeah, we might have bias, if you can define what bias is or what that means.

Once we find a way to get the rednecks on our side it's over. Kind of hard to do, but they are good people.

On that note, coming from someone who has worked with AI frameworks, I think the first ones to discover how to control people with AI will be the last party we have, destroying all our plans. Google

But listen, all I'm saying is that we've got to create MK Ultra and take over the world. I'm putting in a patent so the US government can't copy me.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The government is against them (pyramid schemes).
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
Ergo, the government must be against capitalism.

the first premise would have to be "the government is against all pyramid schemes" which was not stated and is already contradicted by there existing 1 (supposed) pyramid scheme that they're not against.

I once had a guy ask me why I care about the people begging outside of a nice restaurant one time when we were out years ago.

I said something like because all the nights you've been eating good and living nice your whole life, others have been barely getting by. And sitting here eating well in a nice restaurant while they're out there in the cold just makes that painfully obvious.

of course, there is a heavily supported ponzi scheme everyone should be aware of... especially if they care about housing prices.

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

Sahuagin posted...

the first premise would have to be "the government is against all pyramid schemes" which was not stated

The lack of limiting qualifiers makes it an all or none condition.
If it's_a_pyramid_scheme is true
+ then set the_government_is_against_it to true.

What you need are additional conditions.
If it's_a_pyramid_scheme is true
+ and scheme_owner is not government
+ + then set the_government_is_against_it to true.

That way it tests for competition. Not just that it's a pyramid scheme.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The lack of limiting qualifiers makes it an all or none condition.

no it doesn't, in fact it implies "some", not all or none

he has apples -> he has some apples, not he has all apples

I think that's nice.

Sahuagin posted...

he has apples -> he has some apples, not he has all apples

That doesn't work the same.
The statement "he has apples" is not contradicted by the existence of apples he doesn't have.
The statement "he likes apples" is contradicted by the existence of apples he doesn't like.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The statement "he likes apples" is contradicted by the existence of apples he doesn't like.

hmm, good, close but not quite.

I think it's in terms of implied scope. since he cannot possibly "have" all apples, we understand the scope is limited quite significantly to the small amount of apples that he could possibly physically have.

when we say he likes apples, yes, we do assume the scope is quite broad, but we still don't quite get to "literally all".

> he likes apples
> he doesn't like mcintosh apples
not strictly a contradiction; ie: these statements are compatible

> he likes all apples
> he doesn't like mcintosh apples
these statements contradict and cannot possibly both be true

I think I would say that the implied qualifier is "generally"

he likes apples -> he generally likes apples

Sahuagin posted...

> he likes apples
> he doesn't like mcintosh apples
not strictly a contradiction; ie: these statements are compatible

It still suggests that there's something specific about the other types of apple that he likes, or something specific about just McIntosh Apples that he doesn't like. A condition on top of just being an apple but still related to it. It's that other condition that I'm trying to draw attention to.

Where as saying "he has apples" there really isn't anything specific to the apples that would determine who has them. In this case the distinction is not the implied scope of the statement, but whether the determining factor is or is not inherent to being an apple.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where as saying "he has apples" there really isn't anything specific to the apples that would determine who has them. In this case the distinction is not the implied scope of the statement, but whether the determining factor is or is not inherent to being an apple.

right ok, "having" apples is not a statement with regard to apples as a concept/phenomenon, whereas liking (or being against something) is.

the original point I'm making is that unless you specifically say "all", then you are not ruling out exceptions. one can make a general statement ("the government is against them") and yet exceptions can still be granted.

and really you can even grant exceptions when saying "all" (he likes all apples, except mcintosh); that's just what an exception is. maybe a stronger restriction would be "no exceptions".

Sahuagin posted...

one can make a general statement ("the government is against them") and yet exceptions can still be granted.

What you have done here is poorly defined what the government is against. What you call an exception I call another variable to be identified. The government is not against it because it's a pyramid scheme. The government is against it because of something else about it having to do with being a pyramid scheme. That is what you should test for to say if the government will be against it or not.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The government is not against it because it's a pyramid scheme. The government is against it because of something else about it having to do with being a pyramid scheme. That is what you should test for to say if the government will be against it or not.

sure, but this was already stated in the first post. "that's why the government is against them, because they dont want competition". you were saying there was a contradiction, which there isn't really.

and hence my initial response that it would take putting something like "all" or "no exceptions" in there to make a contradiction.

"that's why the government is against all pyramid schemes, no exceptions, because they dont want competition for their own pyramid scheme (which they are implied to support)" (contradiction)

additionally, this statement from you is I think incorrect:

The government doesn't want competition for their pyramid scheme.
Therefore, they are not against them.

at least going with my "implied qualifier is 'generally'", this is incorrect, since your second statement becomes "therefore, they are not generally against them". no, they are generally against them, and their own is the exception.

I like Granny Smith

Sahuagin posted...

you were saying there was a contradiction, which there isn't really.

the government is against them
-is contradicted by-
Therefore, they are not against them.

Sahuagin posted...

at least going with my "implied qualifier is 'generally'", this is incorrect, since your second statement becomes "therefore, they are not generally against them"

As discussed earlier, what the government is actually against is something having to do with being a pyramid scheme. Specifically who it benefits. As such "all" pyramid schemes is implied.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

the government is against them
-is contradicted by-
Therefore, they are not against them.

...yeah but the second one is your false statement, not OPs

Sahuagin posted...

...yeah but that's your conclusion drawn from false premises

I edited my post in response to your edit addressing that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

As discussed earlier, what the government is actually against is something having to do with being a pyramid scheme. Specifically who it benefits. As such "all" pyramid schemes is implied.

no?

even if I granted that "all" is implied, (it isn't as discussed), one instance of not being against them is not enough to state "they are not against them" (unless "all" is implied here too? but no, "they are not against them" != "they are not against all of them")

what you're saying here makes zero sense

Sahuagin posted...

no?

The statement "he likes apples" is contradicted by the existence of apples he doesn't like.
-just as-
The statement "the government is against pyramid schemes" is contradicted by the existence of a pyramid scheme the government is not against.

There is something else about the apple that he does or does not like. Not just that it is an apple.
There is something else about the pyramid scheme that the government is or is not against. Not just that it is a pyramid scheme.

You're saying the original statement is not without exception.
I'm saying exception defines the something else about it. Once defined what you then wind up testing for is what he likes, or what the government is against.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

As discussed earlier, what the government is actually against is something having to do with being a pyramid scheme. Specifically who it benefits. As such "all" pyramid schemes is implied.

I think I get now that here you mean that "all" is implied, as in you can state "they are not against [any of] ("all" of) them"

problem is: "something having to do with being a pyramid scheme" is a property of pyramid schemes ("specifically who it benefits"). so just because the exception involves a property of the object does not allow you to state that the exception dismisses the rule. (there are words I can add to what you said, such as "necessarily", that could make it work, but I shouldn't have to do that.)

I think the crux of this is: exceptions are not contradictions.

(this post is sufficient for your previous post as well.) (also I'm tired.)

Sahuagin posted...

I think the crux of this is: exceptions are not contradictions.

The fact remains that he doesn't like apples. He likes an aspect of the apples that mcintosh don't share.
The government is not against pyramid schemes. The government is against an aspect of pyramid schemes that doesn't apply to their own.
The exception points to the falsehood of the original statement.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/3/3/AAFUswAADq0p.jpg

The government hates all apples including oranges.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The fact remains that he doesn't like apples. He likes an aspect of the apples that mcintosh don't share.

that's clearly still liking apples, or else one could barely like anything. just because things vary when you get to particulars doesn't mean you can't make general statements.

dude really tryna argue that capitalism isnt a pyramid scheme

what does he think "trickle down economics" means

hera posted...

dude really tryna argue that capitalism isnt a pyramid scheme

what does he think "trickle down economics" means

Socialism.

...no?

trickle down economics is the entire keystone of capitalism as a theory

and it's literally just

a pyramid

Surely the invisible hand will guide us to the correct path