Actually, that probably plays a significant role. When you're culturally different than the country you immigrate to, you're less self conscious of what role you play, and can do what's necessary to be productive, even if demeaning. The more you're like the culture of the country you're immigrating to, the more energy you probably expend trying to maintain the facade of already being part of that culture, and as a result, the less productive you can be.

To put in further perspective, the immigrating culture that is different is more likely to band together, and support each other in participating in the demeaning tasks, build a better network, and be more successful at building a business through their network.

If it was covered by free speech laws, hugolp could certainly make such a post, and we could all write it off to one disruntled guy. But it's a private server, and subject to the whims of a few. Funny thing is, that makes his comment even stranger and more sinister, when you think about it. I mean, look at the posts I've made in this thread.

So let me understand what you've just said within the context of the developing analogy. You're declaring we each have a claim on two or three square feet within the well, is that correct?

Do we need to quote the original post in which you created the analogy?


It's quite clear that we were talking about carbon dioxide. Notice the question I asked you that prompted you to analogize pollution to the water tank/well? It followed a discussion about carbon dioxide. However, if you choose to be so wormy, and claim that we were talking about pollution in general, then that would include carbon dioxide, and many other pollutants and environmental effects which would also affect you and your friends in addition to me.

Why is it relevant that you and your friends are taking damage as well? Because by putting you and your friends in the well along side me, we've clarified to you who is really being affected. Based upon your analogy, you failed to clarify that you understood all who were affected, which makes your analogy weak, and calls into question the justification of your beliefs.   

Once you're aware that you are taking damage, it influences your decisions in a way that is different than if you are not aware of it. By placing the burden upon me alone to demonstrate that everyone is taking damage, you have delayed mitigating the damage done. In other words, the water level rises more than necessary, and possibly results in irreversible damage. Your friends, by being stubborn, or ignorant, are in fact the embodiment of a libertarian think tank engaged in either brownlash or ignorance in the defense of a political ideology.

Your argument, and your analogy, must factor in as much knowledge and truth as possible, if you don't want to be accused of being either willfully ignorant, just plain ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that in your analogy, I am constrained such that I cannot leave the well. This is accurate, as it represents either the fact that we cannot just leave the Earth, or that it is not always easy to relocate. You might want to also consider that we are all constrained within the well. As for the cups of water being poured in, you might want to consider that it's actually our piss and shit, which affects the fish which swim in the well with us. When we've fished out all the fish, we hunt the birds above us, which accounts for how our piss and shit is additive to the water within the well.

Feel free to apply your homesteading logic to fishing within the well if you want. We'll see how that works out.

The well analogy, if properly fleshed out, is in fact an excellent example of a closed ecosystem. It's too bad you thought you and your friends weren't a part of it, as if they lived on Mars.

You do have a history of getting cranky when your arguments are called into question. Let's review your own analogy and its components:

• The cups of water being poured into the well are analogous to pollution, in this case, carbon dioxide.
• The rising water level is analogous to a rising level of atmospheric pollution.
• You and your friends, by pouring cups of water into the well, are analogous to emitters of carbon dioxide.

Now, as stated many posts back, and before your presentation of the water tank/well analogy, carbon dioxide emitted here can be on another continent within a week, and anywhere in the world within a few months. Therefore, it is rather obvious that your analogy, where the water cups affect me, but not you and your friends is rather unrealistic. Really, who should be in the well? Once we've answered that rather simple question (which you neglected to do after repeatedly being asked), we can then choose an appropriate and analogous process which causes the rising water level in the well, can't we?

How am I being intellectually lazy? I honestly didn't think it would take mind reading on your part to to go back over the argument, see the obvious shortcomings of your analogy, take my rather generous hints, and put together a better analogy. And you call me intellectually lazy?

I'm being patient with you, man! I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yes. I can be a little less vague. But if I choose to be less vague, then I'm demonstrating that you're not able to think it through. That's not good for you, is it? My point is, you had (and still have) the opportunity to build up and refine an analogy that more accurately models the scenario we're arguing. It's very important to get the analogy right, if you want it to be illustrative.

You do nothing for your arguments when your analogies are poor models. It would be to your credit to get the analogy correct. You've chosen to put me in the well, and keep yourself and your friends outside the well. I'm suggesting you reevaluate that choice.

We have discussed plenty of books in the past. Furthermore, after recommending Wilson to you, you said that you weren't interested in any more book recommendations, despite asking me for them prior to my Wilson recommendation. And based on your various arguments, it appears that nothing Wilson said matters to you. No surprise there.

Now, does the following question give you pause for thought regarding your water tank/well analogy? How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

bitcoin2cash,

Once again, regarding the water tank/well, how many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

I'll ask you again. Please improve your analogy. I've given you a big hint in my last post in the form of a question that should get you thinking. You're the one presenting an argument to me. I think it's weak. Fix it.

And on a side note: I've recommended books and reading material to you, and you told me flat out that you wanted me to explain in my own terms the relevant statistics, facts and arguments. I have done so in the past. Then you told me in no uncertain terms that you'll never come around to my point of view based on my arguments, but you would read books if I recommended them to you. I then did so, for the second time. And did you read any of them? No, you didn't. You then made some excuse that you had no interest in reading such material. Don't make me dig for the posts, but I will if necessary. And you have the gall to complain about what I patiently try explaining to you in numerous and different ways?

You do understand what is wrong with your argument, don't you? Again, I'll give you the opportunity to refine it or improve it. But I doubt you'll try, and instead come back with a smug retort about how I have nothing and your argument is perfect. Feel free. You'll only be prolonging your foolish belief in your position.

So, is that your final (and to you, no doubt, decisive) argument?

Want a hint? It has to do with the room that the doctor originally practiced medicine in.

Funny. The only reason I delay explaining such things is to prolong how foolish you look. Seriously. You will get the explanation, but I do enjoy giving you the opportunity to refine and improve your position, because I know you won't. Now watch as you commence to come back with a retort claiming I have nothing and am only bluffing, while you act all smug that I have nothing.

I'm giving you a second chance here. I'll even help you out with some hints. How many people should be in the well, and how many should not be in the well?

Notice how the method I'm recommending does none of the following:

• Mandate any specific target for MPG
• Collect a tax to pay for a program
• State that an auto maker must do any particular thing to the automobiles they make (although I'm not claiming that other programs shouldn't make certain safety requirements necessary)
• Punish or reward any auto maker for making more or less earnings than another auto maker
• Give a tax incentive to anyone based on their social status
• Encourage those who need efficient automobiles the most to be forced to buy the cheapest and most technologically inefficient

However, it should result in the following:

• Radically accelerate the technology and manufacture of super efficient automobiles
• Get auto makers to concentrate on technology, rather than marketing
• Reduce fuel consumption, thus reducing tensions in the Middle East
• Reduce fuel consumption, thus reducing the need to drill in our own backyard and cause environmental damage
• Reduce fuel consumption, and thus reduce carbon emissions
• By virtue of reducing a reliance on the Middle East, it likely also reduces a need for defense spending in the Middle East
• Allows the lower and middle class to spend more discretionary dollars on local economies due to saving money on fuel
• Forces oil companies to compete harder in the development of alternative energy sources
• Allow new startups to enter the market with a selective and competitive model line
  

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

As a thought experiment, your water tank/well falls woefully short of modeling reality. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments that analogize well. Feel free to improve your water tank/well thought experiment, and I might accept it.

Not really interested in watching videos.

Let's say he doesn't hire criminals. He's within his rights to buy the road and put his trucks on it day and night. He's within his rights to change the road contract upon expiration. It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing, or destruction of property on MoonShadow's property. It's not clear to me if MoonShadow can win this case in court, given MysteriousMan's prior and extensive use of the bigger courts. And it sounds like everyone really wants to see this guy regulated.

Wrong. That's exactly what you want to avoid.

That's more contrived than anything else on this board, fails to address the kidnapping aspect, fails to address the accomplices' role in the event, and is really out there as far as trying to argue against regulation of those who pollute. I asked you by what metric your pollution output should factor into all pollution emitted. Is the above supposed to be an answer to that?


I'm failing to see where you have demolished my post - where is it? As for my post being garbage, it's not clear to me how cause and effect has been thrown into the garbage can.

Reminds me of web design, which should be done by trained graphic artists. I showed a friend a fairly simple home page of some web site. He was an IT director fantasizing about becoming a web developer, not even really understanding the difference between a designer and developer. Point is, I showed him the home page of this site which I thought looked really clean and nice.

I said to him, "Look at that. What do you think? That's not easy to do."

He said, "That? That's simple. I could do that in PhotoShop and create HTML from that."

I then proceeded to tell him in no uncertain terms that he could not. The first point he was totally missing was before doing the technical work in PhotoShop, you've got to visualize some random thing in your head which could be any of a number of infinite things, and it has to look good. What colors? What shapes? What layout? How do they interconnect? What's the overall tone? Does it communicate effectively? Is it harmonious? Is it unique? Does it have the proper feel for the site's purpose? Just because it's simple does not mean it's easy.

He just assumed the above process kind of just happens as you fire up PhotoShop. What he thought was the real work was just the final step.