Capitalism

[hhiusa]

I did not say "Logic is not a positive science."
I also said no such thing before so don't know where you get your "again" from????

I said you should not be applying positive science methodology to normative sciences.


Those facts aren't facts as you claim them. You forgot to mention the qualifying statement if all else remains the same, but sadly unlike in positive sciences, all things do not stay the same.

For example confidence is a big factor which along with the economic climate and job security determines whether people will bring their purchase decisions forward or postpone them.

This is why despite historic low interest rates not much investment going on. All that old stuff that monetarists like to shout about controlling the Ms by varying interest rates to influence inflation is not what its cut out to be.

I said logic is not a positive science. Positive sciences and normative sciences are both based in logic.

I know that you do not like logic as evidenced by any of your posts, which lack it.

you just said the same thing. Logic is not a positive science. Positive sciences and normative sciences are based upon propositional and predicate logic. A: Positive economics is objective and fact based, while normative economics is subjective and value based. Positive economic statements do not have to be correct, but they must be able to be tested and proved or disproved.

Simply being a normative science does not preclude the use of logic. You are equivocating the meaning of proof. Do not confuse soundness with validity.

 

[Atilla]

I said logic is not a positive science. Positive sciences and normative sciences are both based in logic.

I know that you do not like logic as evidenced by any of your posts, which lack it.

In all sincerity I think you should take this up with your tutor as I'm sure they will be better able to explain to you than I can at a level that you may comprehend.

Positive and Normative sciences use different approaches to the study of their respective disciplines.

Yes logic and common sense should be applied at all times whether you deduce or induce something make sure you've got the right end of the stick.


You sound like the kind of person who can quite easily pick an argument with his shadow.

 

[hhiusa]

In all sincerity I think you should take this up with your tutor as I'm sure they will be better able to explain to you than I can at a level that you may comprehend.

Positive and Normative sciences use different approaches to the study of their respective disciplines.

Yes logic and common sense should be applied at all times whether you deduce or induce something make sure you've got the right end of the stick.


You sound like the kind of person who can quite easily pick an argument with his shadow.

More ad hominems from you what a surprise. It is you who is in need of a tutor since you have not shown that you understand logic and cannot even point out any fallacies. You couldn't point out the fallacies in tomorton's statements because there were none.

This tangential debate started because you wanted to state a false cause between capitalism and irrelevant externalities like pollution.

Since you claim to understand logic so well I'm sure you can explain the picture that I created. I've already shown my understanding of logic by solving the proof. Why don't you explain the steps?

It is not about what I will accept as proof. It is about making a logical argument. Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.

 

[Pat494]

I have to say Ad Chumpy and his logic have taken over this and other threads and made them utterly boring and uninteresting.
So to liven it up a bit, here is my small contribution.

There was an old capitalist of California
Who painted his bum like a dahlia
Penny a smell was all very well
But tuppence a lick was a failure.



Oh alright it is an ad something or other I expect..............

 

[Atilla]

I have to say Ad Chumpy and his logic have taken over this and other threads and made them utterly boring and uninteresting.
So to liven it up a bit, here is my small contribution.

There was an old capitalist of California
Who painted his bum like a dahlia
Penny a smell was all very well
But tuppence a lick was a failure.



Oh alright it is an ad something or other I expect..............

That's hillarious

Made my morning that has

 

[Atilla]

More ad hominems from you what a surprise. It is you who is in need of a tutor since you have not shown that you understand logic I have had my tutoring and passed with flying colours thanks! and cannot even point out any fallacies. I did point out fallacies in your argument but you are very selective in your comprehension! :idea: You couldn't point out the fallacies in tomorton's statements because there were none. I did and I also posted an independent argument with link, highlighted in colour which you seem to have missed.

This tangential debate started because you wanted to state a false cause between capitalism and irrelevant externalities like pollution.There are positive and negative externalities which are extremely difficult to quantify by nature of normative science economics is. As I said to you applying your positive science theorems and methodology will not get you any where but up your rear, try as hard as you might.

Since you claim to understand logic so well I'm sure you can explain the picture that I created. Your picture is full of holes. I pointed confidence out to you and can throw another; what point of the economic cycle are we in when you apply this logic of yours to inflation or the Ms? I've already shown my understanding of logic by solving the proof. Delusion knows no bounds, a little like stupidity. Solved the proof subject to your missing assumptions which are not listed but exist purely in your head - if I may say so. Why don't you explain the steps? This is a tough one as you are asking me to complement your whacky comprehension which I find difficult to grasp. I'm sure this is because I lack your super brain.

It is not about what I will accept as proof. It is about making a logical argument. Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.

I told you I'm not about to write a thesis as too busy enjoying life.

You do realise this is a trading site and you are still at school. Shouldn't you be taking these up with your tutor who one hopes is qualified academically but just possibly missing on real life experiences imo. I could however, be wrong???

 

[hhiusa]

I told you I'm not about to write a thesis as too busy enjoying life.

That's a cop out answer. I will take that as "you cannot". That is what I expected. If you are too busy with your life, what are you doing here? Happy people do not complain about others. If you find me amusing, why do you complain? I do not complain about things that bring me amusement. :smart:

You do realise this is a trading site and you are still at school. Shouldn't you be taking these up with your tutor who one hopes is qualified academically but just possibly missing on real life experiences imo. I could however, be wrong???

I do realize that this is trading site. Have you posted any trades?

 

[Atilla]

That's a cop out answer. I will take that as "you cannot". That is what I expected. If you are too busy with your life, what are you doing here? Happy people do not complain about others. If you find me amusing, why do you complain? I do not complain about things that bring me amusement. :smart:



I do realize that this is trading site. Have you posted any trades?

Pull the other one its got bells on it.

 

[hhiusa]

Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.
:whistling

 

[hhiusa]

Why socialism does not work in Spain

Why socialism does not work in Spain.

Man skips work for 6 years; no one notices
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/14/man-skips-work-for-six-years/80378690/#

His response to why he had not come to work in 6 six years is a great reflection upon socialism.

 

[Atilla]

Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.
:whistling

Why?

You are not interested in any proof as you said so in your post when I asked. You don't care? Why should you care?

You are only interested in mudslinging (to use your twisted terminology) in applying your 'flawed logic' to rubbish anything that is presented to you.

You contrive, twist and turn any reasonable debate to your comprehension or lack of.

I have a sneaky feeling, you want someone else to write about your thesis so you can basically make up for your lack of intelligent debate and comprehension. Why would you push this line of daft argument so much. Surely your vocabulary has a wider range and choice of words?

However, I could be wrong??? :cheesy:

 

[hhiusa]

Why?

You are not interested in any proof as you said so in your post when I asked. You don't care? Why should you care?

You are only interested in mudslinging (to use your twisted terminology) in applying your 'flawed logic' to rubbish anything that is presented to you.

You contrive, twist and turn any reasonable debate to your comprehension or lack of.

I have a sneaky feeling, you want someone else to write about your thesis so you can basically make up for your lack of intelligent debate and comprehension. Why would you push this line of daft argument so much. Surely your vocabulary has a wider range and choice of words?

However, I could be wrong??? :cheesy:

Your deflections are quite obvious. That post has all the hallmarks of every evasion tactic.

Come on now. Put your money where your mouth is. You say you want reasonable debate but it has been you the entire time using flawed logic. You use appeal to emotion fallacies which are also essentially ad populum, to evoke emotional and illogical responses to derail the conversation. When that doesn't work you use ad hominems.

Point out this so-called flawed logic.

You claim that capitalism leads to "externalities" such as pollution. I told you to provide evidence that this is so. I also told you to provide me evidence how capitalism is the only market system that would do this.

Why don't I go back through this thread and post all the ad hominem attacks you have posted?

 

[Atilla]

Your deflections are quite obvious. That post has all the hallmarks of every evasion tactic.

Come on now. Put your money where your mouth is. You say you want reasonable debate but it has been you the entire time using flawed logic. You use appeal to emotion fallacies which are also essentially ad populum, to evoke emotional and illogical responses to derail the conversation. When that doesn't work you use ad hominems.

Point out this so-called flawed logic.

You claim that capitalism leads to "externalities" such as pollution. I told you to provide evidence that this is so. I also told you to provide me evidence how capitalism is the only market system that would do this.

Why don't I go back through this thread and post all the ad hominem attacks you have posted?

Knock your self out dude!

What ever rocks your boat


I think you are more of a clown. You put some two bit formula up, say you understand logic and have solved the proof to a normative opinion based set of assumptions which doesn't hold up to real life application or observation and claim understanding of the subject matter.

Hope you are academically minded to question and challenge the text book theoretical crap monetarists may present to you. However, I'm not holding my breath.


Here are some questions to get you thinking and see how you apply your knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.

How does rise in interest rates effect the money supply?

We have had very low interest rates for a very long time, across many countries by historic standards.

Why are inflation rates below government targets in countries with very low and/or negative interest rates?

Why have governments set inflation targets of 2% or higher? Usually, they are fighting to keep inflation down? So what's going on here then???

Why is the drop in oil prices not greeted with joy and cheer?

Are you able to analyse and interpret how these developments feed into currency fluctuations?


Don't need a thesis! Just a few sentences should suffice to present your appreciation of the fundamentals.

Apply logic and common sense generously.

 

[hhiusa]

Come on now. Put your money where your mouth is. You say you want reasonable debate but it has been you the entire time using flawed logic. Point out this so-called flawed logic.

Knock your self out dude!

What ever rocks your boat

I think you are more of a clown. You put some two bit formula up, say you understand logic and have solved the proof to a normative opinion based set of assumptions which doesn't hold up to real life application or observation and claim understanding of the subject matter.

It is not my fault that you cannot understand predicate calculus. :smart: I have not so much said I understand logic as I have illustrated that I understand logic. I expect you to demonstrate your claimed understanding of logic. Here I will help you with the first step. It is called proof by contradiction. State the negation of the conclusion.

Predicate logic primer - University of Texas
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eberlein/cs301k/predLogic.pdf

Proof by contradiction - University of Maine
http://germain.its.maine.edu/~farlow/sec15.pdf

Hope you are academically minded to question and challenge the text book theoretical crap monetarists may present to you. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Prove that it is crap. That is an ad hominem fallacy.. You are attacking the person instead of the person's argument.

Here are some questions to get you thinking and see how you apply your knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question - This is done the most often here by A, P & F
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

How does rise in interest rates effect the money supply?

We have had very low interest rates for a very long time, across many countries by historic standards.

Why are inflation rates below government targets in countries with very low and/or negative interest rates?

Why have governments set inflation targets of 2% or higher? Usually, they are fighting to keep inflation down? So what's going on here then???

Why is the drop in oil prices not greeted with joy and cheer?

You are just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Why state questions about things in which you are unable show that they have relevance? All of your statements are unrelated. Are you going to debate economic theory or the faults and merits of capitalism

That is an irrelevant conclusions fallacy.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

Are you able to analyse and interpret how these developments feed into currency fluctuations?

That is an irrelevant conclusions fallacy.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me"
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

Don't need a thesis! Just a few sentences should suffice to present your appreciation of the fundamentals.

Apply logic and common sense generously.

You should take your own advice. :smart:

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

 

[Atilla]

Come on now. Put your money where your mouth is. You say you want reasonable debate but it has been you the entire time using flawed logic. Point out this so-called flawed logic.



It is not my fault that you cannot understand predicate calculus. :smart: I have not so much said I understand logic as I have illustrated that I understand logic. I expect you to demonstrate your claimed understanding of logic. Here I will help you with the first step. It is called proof by contradiction. State the negation of the conclusion.

Predicate logic primer - University of Texas
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eberlein/cs301k/predLogic.pdf

Proof by contradiction - University of Maine
http://germain.its.maine.edu/~farlow/sec15.pdf

Prove that it is crap. That is an ad hominem fallacy.. You are attacking the person instead of the person's argument.


Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question - This is done the most often here by A, P & F
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

You are just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Why state questions about things in which you are unable show that they have relevance? All of your statements are unrelated. Are you going to debate economic theory or the faults and merits of capitalism

That is an irrelevant conclusions fallacy.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner - This is done the most by A. See Ad hominem.
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

That is an irrelevant conclusions fallacy.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me"
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

You should take your own advice. :smart:

Evasion techniques in Ethics

1. Ignoring the question
2. Acknowledging the question without answering it
3. Questioning the question by:
   1. requesting clarification
   2. reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" - You just did this
4. Attacking the question by saying:
   1. "the question fails to address the important issue"
   2. "the question is hypothetical or speculative"
   3. "the question is based on a false premise"
   4. "the question is factually inaccurate"
   5. "the question includes a misquotation"
   6. "the question includes a quotation taken out of context"
   7. "the question is objectionable" - Stating that a question is morally objectionable is illogical.
   8. "the question is based on a false alternative"
5. Attacking the questioner
6. Declining to answer by:
   1. refusing on grounds of inability
   2. being unwilling to answer
   3. saying "I can't speak for someone else"
   4. deferring answer, saying "it is not possible to answer the question for the time being"
   5. pleading ignorance
   6. placing the responsibility to answer on someone else

So you've learnt how to use Cut & Paste!

Sadly you lack applied intelligence.

Just keep regurgitating same old rubbish.


Relevance you say and you talk about money supply as if you know???

You talk well but not very good at performing the walk are you?

Hilarious!

 

[hhiusa]

So you've learnt how to use Cut & Paste!

Sadly you lack applied intelligence.

Just keep regurgitating same old rubbish.


Relevance you say and you talk about money supply as if you know???

You talk well but not very good at performing the walk are you?

Ad hominems. :smart:

Says the person who has not posted any answers. Yes, I know how to copy and paste things that I have already written. It is better than copy and pasting things from Wikipedia. :whistling

You certainly have the namecalling and tantrum-throwing down to a science. Are you going to keep evading the issues at hand?

Put your money where your mouth is. You claim that capitalism leads to "externalities" such as pollution. I told you to provide evidence that this is so. I also told you to provide me evidence how capitalism is the only market system that would do this.

 

[Atilla]

Ad hominems. :smart:

Says the person who has not posted any answers. Yes, I know how to copy and paste things that I have already written. It is better than copy and pasting things from Wikipedia. :whistling

You certainly have the namecalling and tantrum-throwing down to a science. Are you going to keep evading the issues at hand?

Put your money where your mouth is. You claim that capitalism leads to "externalities" such as pollution. I told you to provide evidence that this is so. I also told you to provide me evidence how capitalism is the only market system that would do this.

You have a short span memory as well as selective comprehension.

You think cut and pasting something 4 x is going to achieve what difference exactly?

Kindly apply your logic to pasting something in the same blog 4 x???


You numpty! Not my claim. I told you before, take your ad hominem and shove it up somewhere the sun don't shine.

Any academic who has serious intentions to understanding the subject matter wouldn't hesitate to find out about externalities; positive and/or negative. A scholar and gentleman you are not.

You are simply someone shovelling your abuse prove this prove that, logic my rear, tickle my fallacy


You need help and I don't mean just in your studies :idea:

 

[hhiusa]

You have a short span memory as well as selective comprehension.

You think cut and pasting something 4 x is going to achieve what difference exactly?

Kindly apply your logic to pasting something in the same blog 4 x???

It is memory span, not span memory.

I will continue to paste what I previously posted until you answer the question.

You numpty! Not my claim. I told you before, take your ad hominem and shove it up somewhere the sun don't shine.

Any academic who has serious intentions to understanding the subject matter wouldn't hesitate to find out about externalities; positive and/or negative. A scholar and gentleman you are not.

No. Any academic worth their salt would require you provide the evidence. Only people who have no clue about what they're talking about would tell someone else to go do the research for them. You stated your claims about these externalities now it is up to you to provide the proof.

You are simply someone shovelling your abuse prove this prove that, logic my rear, tickle my fallacy

Heaven for bid someone should actually have to prove what they say.

You need help and I don't mean just in your studies :idea:

Let's play a game. Why don't I post all of the ad hominem arguments that you have posted. You complain about people being rude on this thread and yet 90% of what you post is name calling.

 

[Atilla]

It is memory span, not span memory.

I will continue to paste what I previously posted until you answer the question.



No. Any academic worth their salt would require you provide the evidence. Only people who have no clue about what they're talking about would tell someone else to go do the research for them. You stated your claims about these externalities now it is up to you to provide the proof.



Heaven for bid someone should actually have to prove what they say.



Let's play a game. Why don't I post all of the ad hominem arguments that you have posted. You complain about people being rude on this thread and yet 90% of what you post is name calling.

Did you post 4 x the same post because you have a short memory span and simply forgot?

It is a little like writing in capital's but much less effective.

Do you free nd it also helps with emphasizing your proof is valid?

Thanks

 

[hhiusa]

As long as you keep trolling, I will keep asking. How are pollution and capitalism related?

Did you post 4 x the same post because you have a short memory span and simply forgot?

It is a little like writing in capital's but much less effective.

Do you free nd it also helps with emphasizing your proof is valid?

Thanks

Hey, you got memory span right this time. You're welcome.

You numpty! Not my claim. I told you before, take your ad hominem and shove it up somewhere the sun don't shine.

Any academic who has serious intentions to understanding the subject matter wouldn't hesitate to find out about externalities; positive and/or negative. A scholar and gentleman you are not.

So, what you are saying is that someone else should do the work for you after you state something.

Evasion techniques in Ethics

Declining to answer by:​

placing the responsibility to answer on someone else​