Water shutoff in Detriot.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Are you referring to the post in the other thread in which you stated that an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure, but no politician is interested in prevention because they want to look "tough on crime"?

How is any of that racist?

[smooth]

Name a few.

I listed a string of them already last time you asked.

Post 28, first paragraph

[The Dark Side of Will]

there are specific historic and racist policies that got them to the point where it could go downhill very harshly and very quickly.

Name a few.

[smooth]

You guys are all a bunch of nancies. Back in the old days, when the Heeter cared about us, he dropped knowledge, links, charts and data with his arguments, you guys just fling poo like a bunch of monkeys. Regardless of right or wrong, he backed his shit up.

Fair enough...here's a choice quote of marshallnoise demonstrating his inability to think for himself:

Laws, right, wrong or indifferent, are laws. The Rule of Law, no matter how crappy the laws are, should be enforced.

[Farbin Kaiber]

You guys are all a bunch of nancies. Back in the old days, when the Heeter cared about us, he dropped knowledge, links, charts and data with his arguments, you guys just fling poo like a bunch of monkeys. Regardless of right or wrong, he backed his shit up.

[smooth]

This whole "prove yourself" back and forth here is an absolute waste of time for everyone. The other side will either entirely dismiss it based on the source (ie. not one of YOUR approved sources) or more often then not just not bother with an intelligent response in the form of picking and choosing parts to spin or resorting to personal attacks. While it is more informative and entertaining to get additional facts regarding a position, it will never result in it changing someone's point of view...at least not here.

BraveUlysses didn't ask for information to go read up on he asked marshallnoise to explain his own position. Marshallnoise told him to go read some of Sowell's writings to understand his position (although that's a bizarrely inconsistent position given what he's spewed about academics in his thread and the last few weeks since I explained that I was a professor).

Seems to be a fair conclusion that marshallnoise is just shitting in the thread and doesn't actually have a solid grasp on Sowell's argument about the roots of economic inequality or he'd simply outline it...not that it's relevant since the question was about marshallnoise's position not Sowell's (unless marshallnoise can't think for himself--and that's been my conclusion based on what he does for a living and his posts in this section of the board).

[BraveUlysses]

This whole "prove yourself" back and forth here is an absolute waste of time for everyone. The other side will either entirely dismiss it based on the source (ie. not one of YOUR approved sources) or more often then not just not bother with an intelligent response in the form of picking and choosing parts to spin or resorting to personal attacks. While it is more informative and entertaining to get additional facts regarding a position, it will never result in it changing someone's point of view...at least not here.

So what's the standard for "debate" in here if nobody should be expected to back up their arguments with a shred of evidence? just keep throwing poop? endless fallacious arguments?

just because the standard of discourse around here is pretty low doesn't mean it can't be improved.

We didn't even get to the stage of dismissing anyone's source.

[marshallnoise]

This whole "prove yourself" back and forth here is an absolute waste of time for everyone. The other side will either entirely dismiss it based on the source (ie. not one of YOUR approved sources) or more often then not just not bother with an intelligent response in the form of picking and choosing parts to spin or resorting to personal attacks. While it is more informative and entertaining to get additional facts regarding a position, it will never result in it changing someone's point of view...at least not here.

Agreed. Casting pearls before swine as it were.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

This whole "prove yourself" back and forth here is an absolute waste of time for everyone. The other side will either entirely dismiss it based on the source (ie. not one of YOUR approved sources) or more often then not just not bother with an intelligent response in the form of picking and choosing parts to spin or resorting to personal attacks. While it is more informative and entertaining to get additional facts regarding a position, it will never result in it changing someone's point of view...at least not here.

[marshallnoise]

That's because you're erroneously assuming that I haven't read several articles or watched interviews of him.

All I asked you to do is to prove your own argument and you get your jimmies rustled.

It appears that your opinions are merely regurgitation of the viewpoints of others.

Yes. That's right...because all of the proof I have given you to substantiate that opinion.

But you did prove my point that you aren't interested in any other viewpoint.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

No, I asked you to read about him. Perhaps one of his numerous articles.

It is called leading a horse to water, but I should expect you need to be spoon fed like an infant. Even then, the liklihood of you spitting it up is strong.

Gfy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

That's because you're erroneously assuming that I haven't read several articles or watched interviews of him.

All I asked you to do is to prove your own argument and you get your jimmies rustled.

It appears that your opinions are merely regurgitation of the viewpoints of others, and that you understand them so poorly you can't even use them as the basis of your argument.

[marshallnoise]

Asking you to prove your own arguments is now "doing research"?

It appears that you asked me to read one of Sowell's books because you didn't learn enough from it to make your own arguments.

No, I asked you to read about him. Perhaps one of his numerous articles.

It is called leading a horse to water, but I should expect you need to be spoon fed like an infant. Even then, the liklihood of you spitting it up is strong.

Gfy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

Asking you to prove your own arguments is now "doing research"?

It appears that you asked me to read one of Sowell's books because you didn't learn enough from it to make your own arguments.

[marshallnoise]

This is rich, especially coming from the both of you.

However, I am posting from a smartphone. Not exactly the best format to do research for Mr Ulysses nor constantly respond to an academic's posturing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

I don't think his inability to discuss or reason has anything to do with being a 'corporate drone.' He's just one of the millions of worthless internet poster with a chip on his shoulder. I guess that's why we have ignore lists.

That's true in some sense. I don't want to stretch the term too far. Certainly there are people who work in corporate America that would prefer otherwise and others that enjoy what they do yet still think for themselves.

But in his specific case he went to school for a particular kind of work, one that eschews individuality and freedom of thought. He *chose* a career path that doesn't allow deviation from the rules and his logical functions have atrophied.

It's a tragic end for what once was one of the most complex organisms on the planet with access to what might be the most powerful tools in existence.