Why is Capitalism seen as a system of oppression?

Your silly little desert island scenario falls apart with the addition of public water fountains.

 

Sooooo your view of capitalism is accurate in a hypothetical desert island scenario, mine in the real world.

 

Roy, your response is lackluster at best, so I won't bother with an in-depth response. A series of one sentence replies does not count as reasoned refutation to a series of assertions that you made. I'll respond to whatever I actually consider to have some actual level of reasoning behind it

Voluntary is defined as:

You don't have to participate in the capitalist system. It is of your own free will and no one will actively do anything to you if you do not participate in the system. Voluntary has nothing to do with need, but rather active volition. If I choose not to work and I die of starvation then this was still a voluntary decision on my part

A response that consists of "no" is a case of denying something without reason and is not compelling. If you are reasonably disputing them then you provide a chain of reasoning. Something you fail to do.

1. I find it interesting that you use the exact same argument against capitalism in the use of land that socialists do in the ownership of private goods. If you change a few key aspects of this example and change these factors from land to produced goods then your own system falls apart

2. Even in the above example you do see a case of voluntarism. It is still cooperation and the man doesn't have to provide the transaction. You are not defining voluntary in any sort of correct manner. Furthermore you have not shown why the man has the "right" to this, or how the capitalist apologists are "evil" or why they have "lied", or why the man's need for water is necessarily a source of value

3. Ultimately this is a life boat scenario, and it actually far less applicable to the modern scenarios where communal and societal ownership is much more doable and necessary.

Why?

You can't confiscate something from someone if they don't own it to begin with. Anyway, with the way that you are inaccurately applying my logic no one could ever use the land since its usage is mutually exclusive. you couldn't use the land because that would be depriving my use of it, I couldn't use the land because that would deprive your use of it. The land stays baron and we all die.

And in the capitalist system they are given access to land by being allowed into the production structure. So if that's your problem then it's solved.

1. Where are these rights derived from?

2. What defines a "normal person"

3. What defines "sustain"

4. What defines "the community?"

5. What about people who aren't normal who can't sustain themselves even with land?

6. What if there isn't enough land for everyone to sustain themselves?

Who would set the prices? Food stamps make up a very small percentage of food sales, but if this was applied to all food, or all land, a very different result would occur. Also, either you get away with rents or you perform land reallocation and generally land ends up back in the hands of those who originally had it. For instance, let's say that a man could farm and get a profit of 4 percent per year on land, but that a nearby farmer is a superior farmer and could farm at a rate of profit of 5 percent per year, it would make sense for the first farmer to rent or to sell his land to the second farmer, who would presumably be willing to pay more for it than the first farmer could make off the farm in the first place.

Thusly if rent still existed then land would generally end up back into the hands of those who currently have it after a brief reallocation period. However, if you prohibit rent collection or the ownership of land then you get a permanent misallocation of land to less productive uses, so the more productive farmer can't expand his production.

You can't stop someone from receiving the sun's rays when they are constantly being blasted at them. Indeed if someone's land was constantly flowing towards someone else's property it would be a violation of property rights, just like if I were throwing a clock at your face.

The sun's rays cannot be made scarce by law either. Land is scarce by the amount that there is, if land "didn't take up space", a contradiction, then it would not be scarce, but there is only so much space in a city. Therefor it must be allocate.

They are deprived of the opportunity because their usage of the land isn't more productive than the opportunity cost of the land in the first place. If it were then they could afford to purchase the land or afford to pay the rent.

That's the scarcity of nature. Blame god for designing land to take up space, not those who then allocate it.

The exact process of how it's allocated, how the taxes on it work, what sort of guarantee and practices are used by private companies using it, so on.

... Just sit back and think what you're doing here. You're claiming that you know what I'm thinking. A guy that you don't know that you've exchanged a handful of messages with on the internet. You have no idea what I'm thinking or what I've realized, and it's laughable that you think you do. It's more suitable for a troll than someone who wants to be taken seriously.

What subsidies? And of course inflation and credit expansion into the area of housing was a major source of this. Bubbles occur in other places besides land, so the claim that this was the only thing that could have caused this is foolish. There were a huge number of perverse incentives caused by the government at the time.

The landowner acts for the market. Without someone to judge the price the market doesn't work. The market is a process, and one that isn't automatic.

Because he helps to set and appropriate price for it, he helps to improve the land because he can own it and collect rent on it, and because he brings it to the market in the first place.

That's an incredibly small portion of the economy.

No.

It doesn't need to because it's such an effective market economy with a petite government actually holding it down.

So then governments don't need to be big and they are likely to inhibit growth after a point?

Larger governments, less spontaneous market/social action.

No it's not. It's based in sound economic reasoning. As for what "facts" support, you'll notice that people dispute what facts actually show for their entire lives, because without a sound theory facts are meaningless when there are a multitude of variables at work. For instance I could argue that the decline of the American economy is because of decreasing social conservatism and it's relatively well correlated with reality. Any arbitrary thesis can be supported when there are a large number of variables. It's not scientific to claim that when nothing is held constant that we can test hypotheses by looking at results.

And you're wrong for the reasons I specified. The incentives of government are perverse. The government is slightly positive at best when it makes up an incredibly small portion of the economy and just deals with collective goods. Beyond that it just destroys and alters the rational calculation and consumer service of the market economy. In our society government failure is far more prevalent than any but the largest of market failures (defense)

That doesn't deal with the problem at all. Democracy is still rationally irrational, and the government still has no reason to properly appropriate goods and services.

No. What I know is that you have only a vague grasp of what you're talking about, that you have no coherent morality, and that you're utterly closed minded.

How can you take yourself seriously when you use this language? You sound like a christian talking to someone who disagrees with his personal interpretation of the bible.

To the contrary, I provide far more substantive content than you do with every response that really deals with the heart of the issue. You rarely do.

 

No, of course it doesn't. There are no public water fountains, because the landowner owns the only source of water, and the entrepreneur paid him for the concession. Very much like the situation where people are trying to find a place to live in a city where there is economic opportunity, so they can get access to that opportunity: they have to pay landowners whatever they demand, just for the liberty to access the advantages that government, the community and nature provide.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. My view is accurate. I have described the essential nature of capitalism. You just have to refuse to know all relevant facts, as you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

By this standard of “voluntary” the government could take all your income in taxation and it would still be voluntary because you can choose not to earn income. If we accept your definition of “voluntary” then we must accept that all forms of government taxation are also voluntarily collected, because they can all be avoided by simply committing suicide.

I have no idea about what system of land tenure you are talking about here, but it certainly isn’t the geoist system. Under the geoist system, exclusive use of land is gained by simply going to the land administrative office and making a competitive offer of compensation to the community. The community then makes a concession to the individual who offers the most compensation; whereby the community agrees to yield its right of use to the land to the individual, and in return, the individual who is awarded this concession pays compensation to the community. Under this geoist system it is easy to acquire exclusive use of land, and it is inherently fair because both parties (the individual and the community) receive something of equal value as determined by the market.

The subsidies of efficient government spending within a capitalist system. Efficient government spending makes land more productive and increases the value of land. When government builds a new road, or makes great improvement to existing roads, these activities make the nearby land more desirable and productive. In a geoist system this isn’t a problem, because landholders pay the taxes that fund the services which enhance the value of their land holdings. So there is no subsidy to landholders in a geoist system. In contrast, in a capitalist economy where taxes are levied on production and trade, and then spent on services and infrastructure that enhance land values, the result is a welfare subsidy giveaway from the productive taxpayers to the landowners whose lands productivity and values where enhanced by the spending.

 

The dying man at the oasis doesn't have to pay $1K for a liter of water, either. He can just "voluntarily choose" to be forcibly prevented, by the landowner, from drinking from the spring nature provided, and thus die of thirst. Evil, lying sacks of $#!+ call that, "voluntary participation in the capitalist system."

That's a bald falsehood and you know it. Landowners (or, more commonly, government acting in their behalf) will actively and forcibly violate my right to liberty to stop me from using the natural resources I would otherwise be at liberty to use. You know this, but you have to find some way to prevent yourself from knowing it. The false, absurd, and dishonest claims that constitute the rest of your post were designed in part to prevent you from knowing it. Observe:

Some people would say that the dying man's need for water has nothing to do with whether his transaction with the water seller is voluntary or not. The technical term for such people is "evil, lying sacks of $#!+."

Right. Just as the dying man's lack of $1K to pay the capitalist entrepreneur for a liter of water is the result of his choice not to work, so he has voluntarily chosen to die of thirst. It is purely his own voluntary choice that the landowner forcibly prvents him from drinking the water. The landowner is not actively doing anything to stop him, other than physically keeping him away from the spring. And that doesn't count as actively doing anything, because he is only asserting his property right in the spring, which only a communist would dispute.

Or at least, that is the despicable lie that evil, lying sacks of capitalist $#!+ offer.

That is another deliberate falsehhood, as proved above.

By contrast, I don't find it interesting that you falsely and dishonestly claim I use the exact same argument socialists use. I find it predictable -- even inevitable -- and boring, because I have seen the same stupid lie so many times before.

I.e., my argument is exactly the same as the socialists' argument... except for the few key aspects that have to be changed, like the fact that natural resources like the spring water in the oasis were already freely available to all with no help from their "owners" or anyone else, while products of labor were not....?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.

Of course. The landowner voluntarily appropriates the oasis nature provided as his private property, and then voluntarily uses violent, aggressive, forcible physical coercion to prevent others from accessing and using it.

Right. There is voluntary cooperation between the landowner and the capitalist entrepreneur to take $1K from the dying man for each liter of the natural spring water he wants to drink.

Yes, of course I am. You just have to redefine it incorrectly and dishonestly in order to rationalize capitalist greed, extortion, privilege and injustice.

Do you agree that he would have the right to drink from the spring in the absence of the landowner and capitalist entrepreneur? If so, how has their presence, their claim of property rights in the water, and their intention to take his money in return for nothing, erased that right?

See your comment, above, that when people cannot afford to pay rent to a greedy, idle, parasitic landowner for access to the economic opportunities government, the community, and nature provide, and consequently die of starvation, as countless millions of people have done under capitalism, that is a "voluntary decision" on their part not to work, and to die of starvation.

Such claims are simply vicious, evil lies. There is no other honest and accurate way to describe them. They are just the pure, distilled essence of naked, smirking evil. I don't know any clearer way to explain that to you.

Why else would he "voluntarily" pay $1K for a liter of natural spring water he could otherwise have drunk for free?

So you agree that capitalism murders the dying man, and that communal and/or societal ownership of natural resources as in a geoist system is required to rescue him from the murderous intent of the capitalist system of private property in natural resources? Good.

That question only makes sense if you deny that people have a right to liberty. As you have already stridently asserted their right to property, one can only conclude that you favor property "rights" that deny the existence of liberty rights -- i.e., chattel slavery.

Of course you can. Proof:

Nobody owns the earth's atmosphere. But if a man invents a machine that compresses and stores atmospheric air very cheaply, then runs his machine until people are short of breath, and have to pay him for bottled air to breathe in order to avoid suffocating to death, he has confiscated the atmosphere from them, even though they did not own it. QED.

You stand refuted, just as you have on every substantive claim you have made. That is going to continue to happen as long as you presume to dispute with me.

False. I am applying your logic consistently and accurately. You just don't like the fact that the results are absurd and evil. People all used land non-exclusively for millions of years before there was ever a greedy, evil parasite who claimed to own it.

No, that is merely a good example of the stupid, dishonest garbage that apologists for capitalist greed and privilege always have to resort to in order to have anything to say at all. You know that people can use land non-exclusively, as they did so for millions of years. You know they can use land no one else wants to use, thus not depriving anyone of it. And you know they can make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of it, thus reconciling the equal rights of all to use it, as in the geoist system. Why pretend you do not know these things?

?? More stupid and dishonest garbage. They are not "given" access to land, as they are only "allowed into the production structure" if they pay a landowner's extortion demands. See Adam Smith's example of the kelp gatherers paying the landowner for doing nothing. You could with equal "logic" (and "honesty") claim that slaves are given liberty, because they are allowed to purchase their liberty from their owners.

False, as proved above. People in the capitalist system are no more given access to land than slaves are given their rights to liberty: in both cases, they must pay off an extortionist.

Our identity as human beings. Other social animals' interactions are defined well enough by instinct. At some point in our evolution instinct didn't cut it any more, and we had to develop moral philosophy, including the concept of rights.

Common sense, something evil, lying sacks of capitalist $#!+ cannot permit themselves to exercise.

Dictionaries.

The people living within an area they consider readily accessible.

They may have to rely on charity. They may have greater needs than others, but they have no more rights than others, as there can be no such thing as a right to something others must provide.

Maybe a demographic overshoot and crash, as on Easter Island. Again, such circumstances do not affect the existence or character of anyone's rights, only the feasibility of securing them.

The free market.

Nope. Flat wrong, as usual. If all food was purchased with food stamps, the same sort of market price allocative mechanism would emerge. It would just use the stamps instead of money. The prices wouldn't be much different, as presumably the vendors would be getting money in return for the stamps, and the elasticity of supply would be unaffected.

But in any case, the universal individual land tax exemption (UIE) would not apply to all land. It would apply only to land parcels where people lived (i.e., their residential addresses), and would give each individual access to only a modest amount of land value for free: probably somewhere around 20% of total per capita land rent.

To a large extent. The main difference would be that the landowner would no longer get to pocket the value that government, the community and nature provide, so the productive would no longer have to pay that amount in taxes.

Could be. But someone who can farm 1K ha and make 5% probably can't farm 1M ha at the same level of profit. People's capacity to use resources more productively than their competitors is limited. Under the capitalist system, many people hold onto land in order to extract the rent, even though they are not the most productive potential users. In a geoist system, the market would sort that out and allocate the land more efficiently than under capitalism.

To some extent. But even if the same people held it, they would no longer be getting the unjust advantage of privately appropriating and pocketing its publicly created rental value. And to that extent, the productive would be freed of their parasitism.

It is very much geoists' intention that the publicly created rent would be recovered for public purposes and benefit, except for the 20% or so that people would be able to enjoy without payment through the universal individual exemption.

Sure you can: just pass a law that they have to pay for them or stay underground.

Huh? A clock? WTF?

They already have been, as with laws governing "airspace" and the shadows of tall buildings. So much for your fabrications.

Incoherent gibberish. Land is scarce because its supply is fixed and more than one person wants to use it, and it is allocated by the market according to how much the rival prospective users are willing to pay for the advantage of exclusive use and tenure.

Even if that were true (it isn't, as every valuable but vacant urban lot proves), it would not alter the fact that they are being forcibly deprived of it. In exactly the same way, slaves are forcibly deprived of their liberty because they can't come up with the dough to buy it back from their owners. That doesn't mean their rights to liberty aren't being violated.

No, it is not. It is the deliberate action of those who forcibly exclude others from the land.

That's another typical example of stupid, dishonest garbage. You could with equal "logic" and "honesty" say, "Blame God for not putting springs everywhere, not those who have appropriated the existing ones as private property and are forcibly stopping others from drinking at them."

This post is already too long. There are many places on the Net where you can find this sort of information, about the details of which there is not universal agreement among geoists. It's not rocket science.

And I do, because I have seen the exact same stupid, dishonest bull$#!+ so many times before.

If you start to have a discussion with someone about the banking system, and he starts talking a lot about how the Jews are to blame, do you think you know what he is thinking?

The land value that is given to him as a result of public investment in desired services and infrastructure in the surrounding community. Which in most cases is effectively all of it.

Which was only made possible by the increasing subsidies to landowners, as measured by increasing land value.

?? I have no idea what you imagine you could be talking about. The land bubble that burst in 2008 was a historical event. It had certain causes. Nothing else "could have" caused that event, because that event was that event, and not some other event.

By far the most important being the exorbitant welfare subsidy to landowning.

No, he does not. He has no input into the market value of his land, which is exactly the same as if he had never existed. Your claims continue to be absurd and dishonest.

??? More absurdity and dishonesty. Market price is an objective fact, and doesn't need to be "judged." It simply is what it is. No more "judgment" is required than to look at a price tag in a store, or to go on the Net and find that a certain stock is currently trading for $15.

But the market does not require any participation by the landowner, as proved by the fact that it will establish the rental value of his land even if he is comatose. Land's price is determined by those who want to use it, not those who own it. This was proved by David Ricardo more than 200 years ago; Google "Law of Rent," and start reading.

Nope. Wrong again. He can set a price lower than the market value by just accepting a lower bid, but he has no input into its market value, which is set only by the two prospective users who want to use it the most. And in any case, setting and accepting a price does nothing to aid production. Again, see Adam Smith's example of the landowner charging the kelp gatherers all the market would bear for access to "his" beach. He has no role in setting the price. He just accepts the highest bid from the prospective users.

Strike One.

Nope. Wrong again. His government-granted power to withhold the land from production and extort rent from the producer is not something he is providing, and his exercise of it does nothing to improve the land or aid production: it just increases the cost the producer must bear before he can make the desired improvements he wanted to make anyway.

Strike Two.

ROTFL! More astoundingly stupid and dishonest garbage. The landowner cannot possibly "bring the land to the market" as the land is immovably where it is, and always has been. The land would have been perfectly available to the market, and to its prospective users, if the land's owner and every previous owner had never existed. So the landowner's only possible "contribution" to production is to REMOVE the land from the market, preventing its productive use unless the producer meets his extortion demands.

That's Strike Three, dumpling. You're out.

No, it is not, as proved by the catastrophic failure of all societies that attempt to do without it. There is probably no country on earth where it isn't at least a double-digit percent of the economy.

Yes.

Unlike that economic miracle, Somalia....?

That "petite" government just happens to own all the land -- something apologists for capitalism always conveniently refuse to know.

Certainly. The Henry George Theorem implies that a perfectly competent and honest government would be fully funded out of land rent. Personally, I think a few minor Pigovian taxes on socially harmful luxury items like alcohol to internalize some externalities would also be warranted. And money should be issued debt-free by government, not as an interest-bearing liability to private banksters. But we are still talking about a government that accounts for no more than about 1/4 of GDP.

But what has happened in every society above the nomadic herding level that has ever tried to do without a government entirely? LESS spontaneous market/social action than in societies with reasonably small, honest and competent democratic governments.

No, it's based on brain-dead, dishonest, and ahistorical Austrian School fantasies concocted by evil, lying, fascist sacks of $#!+ like Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Wrong again. Much of empirical science is based on just such hypothesis testing. Consider astronomy, where we can't control anything we are observing.

No, because I refuted all those "reasons."

Under capitalism and socialism. Not under geoism, which aligns government's own financial incentives with the public interest in efficient provision of public services and infrastructure.

?? It obviously does, by internalizing the externalities.

Refuted above. If government wants revenue in a geoist economy, it has to spend efficiently on the services and infrastructure people want.

Wrong. I once thought as you do. I changed my mind when I stopped lying and found a willingness to know the relevant facts. That's how I know you are not only wrong, but also the one of us who is by far the more close-minded.

Because it is exactly accurate. Private property in land is the greatest evil that has ever existed. It causes two Holocausts worth of robbery, oppression, enslavement, starvation, suffering, despair, and death EVERY YEAR.

No, I do not. Christians do not use fact and logic.

There is only one of us who deals with the heart of the issue, and it is not you.

Again, that is just obviously false, as proved above.

 

Don't agree with the entire marxist thing. But you do have a point about the give me give me give me mentality. There are people out there who just want and have nothing to give in return. What people don't understand is that when you give you set off karma into the world. There will always be people who want to give and take with you. When you just ask ask ask you create feelings of just being a beggar. Now there are situations where people need help and will never be in a situation to give back. But that's totally different from people who could do better and don't.

 

Roy,

I found your response incredibly amusing. It's been A LONG time since I encountered anyone as arrogant, superficial, self-righteous, and as selective with information and logic as yourself. Responding to your post is not worth my time, even though I truly enjoyed reading it.

You do remind me of a Marxist in the shape of your rhetoric and how you apply your logic, which is interesting to me. I'll predict that you'll say something along the lines of my refusal to continue a 1,000+ word correspondence with you as a sign of me "knowing that you're right". This gives me amazing predictive powers and allows me to be correct about every claim that I've made. So save you're breath and prove me wrong by sounding like a reasonable person and not a zealot by not making the idiotic assertion that everyone who disagrees with you is actually a closet geoist who's really just a wicked capitalist who spit on the poor. It makes you look childish and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Also, I love this line both for its wording and how convoluted it is. It also doesn't leave me with any greater belief

There is a fundamental difference in that the government doesn't own anything, it only lays a claim to what is already the property of others.

1. In the quoted passage I was dealing with a piece of logic that Roy had used

2. What is the incentive to improve land?

3. What is "the community" and why is it entitled to what others have done?

4. What is the incentive to maintain land and its value (remember that we're talking about land in the economic sense which includes both physical land and natural resources)?

You make it sound like the government is the only provider of these "subsidies", when in truth anytime anyone improves productivity or the land around another piece of land the same effect you are describing above comes into effect. This is really just a case of massive exteranlities, and I'll grant you that these exist, but you could point to similar things throughout the production structure. For instance if a new piece of machinery is built and the prices of many goods go down and goods whose prices have been static see increased demand, but you aren't addressing this subsidy, which also occurs withe "efficient" production of infrastructure.

At any rate, I don't understand how

A. This would lead to a bubble in land

B. How this could have lead to the 08 bubble when public infrastructure spending has been renown (much to the chagrin of the liberals) to have been static/declining since the turn of the century.

 

Wish I could say the same....

I think you must mean "supercilious," as nothing I say is superficial. I have thought it all through more deeply than you can possibly imagine.

I come by my arrogance and self-righteousness honestly: by being right, and knowing myself to be incomparably the moral and intellectual superior of the opposition. I have to be selective with information and logic, because the fallacies, absurdities and lies that information and logic are provided to refute are so massively numerous, convoluted and deceitful that the alternative would be to post messages far too long for most PF members to read.

I.e., you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Glad you enjoyed it. I do aim to entertain as well as educate.

There is in fact little logical similarity between my arguments and Marx's, though you might be fooled by my old-fashioned employment of the English language's expressive potential (I also consider Marx my inferior as a prose stylist).

What a gracious concession of defeat.

Nonsense. You know that your claims have been demolished utterly.

I don't claim you're a closet geoist. That would require knowledge, insight, clarity, and honesty.

I agree that like me, the most intelligent children often demonstrate a keen, astute, and unapologetic sense of justice.

No idea what you imagine you are talking about.

No, that's clearly just more false, stupid, and dishonest garbage from you. Land and its publicly created rent are not anyone else's property, and government certainly owns the things it creates, such as infrastructure, public buildings, military bases, etc.

Same as the incentive to build a factory on leased land: to gain the benefits the improvements confer on their user.

The community is the local society of people who understand they have certain interests and identity in common, and your other question is nonsensical: what others have done are actions, which no one can possibly possess, own, or be entitled to.

Land by definition needs no maintenance, and its unimproved value is determined by the market, independently of what the owner and user might do. A geoist community has an incentive to maintain and increase land value because it is going to recover for public purposes and benefit the land value that it creates.

But in that case it is done voluntarily, for the private purposes and beneficial profit of the people doing it, and at no one else's expense. Government, by contrast, does it at taxpayers' expense, for the unearned profit of landowners.

Nope. The externalities all tend to move to the land, because its supply is fixed.

We are definitely addressing it: we can't disentangle who is providing how much of that "subsidy" -- it's impossible -- so the only way to make sure no one gets any such subsidy is for everyone who contributes to land value to own all the land. And -- mirabile dictu! -- that is essentially the effect of recovering all land rent for the purposes and benefit of the whole community that creates it.

How what would? The bubble was caused by increased opportunities for speculators to pocket publicly created land value as a result of a number of factors, especially financial deregulation.

Infrastructure is not the only source of land value. Public services also add to land value, including publicly funded education and health care (on which spending had been increasing rapidly).

The other major factor is the relationship between land rent, the discount rate, and the land tax rate: as land value rises, land tax rates fall, leading to a positive feedback of increasing subsidization. This feedback was even stronger and more destructive in California, where Proposition 13 forced the state government and all local governments to relentlessly and unsustainably increase the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.

 

... Lmao. You sir are the true embodiment of the internet's spirit.

However, what part of the fact that I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone so foolish (and yes, when you make claims like the one above you are indisputably foolish) don't you understand? You don't appear arrogant because you are right (seriously, if I had a dollar for everyone who would use that as an excuse) you are arrogant because you are extremely arrogant, while at the same time you appear to have the need to inflate your own ego by replying to every sentence that I write to remind me of your moral superiority just in case I had forgotten the last time you made a statement to that effect. I may be as indisputably correct in my assertions as a man arguing that 2+2=4 and you would be blind to this fact. Until you have some semblance of reason, you are unworthy of my time or anyone else's.

 

Thank you.

My statements were calculated to be appropriate to the statements I was responding to. I simply took your statements literally, and agreed with them. If that looks foolish, look in the mirror.

That is exactly correct: you need to have your nose rubbed in the immorality, absurdity and dishonesty of your "arguments" until you stop excreting them.