Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/debate/2013-03-10"
< User:Woozle | debate
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(today's batch -- not complete) |
(template for bookstops) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*** (Noel) Whole Foods has always been a leader in labeling (for those who have never stepped foot in one of them, they label the origins of the food they sell). GMO labeling is something I had been expecting them to start at some point. Their customers want such labeling so its in their interests to have such labeling. | *** (Noel) Whole Foods has always been a leader in labeling (for those who have never stepped foot in one of them, they label the origins of the food they sell). GMO labeling is something I had been expecting them to start at some point. Their customers want such labeling so its in their interests to have such labeling. | ||
**** (Woozle) If they believe it is beneficial, why oppose laws which would bring this benefit to everyone? Just saying it's their "stance" (to want to do it themselves rather than be required to) isn't an argument. | **** (Woozle) If they believe it is beneficial, why oppose laws which would bring this benefit to everyone? Just saying it's their "stance" (to want to do it themselves rather than be required to) isn't an argument. | ||
| − | ***** (Noel) Watch the praxgirl videos. In short, it's because different people value different things at different times. If a grocer thought (even rationally if they have numbers to back it up) that spending effort doing something else will lead to more affordable food for their customers and larger profits, why should they be forced to label their foods? IOW, labeling would increase their chances of going out of business until they're able to take care of other things first. | + | ***** (Noel) Watch the praxgirl videos. In short, it's because different people value different things at different times. If a grocer thought (even rationally if they have numbers to back it up) that spending effort doing something else will lead to more affordable food for their customers and larger profits, why should they be forced to label their foods? IOW, labeling would increase their chances of going out of business until they're able to take care of other things first. {{bookstop}} |
***** (Noel) I've noticed in my area, many grocers have taken WF's lead and started labeling. | ***** (Noel) I've noticed in my area, many grocers have taken WF's lead and started labeling. | ||
*** (Noel) WRT [[Obamacare]], it's the exact same stance. AFAIK, Whole Foods provides very good healthcare benefits. | *** (Noel) WRT [[Obamacare]], it's the exact same stance. AFAIK, Whole Foods provides very good healthcare benefits. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
*** (Noel) WF is able to expand because it generates more wealth. | *** (Noel) WF is able to expand because it generates more wealth. | ||
**** (Woozle) WF is able to expand because it ''gathers'' more wealth. "Generates wealth" implies that the community benefits from this wealth; I'm not sure how you would determine that. | **** (Woozle) WF is able to expand because it ''gathers'' more wealth. "Generates wealth" implies that the community benefits from this wealth; I'm not sure how you would determine that. | ||
| − | ***** (Noel) the way to determine whether or not the community gains wealth is through their actions (again watch the praxgirl videos). If WF customers didn't expect to gain from the transaction, they wouldn't enter into one. | + | ***** (Noel) the way to determine whether or not the community gains wealth is through their actions (again watch the praxgirl videos). If WF customers didn't expect to gain from the transaction, they wouldn't enter into one. {{bookstop}} |
****** (Woozle) you are arguing that consumers are motivated overwhelmingly by rational consideration of objective evidence regarding the relative merits of the shopping decisions they make? | ****** (Woozle) you are arguing that consumers are motivated overwhelmingly by rational consideration of objective evidence regarding the relative merits of the shopping decisions they make? | ||
******* (Noel) Rationality has nothing to do with it. | ******* (Noel) Rationality has nothing to do with it. | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
********** (Woozle) So, you're arguing that we can determine that a community is gaining wealth from WF simply because they shop there, even if they are doing so for irrational reasons? | ********** (Woozle) So, you're arguing that we can determine that a community is gaining wealth from WF simply because they shop there, even if they are doing so for irrational reasons? | ||
*********** (Noel) I'm saying that the fact that people in the community shop at WF is rational by (their) definition. | *********** (Noel) I'm saying that the fact that people in the community shop at WF is rational by (their) definition. | ||
| − | ************ (Noel) Praxeology - Episode 5 - The Rationality of Action covers this -- it's less than three minutes long so please watch it. | + | ************ (Noel) Praxeology - Episode 5 - The Rationality of Action covers this -- it's less than three minutes long so please watch it. {{bookstop}} |
************* (Woozle) The first words in that episode are "Human action is necessarily always rational." So yes, you are claiming this, and it is false. | ************* (Woozle) The first words in that episode are "Human action is necessarily always rational." So yes, you are claiming this, and it is false. | ||
************* (Woozle) The video is clearly attempting an Orwellian redefinition of the words necessary to have this conversation, especially "[[rational]]". | ************* (Woozle) The video is clearly attempting an Orwellian redefinition of the words necessary to have this conversation, especially "[[rational]]". | ||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
******** (Noel) Perhaps I misunderstand your goals. What are your goals? What would your Utopia look like? | ******** (Noel) Perhaps I misunderstand your goals. What are your goals? What would your Utopia look like? | ||
| − | * Praxeology is basically the idea that we can make conclusions about economics without testing them in the real world, is it not? | + | * (Woozle) Praxeology is basically the idea that we can make conclusions about economics without testing them in the real world, is it not? |
| − | ** no, it is not. Watch the [[praxgirl]] videos. Episode one summarizes what praxeology is. How about using the scientific method here? Make a hypothesis then make observations to test that hypothesis rather than jumping to conclusions and being purposefully blind. | + | ** no, it is not. Watch the [[praxgirl]] videos. Episode one summarizes what praxeology is. How about using the scientific method here? Make a hypothesis then make observations to test that hypothesis rather than jumping to conclusions and being purposefully blind. {{bookstop}} |
*** (Woozle) ''"Unlike chemistry or physics, praxeology has to rely on a method of acquiring knowledge that does not rely on observation but on discursive reasoning."'' Which episode(s) should I watch in order to find out how we acquire knowledge without relying on observation while nonetheless testing that knowledge through observation? | *** (Woozle) ''"Unlike chemistry or physics, praxeology has to rely on a method of acquiring knowledge that does not rely on observation but on discursive reasoning."'' Which episode(s) should I watch in order to find out how we acquire knowledge without relying on observation while nonetheless testing that knowledge through observation? | ||
**** (Noel) what I meant was that you had a hypothesis about what praxeology was about. Test that hypothesis against your observations of the videos. Now that you've watched at least one of the videos, how did that hypothesis hold? | **** (Noel) what I meant was that you had a hypothesis about what praxeology was about. Test that hypothesis against your observations of the videos. Now that you've watched at least one of the videos, how did that hypothesis hold? | ||