Oh boy… facepalm of the century…
Then why did you even raise the subject. I’m sorry to tell you… I’m not gooey about China… if there was such a thing as a straw ad hominem that would be it.
Let’s see what other lulz you’ve come up with…
And a big red nose
I did, you were too busy running around in your super long shoes to notice.
And a squirt from the squirty lapel flower
Yeah, I can see why you’d feel so stupid after your comment, considering the only guns to Chinese heads are from the CCP. But don’t :smack: yourself too hard…it’s not like it was the silliest thing you said in this thread after all.
Wow, one day you will be held up as an example in lectures on extermalised cost.
“This is the archetypal blinkered consumer, let’s explore it in all it’s bizzarre dimensions”
let’s get this right, you…*actually believe… *you have nothing to do with the pollution incurred in getting you your Chinese stuff ?
Why no…I don’t actually believe that. Nor was that what I said OR what I was responding too. What I said was that we aren’t holding a gun to the Chinese peoples head to make our stuff…they choose to. Hell, they deliberately monkey with their currency to peg it below the dollar (and this year, dropped the peg more) so they CAN make even MORE stuff. They consciously and with purpose adulterate their own environmental laws (which, for the CCP are just guidelines anyway, even more so than for the pirates) to make most stuff. They deliberately and consciously circumvent their labor laws (ironic, in the workers paradise) to do the same thing.
See…what we have here is a Failure To Communicate(arr). You seem to be reading some script that you want to hear, and then attempting to give non-answers or cryptic crap back as if we are having a conversation…but it’s a conversation only in your own head.
BTW, you say you gave a cite backing up your claim…could you point out the post number for this cite? I mean, I showed that it not only isn’t true but it can’t be true since, you know, China has systemic road blocks to foreign investment that are only now starting to fall. So…where was your proof, again?
TL;DR
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
So, that would be a no on a cite to back up your assertion and a non-sequitur cite (that you did actually quote something from this time, so baby steps) regarding that conversation you are having in your head. I can see how my 3 paragraph post would be too long to read, however.
warning. Do not, even obliquely, insult other posters.
Indeed you will need to warn Mr XT on his rudeness too - if we’re talking oblique insults I’m hardly the prime contender.
Zizek is a great entertainer for the academically inclined. I know hipsters who smoke pipes and ride unicycles while wearing their Slavoj tshirts. I prefer Cornel West for my inspiring sociobabble-filled pop philosophy, myself. He’s like the black Mark Twain. Zizek is more like an old, lazy and drunk Che Guevara.
[QUOTE=Ramira]
Try not to create too obvious straw men. I asserted nothing about what this issue is for me in ease or in diffcculty, which is obvious to anyone who read this. This game of yours is boring as are the rhetoric dressed in pompous language and faux philosophizing.
I see no point in a ‘debate’ given the other thread that touched on the exact same subject and the obvious lack of any impact of that discussion. And that the subject is like debating the Phlogiston theory… a waste of time.
You can start such a thread about the economic concept or the political concept of exploitation.
[/QUOTE]
And if I open it, you will be there to debate? I only ask because I know I can start a thread, butI am interested in debating you, in hopes of getting more than mere assertions from you. Also, as far as ground rules are concerned, you would have to stop calling me names. I don’ t know what you mean by “pompous language and faux philosophizing”…but I can tell its not a means to a good open discussion.
He’s got a kind of jazzy rhythm to his philospeak.