[Philosophy] Value

[Randazzo]

You certainly made no attempt to deny the being a social darwinist. In fact, you didn't deny anything.

None of your attacks directed at me contained any substance, only titles and personal perceptions you wish to bestow on me that are of no concern, however I see in the portion quoted below what would have been a partial answer to my position.

No argument there. Though I cannot think of a scenario where individuals lying to other individuals for personal gain is EVER good for the health of a nation. If one can argue that it's alright for people to (insert appropriate profane word here) each other over for personal gain in one way, then there's little to say that many illegal crimes are not equally morally-ambiguous.

This overreaching the situation of misleading advertisement and attempting to tie it into other issues and in particular does not apply except in the situation of price gouging on necessities, which is in fact a crime. As an adult, you are responsible for the decisions you make. If you fail to investigate what you are about to spend your money on and make a bad purchase, why is it the fault of anyone else?

I gather that you are a "Nanny State" kind of guy, who believes that an individual should be looked after by those above them. Not much of an epiphany, as you've come right out and declared the public at large to be sheep to be led by authority figures. This is a "poor me!" ideology that leads to being victimized repeatedly.

I can hardly wait to see what you call me next.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[Fel]

I gather that you are a "Nanny State" kind of guy, who believes that an individual should be looked after by those above them. Not much of an epiphany, as you've come right out and declared the public at large to be sheep to be led by authority figures. This is a "poor me!" ideology that leads to being victimized repeatedly.

Just wanted to say "called it!" XD, you are very transparent in your argument not being in the slightest about economics and only being about your government ideology.

For the street cred, ponder this:

Is net neutrality EVIL? After all, it interferes with the ability of companies to charge the prices they want for the services they provide. It treats consumers like a CHILD, holding said consumer's hand, being a big nanny to said consumer. Oh yes, net neutrality is EVIL because it part of the great Orwellian Nanny State. First, they control the net, next the world!

Sure, I strawman you all a little, correct it if you will but the parallels ARE there and I know members of your side generally were in great support of Net Neutrality; despite it meaning expanding the government and letting it regulate yet another aspect of its citizens lives.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Fel

[Randazzo]

Just wanted to say "called it!" XD, you are very transparent in your argument not being in the slightest about economics and only being about your government ideology.

For the street cred, ponder this:

Is net neutrality EVIL? After all, it interferes with the ability of companies to charge the prices they want for the services they provide. It treats consumers like a CHILD, holding said consumer's hand, being a big nanny to said consumer. Oh yes, net neutrality is EVIL because it part of the great Orwellian Nanny State. First, they control the net, next the world!

Sure, I strawman you all a little, correct it if you will but the parallels ARE there and I know members of your side generally were in great support of Net Neutrality; despite it meaning expanding the government and letting it regulate yet another aspect of its citizens lives.

You can call it that if you like. It is my direct response to describing merchants as sheperds and consumers as sheep. Anything that removes responsibility from the individual is equally foolish, be an approach to government or economics.

Net Neutrality is grander than that, more akin to anti-monopoly laws or price fixing. The crux of it is preventing a sort of kickback situation, which prevents infrastructure companies at the top from controlling the flow of traffic as they see fit and then extorting money out of smaller entities. Similar to a mafia protection scheme. What else they may have tacked on to it, I do not know, as I am honestly quite uninformed about the whole bill itself.

My side? lulz.

[YNM]

On ad lying : they're not lying. They just don't tell you the whole thing yet, and that's not lying. hence why, a good customer should ask a crapload of question before making a decision. In this age, the internet stores a lot of information of almost everything - and that's what you should utilize.

[vger]

I gather that you are a "Nanny State" kind of guy, who believes that an individual should be looked after by those above them. Not much of an epiphany, as you've come right out and declared the public at large to be sheep to be led by authority figures. This is a "poor me!" ideology that leads to being victimized repeatedly.

I can hardly wait to see what you call me next.

If the shoe fits. How about hypocrite? Yes, go ahead and write that one off as name-calling and ad hominem. Taking responsibility for the less experienced has been the job of the more experienced since the dawn of time. And this concept is not limited to government entities. It can be as simple as a powerful person with more years of experience, dispensing wisdom to someone who has never encountered a certain kind of situation. The ability to have power (a big exception to this being inherited through birth or friendship) typically comes from having gained advanced knowledge through experience. The responsible thing to do is to give that knowledge to the less experienced, for the betterment of the entire society. Or you can just be a sociopath, research the most gullible age brackets, rob them of their life savings, and then brush off any thoughts of guilt with, "They should've been smarter." I might as well point out too that the age group most heavily targeted by the entertainment industry is young teenagers. Young teenagers, by the way, are legally defined as children. I don't see you jumping to defend them against manipulative marketing tactics. And the only times where the government cares about businesses manipulating children, is when it involves alcohol or tobacco.

You think the government controls people more than business? Ask a few million kids who their biggest role model is, and see how many of them give the name of a politician.

I can even take this one step further and point out that marketing targets children to prepare them to be "better" consumers when they're older. Spending patterns are programmed into them when they are at the age which you have defined as "incapable of being responsible." They are ill-equipped to defend themselves against this mental programming, much of it using the same strategies that drug dealers have employed to grow their customer base, but surely you see no problem with this.

You can call it that if you like. It is my direct response to describing merchants as sheperds and consumers as sheep. Anything that removes responsibility from the individual is equally foolish, be an approach to government or economics.

So then why is it only malevolent when a government uses such tactics. If you do not apply the same kind of scrutiny to businesses, you simply pave the way for the government to use business as a proxy. Surely the "Fox News vs. CNN" debate hasn't flown under your RADAR. Do you hold them universally unaccountable simply because they are business instead of government entities?

Edited June 10, 2015 by vger

[Randazzo]

If the shoe fits. How about hypocrite? Yes, go ahead and write that one off as name-calling and ad hominem. Taking responsibility for the less experienced has been the job of the more experienced since the dawn of time. And this concept is not limited to government entities. It can be as simple as a powerful person with more years of experience, dispensing wisdom to someone who has never encountered a certain kind of situation. The ability to have power (a big exception to this being inherited through birth or friendship) typically comes from having gained advanced knowledge through experience. The responsible thing to do is to give that knowledge to the less experienced, for the betterment of the entire society. Or you can just be a sociopath, research the most gullible age brackets, rob them of their life savings, and then brush off any thoughts of guilt with, "They should've been smarter." I might as well point out too that the age group most heavily targeted by the entertainment industry is young teenagers. Young teenagers, by the way, are legally defined as children. I don't see you jumping to defend them against manipulative marketing tactics. And the only times where the government cares about businesses manipulating children, is when it involves alcohol or tobacco.

You appear to be responding to Fel's post through me. He called it a governmental ideology, not me. As I said, and you quoted, it was my direct response to your statement regarding commerce. I specifically stated it applies equally in both cases. While "manipulative market practices" could mean just about anything, I will presume you mean somehow tricking them into wanting something. That's what parents are for. And before you even try to draw a parallel, that's an entirely different relationship than what we are discussing.

In what way am I hypocrite? What idea have I put forth that I fail to adhere to myself?

You think the government controls people more than business? Ask a few million kids who their biggest role model is, and see how many of them give the name of a politician.

You have a generous opinion of kids. But I didn't say that either.

I can even take this one step further and point out that marketing targets children to prepare them to be "better" consumers when they're older. Spending patterns are programmed into them when they are at the age which you have defined as "incapable of being responsible." They are ill-equipped to defend themselves against this mental programming, much of it using the same strategies that drug dealers have employed to grow their customer base, but surely you see no problem with this.

The majority of this is a fair point, except the drug dealer part. You're overreaching again to demonize me.

So then why is it only malevolent when a government uses such tactics. If you do not apply the same kind of scrutiny to businesses, you simply pave the way for the government to use business as a proxy. Surely the "Fox News vs. CNN" debate hasn't flown under your RADAR. Do you hold them universally unaccountable simply because they are business instead of government entities?

It has, actually, but I again made no such assertion.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[Fel]

You can call it that if you like. It is my direct response to describing merchants as sheperds and consumers as sheep. Anything that removes responsibility from the individual is equally foolish, be an approach to government or economics.

Net Neutrality is grander than that, more akin to anti-monopoly laws or price fixing. The crux of it is preventing a sort of kickback situation, which prevents infrastructure companies at the top from controlling the flow of traffic as they see fit and then extorting money out of smaller entities. Similar to a mafia protection scheme. What else they may have tacked on to it, I do not know, as I am honestly quite uninformed about the whole bill itself.

My side? lulz.

Let me ask this then, why is a monopoly wrong, or price fixing for that matter? What MAKES these actions wrong enough for the government to intercede? It isn't like price fixing prevents people from buying what they want, and they could always go to off brand merchandise if they felt the prices were too high. Market forces show that given an injustice in the market, the opportunity to act on that injustice, to profit, also exists. Price fixing only works when no one lowers their prices, but someone who enters cheaper will gain the entire market and become extremely rich.

That's what net neutrality is really all about, sure Comcast can do a few evil things, but there are always competitors; it is the lack of CONSUMERS researching into the companies chosen for to be their ISP that leads to those evil things persisting. Why, the only thing Comcast is guilty for is trying to optimize bandwidth distribution so that you can watch your streaming movies without a hitch. Things like that costs money, cable, comcast isn't evil, comcast is just being a good business and helping the customer out.

[BlueCosmology]

Too many of you all are trolls. You know a tiny bit of reality and you think you know everything... let alone all the wiki-education that is spread around. Even if I say something that violates everything you know doesn't make me wrong, and if your response is that I am wrong because it violates everything you know that makes you a troll. Even if I am completely wrong, any form of argument that attacks the system as a whole rather than the components of the system is a clear indication that the person making that argument is UNABLE to APPLY the knowledge looked up in a new and different fashion.

Sorry, but I know someone on the internet isn't going to manage to break conservation of energy with two batteries and a brick.

BlueCosmology, for instance, talks about the "power" inside a battery. I think he just made those amp hours up (Just as a quick check, I found 11ah on energizer 1209) but the reality is that amp hours isn't the interesting characteristic. Batteries, especially alkalines, aren't linear devices; you can only draw so much from them before you meet internal losses or chemical reaction rate barriers.

Not sure why you've put power in quotation marks when referring to what I've claimed, when I have never mentioned power. The power is entirely irrelevant, it could be infinite or it could be close to 0, either case there is not enough energy to melt a kilo of aluminium.

I also don't see why you'd claim I made the amp hours of a heavy duty battery up rather than just Google it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&oq=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57.1683j0j4&client=ms-android-h3g-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

First result.

Using the "system" BlueCosmology seemed to envision, I would say the interesting characteristic would be if the rate of energy dissipation exceeds that of the energy the batteries are capable of supplying per instant.

Nope, that's another way it's almost definitely not possible with two batteries but it doesn't matter. The energy in two batteries just isn't enough, it doesn't matter if all the energy is released at once or over years.

It takes 30 seconds to say "Well, you know the system could be setup with 2 lantern batteries due to safety concerns. 10.4V at 150mA (roughly adjusted based on Energizer 1209 datasheet) isn't going to kill you and hence the system is designed to have those batteries replaced until the ingot is formed. But proving that the system will not work in the slightest is something else entirely.

Very simple to show it will not work in the slightest. Anyone with any knowledge in physics knows this will not work. Anyone that accepts conservation of energy, knows that I have shown this cannot work.

[peadar1987]

Let me ask this then, why is a monopoly wrong, or price fixing for that matter? What MAKES these actions wrong enough for the government to intercede? It isn't like price fixing prevents people from buying what they want, and they could always go to off brand merchandise if they felt the prices were too high. Market forces show that given an injustice in the market, the opportunity to act on that injustice, to profit, also exists. Price fixing only works when no one lowers their prices, but someone who enters cheaper will gain the entire market and become extremely rich.

You're oversimplifying monopolies. If a big company dominates the market, and a smaller company comes in as competition, the big company can quite easily undercut their competitor and take the hit until they're out of business. Then things go back to the way they were. Prices are lower for a little, which is good for the consumer, but it doesn't usually make financial sense to challenge such a monopoly by going into competition against it.

Some of the most classical examples of monopolies are utility companies. If a giant conglomerate has bought up all of the power stations, distribution networks and consumer sections of the sector, in a vertically and horizontally integrated model, it is nearly impossible to get a foothold. Building a power station is not a cheap thing to do. You sink a lot of money into the initial project, with no prospect of payback for years, and even when it's built, you have nobody to sell it to, because your competitor owns the distribution network, and isn't going to threaten their monopoly.

[ZetaX]

That's what net neutrality is really all about, sure Comcast can do a few evil things, but there are always competitors; it is the lack of CONSUMERS researching into the companies chosen for to be their ISP that leads to those evil things persisting. Why, the only thing Comcast is guilty for is trying to optimize bandwidth distribution so that you can watch your streaming movies without a hitch. Things like that costs money, cable, comcast isn't evil, comcast is just being a good business and helping the customer out.

ISPs are actually a rather good example of a monopoly. In a lot of areas you do not, unlike you seem to claim, get to choose your ISP; there often is just one or maybe two that give reasonable coverage and speed. So in the end, they indeed can force you to take their offer or have nothing. And that's where net neutrality shines: it forces them to behave instead of monetizing on this.

The very simplified model where you respond on there being too high prizes (say due to an [almost] monopoly) by opening your own business is simply wrong. There are many reasons:

a) Huge companies have entirely different ways of doing things (look up how amazon forces publishers to comply)

Huge companies are the only ones capable of doing things on a large scale (ISPs, world-wide shiping, air trafficing all fall in this category)

c) There often is only enough demand for a single provider; so a second one might lower the prizes, but then neither of them would be profitable (then a huge company will prevail because they can simply wait until the small one goes bankrupt)

Edited June 10, 2015 by ZetaX

[vger]

You appear to be responding to Fel's post through me. He called it a governmental ideology, not me. As I said, and you quoted, it was my direct response to your statement regarding commerce. I specifically stated it applies equally in both cases. While "manipulative market practices" could mean just about anything, I will presume you mean somehow tricking them into wanting something. That's what parents are for. And before you even try to draw a parallel, that's an entirely different relationship than what we are discussing.

In what way am I hypocrite? What idea have I put forth that I fail to adhere to myself?

I hadn't even read Fel's response yet. Whether or not you meant to, you implied a "Big Business GOOD, Big Government BAAAD!" stance as soon as you said "Nanny State."

That, by the way, (and here is where the hypocrisy comes in) we already get from businesses. You think businesses want people who are independent? They want people who are incapable of taking care of themselves. We don't need a government for that. When we tear a hole in our pants, do we pull out a sewing needle and thread, and put a patch on it? No no no, don't do that. Here's "Mommy" with a brand new pair of pants for you.

And sorry, what? Parents raising children? I presume you're talking about the parents who are never around because each parent (in a household that is LUCKY enough to have two parents who are both working and aren't divorced) has to work two jobs just to earn enough money to keep a roof over their heads due to the hyper-inflated pricing of everything? Time to wake up. Stop using only your own subjective experiences and start looking at statistics.

You have a generous opinion of kids. But I didn't say that either.

I can't even possibly fathom what you mean by "generous opinion." You were probably just writing it off while trying to sound clever.

The majority of this is a fair point, except the drug dealer part. You're overreaching again to demonize me.

In giving you the benefit of the doubt, I can only assume you have no clue about the scope of what you're actually defending. Marketing strategies mimicking those of drug dealers is a FACT. Attempting to research and develop products that trigger the same kind of brain chemistry as narcotics, is ALSO a fact. The only reason for you to think I was doing this to vilify YOU is if you yourself are using those tactics. You have not given your profession, so I had no reason to make such an assumption. But there are plenty of people who are in no position to gain anything from corporations running rampant; they utterly hate the idea of the government controlling our lives, but have no problem with businesses doing it.

So again, how did you interpret this as targeting you? I was talking about marketing in general. But then, corporations are legally people these days. Are you a corporation?

It has, actually, but I again made no such assertion.

Thank you so much for proving the point I was making to Mungazer about why explaining things instead of resorting to direct attacks is often pointless. You complained about ad hominem attacks and asked for more substance. Then I gave it, 90% of it was input about MARKETING, and all you could say in response to any of it is, "I never said I'm anti-government." I don't need to demonize you. You're doing a fine job of it yourself.

Edited June 10, 2015 by vger

[Randazzo]

Thank you so much for proving the point I was making to Mungazer about why explaining things instead of resorting to direct attacks is often pointless. You complained about ad hominem attacks and asked for more substance. Then I gave it, 90% of it was input about MARKETING, and all you could say in response to any of it is, "I never said I'm anti-government."

You've got those percentages reversed. I addressed the small part that was about marketing (and agreed with you to boot), which is what I'm attempting to discuss.

I had a much longer post after this pointing out the inconsistencies between your posts and mine (and one outright lie from you), but really, who am I kidding? My due diligence is more than done.

I know what I'm going to get.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[MunGazer]

All of you guys are obviously intelligent, I just think maybe too much so. Intelligence about many subjects can be separate from emotional intelligence. You're right, asking for clarification can in fact be fruitless if the clarification itself gets overlooked, downplayed, or discredited in an underhanded way. However, directly contradicting someone or disagreeing with them can be done in a manner that is less likely to provoke them. I am tempted to go back and read through the initial posts to see who "cast the first stone" so to speak, but I'm honestly too lazy and would more likely close out this tab and play a pc game in my leisure time before I leave for work.

I just wish you guys would use your cunning intelligence to plant intellectual flowers instead of hack off limbs with intellectual katanas.

Here's an example exchange that I envision, and perhaps I'm an idealist for thinking it could be this way:

ForumUserA: "I hooked up these batteries and melted this aluminum in this way. I also did this and that. "

ForumUserB: "ForumUserA, I'm not trying to call you a liar, brosef, but I just don't see how this is possible. Do you have any photos that you could share of the process? I find it interesting. Anyway, here's the reason I just don't see how it adds up: It takes x amount of energy, in theory, to melt y amount of aluminum. I'm just perplexed and am interested in a more detailed explanation, thanks, later."

ForumUserC: "ForumUserB, I looked into it and I think it's possible for the following reason: [yatta yatta yatta]. However, I don't blame you for wondering how that could've worked."

ForumUserA: "Oh yeah man, no prob. I'd love to explain it to you more and/or share some photos"

Hashtag diplomacy Hashtag stopthemadness Hashtag noshamebrosefioftengetworkedupwhenpplattackmycredibilityalso Hashtag justcarrythelessonwithyouinotherthreads

[Randazzo]

All of you guys are obviously intelligent

I respectfully disagree.

Were I intelligent, I'd stop coming back.

[Kryten]

[snip]

Go ahead and read Xanari's posts again, thoroughly. Not only is he claiming to have broken conservation of energy for his magic melty forge, he claims to have had no idea that gold is extremely valuable, to have had access multiple kilograms of gold, and talks about a completely fictional metal as comparison. That's just too large a concentration of complete nonsense to be worth giving the benefit of the doubt.

[BlueCosmology]

Here's an example exchange that I envision, and perhaps I'm an idealist for thinking it could be this way:

ForumUserA: "I hooked up these batteries and melted this aluminum in this way. I also did this and that. "

ForumUserB: "ForumUserA, I'm not trying to call you a liar, brosef, but I just don't see how this is possible. Do you have any photos that you could share of the process? I find it interesting. Anyway, here's the reason I just don't see how it adds up: It takes x amount of energy, in theory, to melt y amount of aluminum. I'm just perplexed and am interested in a more detailed explanation, thanks, later."

ForumUserC: "ForumUserB, I looked into it and I think it's possible for the following reason: [yatta yatta yatta]. However, I don't blame you for wondering how that could've worked."

ForumUserA: "Oh yeah man, no prob. I'd love to explain it to you more and/or share some photos"

You're acting like some things just aren't obviously incorrect. There is no way, at all, that this is true. If you don't know enough about physics to tell instantly that it isn't true, fine, but that doesn't mean nobody does.

If I told you that I'd just managed to catapult myself to the center of the sun with a spoon and elastic band, would you believe me? Would you think it's reasonably possible that I'm telling the truth?

No. And that is no more obviously wrong than this.

[Xannari Ferrows]

"If the argument's won, just move on. If persistence is bothersome, then fun times are sure to come." This should be the legacy of this thread. I almost never get to say this! It's awesome to, though, when the situation is fitting. I've kinda past the window, but better late than never.

EDIT: I'll think I'll try my hand at Grant's Scariac. That thing looks pretty cool. Anyone else think I should?

Edited June 10, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[vger]

You've got those percentages reversed. I addressed the small part that was about marketing (and agreed with you to boot), which is what I'm attempting to discuss.

I had a much longer post after this pointing out the inconsistencies between your posts and mine (and one outright lie from you), but really, who am I kidding? My due diligence is more than done.

I know what I'm going to get.

Perhaps we're both assuming the other is painting their position in a broader stroke than it really is.

My interpretation of what you said when we started butting heads, is that the consumer is always responsible. For everything. If someone sells worthless "magic beans" to Jack, the only guilty party is the buyer. If that is truly what you meant, I want to know why this is. Why is the seller allowed to remove themselves from any moral obligation? Trying to trick someone into buying something for far more than it is worth, requires an intention to harm the buyer. Yet you have suggested this action is perfectly moral. Why should the seller have more rights to protect themselves from moral obligations than the buyer, if that is really what you intended to say?

And perhaps you interpreted my original statement about sellers having a responsibility, as including all of the ridiculous lawsuits that have been tossed around over the years. No, I do not agree that a seller has an obligation to shell out millions of dollars to compensate some fool who burned his mouth on a cup of coffee because he didn't have the common sense to check the temperature before taking a huge gulp of it. That is something I definitely do NOT agree with. However, there was also no intent to harm on the part of the seller in this case. There is nothing to gain by trying to deceive the customer into thinking a cup of coffee is cooler than it really is. The buyer would buy the coffee whether it is too hot to drink or not. I do not hold the seller responsible for a buyer's lack of common sense. I hold a seller responsible for willful acts of deception. Deception carries with it, the intent to do harm.

[Fel]

Let me ask this then, why is a monopoly wrong, or price fixing for that matter? What MAKES these actions wrong enough for the government to intercede? It isn't like price fixing prevents people from buying what they want, and they could always go to off brand merchandise if they felt the prices were too high. Market forces show that given an injustice in the market, the opportunity to act on that injustice, to profit, also exists. Price fixing only works when no one lowers their prices, but someone who enters cheaper will gain the entire market and become extremely rich.

That's what net neutrality is really all about, sure Comcast can do a few evil things, but there are always competitors; it is the lack of CONSUMERS researching into the companies chosen for to be their ISP that leads to those evil things persisting. Why, the only thing Comcast is guilty for is trying to optimize bandwidth distribution so that you can watch your streaming movies without a hitch. Things like that costs money, cable, comcast isn't evil, comcast is just being a good business and helping the customer out.

I do apologize for those who did not understand what I was doing. This is a very strong form of argumentation in which you adapt an opponents argument to meet undesirable outcomes. Use of sarcasm only weakens it, it has to be said with very similar goals that the person is presenting.

While I do not believe Randazzo is actually a social darwinist, I do believe the ideology being shown is "A Strong Belief that the People are Willfully Ignorant, and that through internet education this can be corrected." She/he doesn't believe him/herself to be superior to others, but feels people should learn whatever information he/she believes they should learn. This argument isn't really used with economics as much as with people who have issues with the government, and it is often in argumentation that you'll find someone masking their true argument with meaningless surface arguments. The Elenchus is well known for revealing this trait.

Randazzo's choices here would also show his true beliefs. We've been "pretending" that the consumer can judge the worth of an item and thus have an effect upon the manufacture, therefore not needing government protections. By bringing up old arguments from social darwinists who DID believe in that stuff, and taking in the quality, even the manner of which the reply was made you can show what the true beliefs of the individual is. Even the lack of a reply is telling in itself, she/he did respond to the initial bait about net neutrality while pretending ignorance (I recognize the arguments, even if you try obscuring them).

[Randazzo]

I do apologize for those who did not understand what I was doing. This is a very strong form of argumentation in which you adapt an opponents argument to meet undesirable outcomes. Use of sarcasm only weakens it, it has to be said with very similar goals that the person is presenting.

You give yourself too much credit. Mimicking a person followed by turning on them is not clever or new.

While I do not believe Randazzo is actually a social darwinist, I do believe the ideology being shown is "A Strong Belief that the People are Willfully Ignorant, and that through internet education this can be corrected." She/he doesn't believe him/herself to be superior to others, but feels people should learn whatever information he/she believes they should learn. This argument isn't really used with economics as much as with people who have issues with the government, and it is often in argumentation that you'll find someone masking their true argument with meaningless surface arguments. The Elenchus is well known for revealing this trait.

Randazzo's choices here would also show his true beliefs. We've been "pretending" that the consumer can judge the worth of an item and thus have an effect upon the manufacture, therefore not needing government protections. By bringing up old arguments from social darwinists who DID believe in that stuff, and taking in the quality, even the manner of which the reply was made you can show what the true beliefs of the individual is. Even the lack of a reply is telling in itself, she/he did respond to the initial bait about net neutrality while pretending ignorance (I recognize the arguments, even if you try obscuring them).

You also give me too much credit. My ignorance was real.

I believe individuals should be responsible for themselves. That is my entire argument. The rest is your own projections. Whatever your agenda is, I'm not on any "side" of it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[Fel]

I also don't see why you'd claim I made the amp hours of a heavy duty battery up rather than just Google it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&oq=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57.1683j0j4&client=ms-android-h3g-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me you didn't even pull up a datasheet? That you used a FORUM for your information?

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/1209.pdf

As referenced

Nope, that's another way it's almost definitely not possible with two batteries but it doesn't matter. The energy in two batteries just isn't enough, it doesn't matter if all the energy is released at once or over years.

Actually, the rate of energy release is extremely important. The sun can easily radiate the same amount of energy on that slab of aluminum over the period of 1000 years as the energy required to melt it (yes I don't care to calculate it, if you do fine, it is besides the point). The problem is that the slab is able to release energy unto the environment at such a rate that it does not increase in temperature.

IF the batteries provided 100% of their energy at a singular moment to the mass of aluminum the "losses" would also change, (Admittedly though, there are other effects that I haven't even considered that would start to take place when you apply that much power to a small piece of metal.)

Hence, "power" is what is important, not Joules.

Very simple to show it will not work in the slightest. Anyone with any knowledge in physics knows this will not work. Anyone that accepts conservation of energy, knows that I have shown this cannot work.

Hence my comment about most of you being trolls. You have shown nothing except that you disagree with Xannari. If it is very simple to show it will not work, why don't you argue it with competence? Why don't you even read the first post instead of skimming it as Xannari CLEARLY says he uses the ELECTRODES from the batteries, not the batteries themselves? And my additional refute of pointing out that replacing the batteries until the ingot has fully melted wasn't even attempted to be disputed by you, who is only saying that the "energy" of two batteries isn't enough.

Ignorance isn't not knowing something, ignorance is when you are unwilling to understand your opposition's point of view and unwilling to open your mind to possibilities that conflict with everything you know.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Fel

[ZetaX]

Ignorance isn't not knowing something, ignorance is when you are unwilling to understand your opposition's point of view and unwilling to open your mind to possibilities that conflict with everything you know.

After the above comment, I claim the part quoted below to be just dishonest. You are doing inadequate nitpicking on something he didn't even say. All he said was that _regardless_ of power, the energy is not enough (and unlike you seem to imply: no power level, not even 10^100 Watts, will be enough to melt a ton of gold with a single Joule). Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, the rate of energy release is extremely important. The sun can easily radiate the same amount of energy on that slab of aluminum over the period of 1000 years as the energy required to melt it (yes I don't care to calculate it, if you do fine, it is besides the point). The problem is that the slab is able to release energy unto the environment at such a rate that it does not increase in temperature.

IF the batteries provided 100% of their energy at a singular moment to the mass of aluminum the "losses" would also change, (Admittedly though, there are other effects that I haven't even considered that would start to take place when you apply that much power to a small piece of metal.)

[Kryten]

Again, this guy is claiming he just came across multiple kilogrammes of gold, had no idea it was worth significant amounts of money, and sold it in a currency of his own invention. It's not worth trying to back this up, it's simply nonsense.

[BlueCosmology]

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me you didn't even pull up a datasheet? That you used a FORUM for your information?

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/1209.pdf

As referenced

I assume you're just a troll now, because not only did I not link a forum (I linked google) you then went onto link a different battery. You know heavy duty and super heavy duty are actually terms in the electronics industry right? They mean things. A super heavy duty battery IS NOT a heavy duty battery. There is a reason they have different names.

Actually, the rate of energy release is extremely important. The sun can easily radiate the same amount of energy on that slab of aluminum over the period of 1000 years as the energy required to melt it (yes I don't care to calculate it, if you do fine, it is besides the point). The problem is that the slab is able to release energy unto the environment at such a rate that it does not increase in temperature.

IF the batteries provided 100% of their energy at a singular moment to the mass of aluminum the "losses" would also change, (Admittedly though, there are other effects that I haven't even considered that would start to take place when you apply that much power to a small piece of metal.)

Hence, "power" is what is important, not Joules.

Hence my comment about most of you being trolls. You have shown nothing except that you disagree with Xannari. If it is very simple to show it will not work, why don't you argue it with competence? Why don't you even read the first post instead of skimming it as Xannari CLEARLY says he uses the ELECTRODES from the batteries, not the batteries themselves? And my additional refute of pointing out that replacing the batteries until the ingot has fully melted wasn't even attempted to be disputed by you, who is only saying that the "energy" of two batteries isn't enough.

Ignorance isn't not knowing something, ignorance is when you are unwilling to understand your opposition's point of view and unwilling to open your mind to possibilities that conflict with everything you know.

Ironically, everything you are saying is ignorance. Power is entirely irrelevant in this. Again, it almost certainly wouldn't be possible with the power output of 2 lantern batteries either BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER. The power could be anything, there is not enough energy to melt a kilo of aluminium in two lantern bateries. I have argued it with competence I have not just stated it.

Xannari was asked if he used the batteries for the power supply or not and he stated that yes he did.

[Fel]

You give yourself too much credit. Mimicking a person followed by turning on them is not clever or new.

Oh, I don't give myself credit; it's a very old technique but it IS a very strong technique. I just wanted to explain to those who didn't grasp what I was doing and were responding to it faithfully.

You also give me too much credit. My ignorance was real.

I believe individuals should be responsible for themselves. That is my entire argument. The rest is your own projections. Whatever your agenda is, I'm not on any "side" of it.

This may be true; the content of what you wrote shows you know more than you're letting on, but the manner in which it was written gives a very "it is what it is" aspect.

USUALLY, your argument hinges on underlying reasons; I attacked with references I knew to drive out those underlying reasons, but the manner of your speech is rather conflicting with the ideology I figure you hold.

So again, referring to the questions, if you truly do believe that "individuals have equal capacity to hold full responsibility for themselves" (I strongly suspect you do, which is still just a minor variation of what I initially posted) then seeing how far you'll go is of interest.