KN's Guide to Fixing the Country

Dud Doodoo wrote:

Angatar wrote:How about instead of wasting your time trying to tell me I'm wrong, which I'm not, you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.

As has been previously stated not even a half a page up, he has responded to all of NT's points and has received nothing in turn but comments like the one you just made. I would suggest doing exactly what RL has said, go back and find a point that NT has made that was not responded to.

Ringleader wrote:

you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.

I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?

Obviously not.

Normally he reads them and ignores them. This comes from my experience in arguing with him.

Angatar wrote:

Ringleader wrote:

you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.

I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?

Obviously not.

I have read yours, but listen to my idea. Instead of being a lazy fuck, go back and figure out why it will help.

A lazy fuck? You're the one ignoring his arguments.

Ziggy wrote:Protip: summarise all your points into one big post each. That way we can stop the bickering and the claims of "But I rebutted that three pages ago!"

Protip: If you want to see it done please do it yourself instead of telling others to do it.

BBJynne wrote:you two aren't even talking about the subject anymore. you're just hatin' on each other's comprehension skills

Most arguments with NT or Angatar end up like that, I cannot imagine why.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I read the first 5 pages then got bored. It's basically one of NT's standard arguments. "Here is my idea, if you don't like it your wrong and whatever you bring into the mix I will push away as not been proven."

In the case of this argument no counter response can be given because nothing like this has ever been done and where it has been done NT wont accept that evidence because it's a different country.

Honestly, NT had an idea and he posted it. He just wanted everyone to say "OMG that's a great plan. LETS SEND IT AND TRY TO MAKE IT A BILL". He just wants an ego stroking, not a debate. I suggest stop fighting over it as it really doesn't matter that much.

PS: Yes supply and demand is a key factor but I have doubts that modifying the minimum wage would do anything. And even if it did it the relation between income and expenses will be the same. No matter how you work it, if you work only at McDonalds you will not be able to afford to live on your own.

Clarifying:
If an employees wage is $8 an hour and a Big Mac is $4. He would work half an hour to buy a Big Mac.
If we do what you say and lower minimum wage and everything else lowers as well, that same employee would now make $4 an hour, but the cost of a Big Mac was reduced to $2 an hour. The employee still has to work half an hour to buy a Big Mac. Changing minimum wage would only make the numbers smaller. It would offer no difference what-so-ever.

This sounds about right after recollecting my past arguments with him.

CivBase wrote:Legalizing weed wont save the economy any more than happy meals at McDonalds. It's just another for people to waste money on, but with more negative side effects.

You may not be able to become physically addicted to weed, but you can become psychologically addicted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much of a difference.

Let me put it this way: NT, along with many other users, would probably be broke if marijuana was legalized. How does that help?

As someone who hangs out with far too many stoners and smokers, it has been made clear to me that when someone tries to quit weed they have absolutely no urge to smoke it, in contrast to say, a smoker. A smoker feels like he absolutely NEEDS a cigerette and in most of the cases he will go out and get one. A smoker will go into withdraw, start shaking, get ill tempered, ect, whereas a stoner experiences none of these. Nicotine is an example of a physical addiction, while weed is an example of a psychological addiction. There is the difference.

On top of this, weed is already readily available to anyone who wants it. If it was legalized, the price would drop as many of the expenses involved between producing it and getting it to the consumer disappear. With this in mind, stoners would possibly have even more money than they do now.

The correct argument would be that there would be more stoners as a result of the industrialization of weed, and the absolute last thing we need right now is to expand the population of worthless stoners that are essentially a dead weight to society. Smoking only mildly effects the users abilities aside from highly demanding cardiovascular activities. In contrast to this, a stoner can only sit on his ass while high. Weed also has a longer lasting effect on a persons mental capabilities, as I have witnessed from my friends. Widespread, this would greatly decrease the average intelligence of an American, something which certainly needs no further decreasing, I am sure you agree.

Ringleader wrote:

Agreed, but I think Ziggy shouldn't have to do that, he was making a suggestion with the impression Angatar can be reasoned with.

Poor poor Ziggy...

Angatar wrote:Irony...

Dud Doodoo wrote:
Putting aside the fact that this thread resides in the debate forum, I find it funny that I am the one out of everyone referenced in a comment about being overly aggressive.

"It just makes me laugh"

Ziggy wrote:
Oh no, it just makes me laugh. People like Dud Doodoo, and a lot of others on this forum, are either incredibly over-sensitive, or they just spend most of their time trying to make an argument out of every post,

Ziggy wrote:purely to fuel their ego or assert testosterone-fueled dominance.

Ziggy wrote:It's so unbelievably childish and pathetic, but it still makes me laugh.

Ziggy wrote:I have not seen a thread where somebody has not jumped on a post and made an argument out of it, or has been hostile for the sake of causing conflict.

Ziggy wrote:Again, you seem to be missing the point of that post. It wasn't me saying "I'm much better than you", or me "fueling my ego", because I would have worded it much differently. I'm actually saying that you all need to just shut the fuck up and not argue in every single thread over the most minute and insignificant things. Everybody knows that it occurs to much, and when I raise a point about how people argue too much, people try and rebut that! It's just stupid, and it makes this forum pretty unappealing at times.

Your social skills are pretty fucked if you think that you should always be right, and that you should always assert your opinion, aggressively or not, regardless of the consequences of doing so.

Also, if you try and refute this comment, you're only validating and reinforcing my argument.