There are 2 worlds out there - The "Real" world & the Bureaucratic world. Your statement clearly shows which one of those you belong to.

Riiight, such artificial distinctions between 'worlds' are academic methods of conceptualizing the environment so it becomes more abstract and easier to theorize about. And then you accuse me of not living in the 'real' world....


Anyways, let me ask you this, whats easier, getting 30 pages worth of information told to you in a bar and then having to respond to it immediately, or reading those 30 pages on your own time in the environment of your choosing, with all the time you need to come up with a reply?

Look, I love talking with people face to face over a glass of beer as much as the next guy, but I do recognize that the quality of the arguments being made in such a setting are of a significantly lower order.

Anyways, let me ask you this, whats easier, getting 30 pages worth of information told to you in a bar and then having to respond to it immediately, or reading those 30 pages on your own time in the environment of your choosing, with all the time you need to come up with a reply?

13th May 2012

12th July 2015

Took long enough to read & reply, & still screwed up. You even agreed that austerity & the manner in which it has been applied throughout Europe was wrong.

The main issue that many fail to see due to the PIIGS issues is not a European one alone, it is a global issue with uncontrollable banks. Uncontrollable & unelected bureaucrats in Brussels can only do so much damage. Banks on the other hand (2008 anyone?)...

...has anyone seen the banks hit hard? Greece has only become a scapegoat for those uncontrollable & unelected fools in Brussels to scare the rest of the EZ into toeing the line & keep their pet project alive.

My answer is still no. For a number of reasons. Here are just a few:

1) The main reason (and it's a non-starter): The sheer volume of work it would be.

Look a few posts further up at the Wolfgang Schäuble interview. The wall of text that looks like:

Lie
Lie
Lie

Now look how long that is. Think how long it took me to put it together. Now imagine it would take a couple or more paragraphs to explain each lie. I could maybe do it in a week. If I wanted to do it with references and quotes and links then lets say a month (because I don't have a lot of time set aside for the Forums). So yes it's doable, yes it would be informative... but it ain't gonna happen. Why? Well because you haven't thought this through, have you?:)

Even if every single paragraph is to your satisfaction (which we both know is impossible anyway) and by some miracle you agree with everything... What have we established? Well we've established that Wolfgang Schäuble is a Pathological Liar. Great. Now only 39 more points on the checklist:) Well, realistically about 20 more that I'd be willing to go into.

2) Just because the way I did it is a summary, that doesn't mean it's COMPLETELY useless. It is useful for:

a)Entertainment. If you already know why one of these is a lie then the post could be mildly amusing.
b)Motivation. I'm claiming a bunch of statements are lies. If anyone is interested in any particular point on there then they can wander the internet and see if they think I got it right. If they think I haven't then they can choose to ignore my opinions after that, or come back here and rub it in my face, or... whatever. If they think I got it right though then next time I make an accusation or statement that interests them then they'll be happy to run off and check. Like when you said some Dutch guy was a weirdo. You may remember I said something like "Thanx, I'll look into it" and not "Hand in your homework and explain yourself!".
c)Curiosity. Anyone could have lifted a single line out of that wall-of-text and asked, "Hey Alex, why is THIS a lie?". And I'd probably be happy to answer.

3) You do not understand what a psychopath is. Another non-starter.



TL;DR

If your question is going to take me more than a few paragraphs to answer well then sorry, I'm just not that good at internet speak. But face-to-face I answer such questions a lot faster. And I'll be watching body language like a hawk to see where someone disagrees, what they don't understand, what they already know etc. Impossible to do with virtual ink.

Look, I love talking with people face to face over a glass of beer as much as the next guy, but I do recognize that the quality of the arguments being made in such a setting are of a significantly lower order.

-100

If you can't justify your arguments, with face-to-face discussions over coffee (beer?):

You then intellectually retreat from any true back-and-forth discussions, and make pronouncements.

I can, but not with everyone. The problem is that having a discussion, face to face, with someone on an academic level requires that both persons have a reasonable degree of knowledge in the field they are talking about. I can have wonderful discussions with some friends from uni about European politics, but that is because they both did the same study as me, and as result have a very similar theoretical background.

Think of it like this, on the internet I can follow a discussion about economics, because I read it on my own pace, and everything I don't fully understand I can Google. That makes it possible to have a relatively academic-theoretical discussion about economics with people that haven't done a Bachelor-Masters degree in economics. But start talking economics to me over a coffee/beer, and you'll lose me pretty quickly, because I would have to absorb and understand information I don't know a lot about in a very quick manner and I would have no way of checking if what you are telling me is correct or not. Rather than have a discussion, it would turn into a lecture where you are constantly schooling me on the various terms I don't recognize or understand, just to get me to a level so I can understand your argument. And then I would still not be able to respond to your argument all that much. I would be at a constant information disadvantage and the discussion would be extremely uneven in terms of valuable input.

Alex, then let me just say this, if its so difficult to prove that someone is an actual psychopath (and I know exactly what a psychopath is) then perhaps you shouldn't make the claim. And like I said, you don't have to call someone a psychopath (or a Nazi/Fascist for that matter) to make it clear that you disagree with the person.

Alex, then let me just say this, if its so difficult to prove that someone is an actual psychopath (and I know exactly what a psychopath is) then perhaps you shouldn't make the claim. And like I said, you don't have to call someone a psychopath (or a Nazi/Fascist for that matter) to make it clear that you disagree with the person.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck & acts like a duck, then...

Alex, then let me just say this, if its so difficult to prove that someone is an actual psychopath (and I know exactly what a psychopath is) then perhaps you shouldn't make the claim. And like I said, you don't have to call someone a psychopath (or a Nazi/Fascist for that matter) to make it clear that you disagree with the person.

And if one disagrees with Left Wing 'Solutions': They are accused of being Right Wing.

Agree?

No. I need to stop you right there. That's not what's going on. You forgot the part where I said I am apolitical. It is unwise to assume I am not, just because your above statement is true MOST of the time.

Sirius is correct with his "If it walks like a duck...".

So let me try and dispel this leftie illusion you've got. I am going to make a statement, I am going to mean it, and I'm going to bet that 10 years down the road I'll tell you the exact same thing (mostly because I know full well WHY I'm saying it). Here we go:

"A Margaret Thatcher would have been a thousand times better as Europe's big kahuna right now, instead of the popular but catastrophically unintelligent Merkel we are stuck with."

Alex, then let me just say this, if its so difficult to prove that someone is an actual psychopath (and I know exactly what a psychopath is) then perhaps you shouldn't make the claim. And like I said, you don't have to call someone a psychopath (or a Nazi/Fascist for that matter) to make it clear that you disagree with the person.

Michiel, you've made me a very happy man today and I'll try to explain why in about 5 different posts over the next few days. Hopefully I'll be able to get a couple of those done tonight.

(Whereas over beer it would probably take me just 10-20 minutes tops to do all 5 points)

"A Margaret Thatcher would have been a thousand times better as Europe's big kahuna right now, instead of the popular but catastrophically unintelligent Merkel we are stuck with."

Jeebers Alex, the impossible can be done, however miracles...

"A Margaret Thatcher would have been a thousand times better as Europe's big kahuna right now, instead of the popular but catastrophically unintelligent Merkel we are stuck with."

Jeebers Alex, the impossible can be done, however miracles...

Not sure what you mean by that Sirius:) Care to elaborate?

Edit: is it a joke about raising people from the dead?:)

"The impossible can be achieved, but miracles take a bit longer" :-)
It's not about raising dear old Maggie, it's just an old quote which I found suitable to your statement :-)

Alright then!

I've been trying to figure out for a while now why you kept rubbing me the wrong way and even a few days ago I was thinking:

"Is he one of those weirdos that doesn't drink?"
"Is he a she? I never thought to ask..."

But then you said:

Look, I love talking with people face to face over a glass of beer as much as the next guy...

So both those theories got shot down in half a sentence:)

For the life I couldn't add up some of the things you were saying to me. Like talking to two different people... it was driving me crazy. But now I know:

It was your age:)
You're 25ish!

Hi I'm Alex and have officially turned 40 recently. And no, this isn't going to be one of those "you're too young to understand". It's going to be worse:)

It's going to be one of those "Screw that psychopath Schäuble, I've got more important pointers for you kiddo!"

So let's see if we can't find that forest and forget about the tree for a minute.

Lesson #1

Rather than have a discussion, it would turn into a lecture where you are constantly schooling me on the various terms I don't recognize or understand, just to get me to a level so I can understand your argument. And then I would still not be able to respond to your argument all that much. I would be at a constant information disadvantage and the discussion would be extremely uneven in terms of valuable input.

This one is gonna be easy because I'm sure you already know deep down that that whole paragraph is pointless. A monologue can be a fantastic source of information. Or think of it this way: most documentaries are essentially monologues. Yeah ok, so if it's some guy you never met in a pub blabbing about a subject you have no idea about then yes, you'll have no way of knowing if the information is any good. That's OK. You'll check it out later.

There's no real need to answer to every single sentence coming out of someone else's mouth:)

It's not a race.

Lesson #2

Another easy one.

Being argumentative is good, but a bit of simple logic is needed before you respond. If you've ever sat through a long IQ test then you'll recognize this immediately:

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a psychopath.

I'm hoping you (all) picked "Schäuble could be a psychopath" :)

Very simple, very effective, very important, extremely valuable, and best of all very easy to master.

Lesson #2

Another easy one.

Being argumentative is good, but a bit of simple logic is needed before you respond. If you've ever sat through a long IQ test then you'll recognize this immediately:

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a psychopath.

I'm hoping you (all) picked "Schäuble could be a psychopath" :)

Very simple, very effective, very important, extremely valuable, and best of all very easy to master.

Are you serious? You call that 'simple logic'? If anything thats a perfect example of a logical fallacy.

'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a Martian.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be the color green'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a rabbit.'

Those are equally 'logical' inferences derived from the statement 'Schäuble is acting like an idiot.'

You pretend that B logically follows from A even though there is nothing to support that notion.

Greek shares plunge

No wonder the world suffered a crisis in 2008. Letting banks dictate how one spends their money is a recipe for disaster - oops, too late, it already happened.

"In accordance with conditions laid down by the government and the European Central Bank, local investors are not allowed to buy shares with money from their bank accounts, only with cash kept in safe deposit boxes or at home."

Yep, cash has always been the king!

Alex,

So let me try and dispel this leftie illusion you've got. I am going to make a statement, I am going to mean it, and I'm going to bet that 10 years down the road I'll tell you the exact same thing (mostly because I know full well WHY I'm saying it). Here we go:

"A Margaret Thatcher would have been a thousand times better as Europe's big kahuna right now, instead of the popular but catastrophically unintelligent Merkel we are stuck with."

What is your justification for making the statement that I put in bold?

Surely you know that Chancellor Merkel holds a Doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) in Quantum Chemistry.

Why do you call her 'catastrophically unintelligent'? Is it because you disagree with her politics?

I will grant you that scientists do not frequently make very good politicians, but this does not equate to being 'stupid'. Nor does some other politician having views you disagree with make them mentally ill.

Please stop throwing around such emotionally charged terms. It really detracts from your position in the debate(s)/discussion(s).

Lesson #2

Another easy one.

Being argumentative is good, but a bit of simple logic is needed before you respond. If you've ever sat through a long IQ test then you'll recognize this immediately:

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a psychopath.

I'm hoping you (all) picked "Schäuble could be a psychopath" :)

Very simple, very effective, very important, extremely valuable, and best of all very easy to master.

Are you serious? You call that 'simple logic'? If anything thats a perfect example of a logical fallacy.

'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a Martian.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be the color green'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a rabbit.'

Those are equally 'logical' inferences derived from the statement 'Schäuble is acting like an idiot.'

You pretend that B logically follows from A even though there is nothing to support that notion.

Wow. I've seen you make this mistake many times before and that's why I considered it a valuable lesson (not to mention one I'm pretty sure you already know, I just wanted to bring it to your attention again). But I wasn't expecting you to not understand THIS example which is just to say that you took me be surprise and I've lost my footing.

Let's start from me. Fallacies were fun to learn and if you argue with someone long enough, helpful to piece together what kind of person you are talking to (but not enough; you need many more pieces to complete that puzzle). I was never really impressed though, probably because I was the weirdo kid that got extremely frustrated at an "ad hominem" (for example) looong before I ever found out there was a word for it:) But nowadays I DO like a couple that make it easier to put someone on my mental blacklist. Strawman arguments can get somebody on there but there's nothing like a well executed red herring to get anybody on there immediately:)

(more on this in Lesson #4)

Now on to you Michiel. It's obvious (to me) that you are going through a phase of perfecting your argumentative fallacies. It is a rare talent to possess and you are doing it extremely well. And no, that's NOT sarcasm:)

But when I said:

Being argumentative is good, but a bit of simple logic is needed before you respond.

That's my laconic and lazy (well not lazy, just extremely physically tired at the end of the day, these days) way of saying most of the above plus this next paragraph...

On rare occasions I've caught you forgetting to use logic before going into an argument. I know you have it and I know you are more than intelligent enough to be able to use it. I wish I could tell why on occasion you don't but unfortunately I haven't figured that out yet. My best guess is that sometimes you're in a hurry to respond and gloss over the process.

OK so long intro's over and on to our exercise.

Like I said it's a question from an IQ test. And it's a trap. Sorta.

By making the brain focus on the word TRUE in the first sentence it makes it harder to focus on the word COULD in the third.

It is designed to LOOK like an argument but in reality it's also a combo question. In other words it's not a straightforward argument. Questions like these are designed to see if you know (in this case) that psychopaths are capable of acting like jerks and THEN look for argumentative fallacies. So technically I guess you could call it a bit of a trick question. Because the "wrapper" is designed to throw you off and rack your brain. Otherwise the same question could have much more easily been wrapped in a True or False (but that's not the point of the exercise). Example:

Can psychopaths sometimes act like idiots?
-True
-False

Or to use your own example (remixed) and make it obvious why it is incorrect we can use a Multiple Choice wrapper (but, again, that's not the point of the exercise):

-Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Which of the following is likelier to be true:

a) He is a Martian
b) He is the color green
c) He is a rabbit
d) He is a psychopath

:)

OK so long intro's over and on to our exercise.

Like I said it's a question from an IQ test. And it's a trap. Sorta.

By making the brain focus on the word TRUE in the first sentence it makes it harder to focus on the word COULD in the third.

It is designed to LOOK like an argument but in reality it's also a combo question. In other words it's not a straightforward argument. Questions like these are designed to see if you know (in this case) that psychopaths are capable of acting like jerks and THEN look for argumentative fallacies. So technically I guess you could call it a bit of a trick question. Because the "wrapper" is designed to throw you off and rack your brain. Otherwise the same question could have much more easily been wrapped in a True or False (but that's not the point of the exercise). Example:

Can psychopaths sometimes act like idiots?
-True
-False

Or to use your own example (remixed) and make it obvious why it is incorrect we can use a Multiple Choice wrapper (but, again, that's not the point of the exercise):

-Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Which of the following is likelier to be true:

a) He is a Martian
b) He is the color green
c) He is a rabbit
d) He is a psychopath

:)

Oh I know what you tried to do there.

Technically you can say that psychopaths can also be idiots. The problem is that its being used in an argument, and in this case it creates a false suggestion. Its a neat trick, I admit, used to force someone in a corner.

I used weird counter examples (though technically not incorrect. All lifeforms with brains are capable of idiocy, and depending on your feelings for the color green, it can be idiotic as well) but allow me to correct them with less weird ones (and all far more probable than your psychopath suggestion).

'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a politician.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be ignorant about economics.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor it could be that I call him that because I disagree with his political views on this particular situation and allow that color my vision on what the person is.'

You use the word therefor, hence directly imply a causal link between the first and second statement. That means you claim that B logically and causally follows from A, even though there is nothing to support such a claim. You are making inferences out of nothing. That is flawed logic.

Oh yes, you used the word COULD. That doesn't actually improve it, here are some other statements that use the same type of logic.
'Schäuble wore a blue tie to the last Eurogroup meeting. Therefor he could be a psychopath.'
'Schäuble sits in a wheelchair. Therefor he could be a psychopath.'

See? Can psychopaths wear blue ties to work? Can a psychopath sit in a wheelchair? Sure, all of those statements could technically be true, but they still don't mean anything. Its tying one factual observation to a theoretical possibility, without any facts supporting that theoretical possibility as being likely or relevant.

Then you also tried to create a false dichotomy by presenting me with two options. Either Schäuble acts like an idiot therefor he is an idiot or Schäuble acts like an idiot and therefor he is a psychopath. But it completely ignores the countless of other choices that are just as valid and most certainly more likely than your psychopath option.

All in all, it makes the argument a rhetorical trick designed to drive me into a specific corner. It tries to force me into accepting your idea that Schäuble 'could be' a psychopath, allowing you to build your argument from there, without first having to prove that your 'could be' is even a likely possibility worth discussing.

Indeed, Hanlons razor very much applies here: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Or there is another option: - He really is a psychopath.

Or there is another option: - He really is a psychopath.

From what I know of him, its already obvious that he lacks the symptoms of psychopathy.

'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a politician.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be ignorant about economics.'
'Schäuble is acting like an idiot. Therefor it could be that I call him that because I disagree with his political views on this particular situation and allow that color my vision on what the person is.'

I find each of those three options far more likely than Schäuble being a psychopath.