3 ms·

I'm not against the free market. That's the problem with people like you. It's an either/or thing and you completely fail to see the nuance behind the issue. Th

I'm not against the free market. That's the problem with people like you. It's an either/or thing and you completely fail to see the nuance behind the issue. The free market is an example of a system with many upsides and many downsides. If I call out the many downsides you assume I'm against the free market. Any normal person can literally see both. It's completely obvious that capitalism has upsides and downsides and currently the upsides out weigh the downsides. However normal people know that we have to keep the downsides in check. The people who tend to be unaware of all of this are people how are rich because the policies that seek to temper the bad side of capitalism disproportionately effect rich people. That's the main issue with capitalism. Wealth is not distributed fairly, it concentrates in the hands of the few and those few using the money they gained use it to create lies about tobacco/oil and manipulate the public in ways a normal person never would. Hence policies are directed to temper the bad sides of capitalism; but it has limited affect because rich people themselves can influence public option and use their money to perpetuate policy in their favor as well. How do men justify such evilness? Well of course he lies to himself saying he does no evil and that everything was a consumer choice. Hitler like all other evil men are unaware of how evil they are, these people need to rationalize their actions with excuses. I'm willing to wager a second guess, in that whatever made you rationalize and justify the actions of Big Tobacco and Big Oil started in an action of your own doing that benefited you majorly. You needed to justify an action that you took of your own free will and that justification changed your view of the world such that it also validated the actions of Big Tobacco and Big Oil. That action or actions(s) is likely responsible for how well off you are today. Whether the justification itself is valid is besides the point as our biases will likely never agree on that fact. But I'm sure we can agree that the event I mentioned above has happened to you, as no normal person supports this aspect of Big Tobacco or big oil, it literally takes some heavy introspection to reverse this logic and create an alternative world view.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> That's the problem with people like you. Please don't pretend you're a serious, rational debater when you say things like this. You keep inventing things I must be and insulting them. You should be addressing the points made instead.
- shadowlight 5y ago
  The topic of this conversation is two things. Free markets, and your background in relation to your opinion on free markets. If predictions I make about your character are wrong then just say it's wrong and tell me why. Instead one of the first things you did was deflect. I said you were well off, you said when you were a kid you were not well off. I stayed on course and said that your past has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are currently well off and that's why you have such opinions about the free market. I highly doubt you'd support the free market policies you do now when you were poor. Likely you never thought about these policies until you became rich. That is my point. The whole point is that your wrong about the free market and evidence is that your foundations for supporting such a thing have more to do with your circumstance than it does with reality. Defeating your argument involves getting personal because personal reasons are the foundations of your argument. If I'm wrong it's easy to point out that I'm wrong. All you gotta do is tell me exactly the inflection point in which you developed this free market logic. Was it when you were poor or when you were rich? I'm simply saying they came about when you were rich.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> That's the problem with people like you. Please don't pretend you're a serious, rational debater when you say things like this. You keep inventing things I must be and insulting them. You should be addressing the points made instead.

shadowlight 5y ago
The topic of this conversation is two things. Free markets, and your background in relation to your opinion on free markets. If predictions I make about your character are wrong then just say it's wrong and tell me why. Instead one of the first things you did was deflect. I said you were well off, you said when you were a kid you were not well off. I stayed on course and said that your past has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are currently well off and that's why you have such opinions about the free market. I highly doubt you'd support the free market policies you do now when you were poor. Likely you never thought about these policies until you became rich. That is my point. The whole point is that your wrong about the free market and evidence is that your foundations for supporting such a thing have more to do with your circumstance than it does with reality. Defeating your argument involves getting personal because personal reasons are the foundations of your argument. If I'm wrong it's easy to point out that I'm wrong. All you gotta do is tell me exactly the inflection point in which you developed this free market logic. Was it when you were poor or when you were rich? I'm simply saying they came about when you were rich.