Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65934 rec.gardens:259994 misc.survivalism:503804 misc.rural:116439 rec.backcountry:173106

Don wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...

Don wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote


Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?


Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself

in a

corner.

Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent
poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my
contention, because he is a reflexive defender of
Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he
was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on
talk.politics.animals and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely
admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a
"vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls
himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products
in his diet entirely for health reasons.


BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.

It's spot on.


Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)


There should be no gov't forced military.


2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.


Gov't should control nothing.


3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.


No regulations on anything, that is for the free market, and free people to
decide.


4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.


No laws, period. Laws do not change behavior, they only assign a penalty.


5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.


But of course.


6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.


Subsidies = theft
Theft is a no no.


7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.


Tarrif = theft.
see above


8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.


Employers should pay what they wish.


9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.


Just like the free market.


10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.


All people should control their lives, completely and be responsible for
their behavior, completely.

Now, which side of the aisle do I stand on?

Which side of WHAT aisle, goofball? I don't recall any
talk of an aisle. You've completely lost sight - no,
never saw to begin with - the point of the quiz. It
*figures* you'd think the dope bobby has it together...

(I'm painting you into a corner with a very narrow brush)

You don't even have a Magic Marker, goofball, let alone
a paint brush.

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

[snip]

Robert:

Despite your articulate, well-reasoned and factually supported posts,
you should recognize by now that our little Jonny is never wrong about
anything; he knows it all already and is, therefore, totally immune from
further learning or the persuasive powers of fact and reason.
Furthermore, his reflexive resort to childish name-calling is evidence
of his inability to engage in constructive or meaningful debate or
discussion. Isn't it obvious that he has a well-earned place in your
twit filter?

Jeff

Time for a candid admission, bobby: you simply don't
know what you're talking about on the issue. You know
NEITHER economics nor psychology; you were just running
your ignorant mouth.

Casting aspersions on another really doesn't win you any
debating points. Instead, you might consider explaining why
economists study consumer confidence, market sentiment, the
irrational exuberance that powers bubble markets, that sort
of thing - psychological aspects of economics that you
assure us economists don't care one whit about.

I do thank you for your rudeness, because it has prompted me
to do some more research into this matter. I did an Alta
Vista search using the key words: economics and psychology.
It returned 588,142 results. As might be expected from
reading your tirades, it is easy to find articles on the
differences between the two. But it is also easy to find
articles to the contrary. Heres one:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2002-19412.asp
[snip]

Jeff McCann wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


[snip]

Robert:

Despite your articulate, well-reasoned and factually supported posts,

They're not well reasoned at all, jeffy. He is
asserting that economics is a "subset" of psychology,
and it plainly isn't, as anyone who has ever studied
the field - hmmm...that lets YOU out, too - can attest.

Repeat after me: economists developing somewhat of an
interest in psychology no more makes economics a
"subset" of psychology, whose establishment as an
academic discipline economics PREDATES, than did
previously economists' interest in biology, political
science and criminology make the field a "subset" of
any of those.

Economics is not a "subset" of psychology. bobby is
wrong to assert it is, and you are a dope for agreeing
with him simply because you don't like me.

Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn
around? "I understand economics, but you only think you
do." Not exactly overwhelming.

Well, for 34 years, I was paid to teach courses in economics. That
included judging whether others (my students) understood it.
Apparently someone thought I was qualified to do that.

Are you?

vince norris

vincent p. norris wrote:

Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn
around? "I understand economics, but you only think you
do." Not exactly overwhelming.


Well, for 34 years, I was paid to teach courses in economics. That
included judging whether others (my students) understood it.
Apparently someone thought I was qualified to do that.

What's your take on bobby's basic point: that
economics is a "subset" of psychology?

I maintain it's crap. Economics issues were
*considered* by some philosophers before the emergence
of economics as a distinct academic discipline, and
some of those philosophers may well have thought about
human psychology as well. However, Smith, Ricardo,
Say, Marshall and others clearly were not studying
psychology, and then spun off into economics.

When I studied economics as an undergraduate and in
graduate school, consumer preference was taken as a
given, and the notion of utility was being abandoned.
One of my professors in grad school at UCLA, Armen
Alchian, demonstrated decades ago that downward sloping
demand curves can be obtained without considering
"utility" at all; all that is required is a diminishing
marginal rate of substitution between two goods, which
is what we observe in the real world.

Economics is not a "subset" of psychology.


Are you?

bobby, the person to whom you are replying, has by his
own admission read ONE economics textbook in his life.
It was a lower division intro book at that. He is
not qualified to talk about economics, either the
subject as it is currently taught and studied today, or
the history of it.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote
Don wrote:
WOW!
You took that poor boy to the woodshed, but good!

Uh...no; no, donny, he didn't do anything of the kind.

There ya go again, acting like a spoiled little child.
You just can't help it can you? LOL
Still waiting for your reply to my answers to your questions.....

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
Don wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...

Don wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote


Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?


Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself

in a

corner.

Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent
poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my
contention, because he is a reflexive defender of
Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he
was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on
talk.politics.animals and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely
admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a
"vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls
himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products
in his diet entirely for health reasons.


BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.

It's spot on.


Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)


There should be no gov't forced military.


2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.


Gov't should control nothing.


3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.


No regulations on anything, that is for the free market, and free people
to
decide.


4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.


No laws, period. Laws do not change behavior, they only assign a
penalty.


5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.


But of course.


6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.


Subsidies = theft
Theft is a no no.


7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.


Tarrif = theft.
see above


8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.


Employers should pay what they wish.


9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.


Just like the free market.


10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.


All people should control their lives, completely and be responsible for
their behavior, completely.

Now, which side of the aisle do I stand on?

Which side of WHAT aisle, goofball? I don't recall any
talk of an aisle. You've completely lost sight - no,
never saw to begin with - the point of the quiz. It
*figures* you'd think the dope bobby has it together...

(I'm painting you into a corner with a very narrow brush)

You don't even have a Magic Marker, goofball, let alone
a paint brush.

You're pretty slow, aren't you?
I'm done here, intellectually slamming you is like kicking a dying
dog....not very much fun.

Don wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Don wrote:

WOW!
You took that poor boy to the woodshed, but good!

Uh...no; no, donny, he didn't do anything of the kind.


There ya go again, acting like a spoiled little child.


Uh...no; no again, donny. Your belief about bobby's
[ahem] "accomplishment" is false, and I'm not acting
like anything.

Don wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

Don wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
thlink.net...


Don wrote:



"Jonathan Ball" wrote



Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are
leftists. Get it, now?


Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself

in a


corner.

Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent
poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my
contention, because he is a reflexive defender of
Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he
was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on
talk.politics.animals and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely
admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a
"vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls
himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products
in his diet entirely for health reasons.



BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close.

It's spot on.



Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL

I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10
point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I
posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year
apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently
leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the
problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to
disagree with the statement from either leftwing or
rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to
add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your
yes/no or agree/disagree answer.

State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree
with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no,
or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of
your answer.

1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)


There should be no gov't forced military.



2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press
or the Internet.


Gov't should control nothing.



3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.


No regulations on anything, that is for the free market, and free people

to

decide.



4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.


No laws, period. Laws do not change behavior, they only assign a

penalty.


5. People should be free to come and go across borders;
to live and work where they choose.


But of course.



6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt.
subsidies.


Subsidies = theft
Theft is a no no.



7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.


Tarrif = theft.
see above



8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.


Employers should pay what they wish.



9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.


Just like the free market.



10. All foreign aid should be privately funded.


All people should control their lives, completely and be responsible for
their behavior, completely.

Now, which side of the aisle do I stand on?

Which side of WHAT aisle, goofball? I don't recall any
talk of an aisle. You've completely lost sight - no,
never saw to begin with - the point of the quiz. It
*figures* you'd think the dope bobby has it together...


(I'm painting you into a corner with a very narrow brush)

You don't even have a Magic Marker, goofball, let alone
a paint brush.


You're pretty slow, aren't you?

No.

I'm done here,

Oh, you sure are! You disgraced yourself.

intellectually slamming you is

Something you haven't done, and from what you've
written, something you wouldn't even know how to start
doing.

You didn't adequately answer the quiz, for one thing.
You can't even follow simple directions; you couldn't
intellectually slam a six-year-old.

What's your take on bobby's basic point: that
economics is a "subset" of psychology?

I may have come to this thread late, so I don't know if that was
bobby's basic point, but I've already posted my disagreement with it.

I maintain it's crap. Economics issues were
*considered* by some philosophers before the emergence
of economics as a distinct academic discipline,
....

Because they concern matters, ultimately, of life and death, economic
writings are as old as civilization. Civlization was originally based
on the control of water and arable land along the Tigris and
Euphrates, the Indus River in India, etc. Civilization also introduced
"taxation" and required record keeping.

Of course, men had economies, and no doubt argued about them, long
before civilization, otherwise they would have starved or frozen to
death. But they left no writings for us to examine.

During the Middle Ages, economic writings were based on Christian
thought. A crucial concept was Justium Pretium, the "just price."
Profit-seeking was sinful. Consider: "It is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
gates of heaven." "What does it profit a man to gain wht the whole
world but lose lhis immortal soul?"

After the Reanaissance, the prevailing view was "Mercantilism," the
key notion of which was that economic activity was to enrich the
Crown, not provided for the welfare of ordinary people. The "Trade
and Navigation Acts," against which the colonists rebelled, were
Mercantilist laws.

Adam Smith, who published _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations_, 1776, was a professor of moral philosophy,
(there were no "economists" yet) a branch of philosophy that dealt
with questions of right and wrong--including the right way to use
resources, the right way to distribute wealth, etc.

People have always thought about what we today call "psychology," too.
The Greeks wrote about the question "How do we know what we know?"
That branch of philosophy was known as "epistemology." There's a
consensus that "psychology" was born about 1870, a century after
Smith's Wealth of Nations and after the "Classical Economists" such as
Ricardo, Malthus, James and John Stuart Mill, Jevons, and others had
written numerous books aobut political economy.

When I studied economics as an undergraduate and in
graduate school, consumer preference was taken as a
given, and the notion of utility was being abandoned.

I retired ten years ago, but at that time, the concept of utility was
still being included in the introductory texts. But textbooks are not
always up-to-the-minute with the latest developments.

One of my professors in grad school at UCLA, Armen
Alchian, demonstrated decades ago that downward sloping
demand curves can be obtained without considering
"utility" at all;

"Indifference analysis" has been around for many years.

all that is required is a diminishing
marginal rate of substitution between two goods, which
is what we observe in the real world.

The the purpose of "theory" in any science is to explain what we
observe in the real world. Merely observing it is insufficient.

vince norris

John Douglas writes right handed.

John Douglas writes right handed.

John Douglas writes right handed.


10-4.

Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?

"seesthru" wrote in message
om...
Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?

I think he had a thing for Kosher meat.