Comments by "" (@davidmajor1508) on "Richard Wolff Is A Fringe Lunatic" video.

  1.  @donthiebautable  have read that sort of vomit before. None of them "prove", or are "evidence", that more co-ops would work. It's amusing how you have rotated behind "studies" instead of trying to use your own sound logic and evidence that uses economics discussion and addresses variables to show that you can "extrapolate" from the few existing co-ops to show more would work. It shows me you really have no grasp of what you are advocating for. But if you must retreat to "studies", instead of being vague, whey don't you link one that you imagine "proves" your point? Come, if you think there is one that provides "proof" or "evidence" that more would work while being scientifically sound, as in using actual economics and accounting for variable, then link it. Put up or shut up.
    4
  2.  @donthiebautable  That's just a cop out. If you think there is so much evidence for your bullshit, you should be able to link at least just ONE, and demonstrate how it is evidence for your nonsense. The fact that you won't and can't means that either you lack the wherewithal, or that those "studies" really aren't evidence for you claim that just because a few co-ops exists, that magically means that more would "work". (It's probably both, actually).
    4
  3.  @donthiebautable  \ No, the mere existence of coops do not confirm or prove Wolff's "ideas". If you think they do, explain how. Don't just assert, explain. Use logic and evidence.
    4
  4.  @donthiebautable  No, you have not demonstrated that just because a few co-ops work that means MORE, in a widespread manner, would work. I've explained why, numerous times.
    4
  5.  @donthiebautable  And anyone who understands logic, the scientific method, and basic economics would understand that the existence of a few functioning co-ops is not evidence that more would work.
    4
  6.  @donthiebautable  That "foster" link doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. It's just another attempt at distraction and decoction on your part by introducing what is essentially philosophical gibberish. Try again.
    3
  7.  @donthiebautable  Nope. I never "slid any goals". All along I asked you how the existence of co-ops allegedly "proved" his ideas "are not doomed to failure" and all along you've failed to address that question.
    3
  8.  @donthiebautable  No, the existence of a few functioning co-ops does not "prove" that more would work. Use logic and evidence to demonstrate how the existence of a few functioning co-ops "proves" that even more would work.
    3
  9.  @donthiebautable  The only thing that the existence of "cooperatives" proves is that a concept we call "cooperatives" exits, it certainly is not some sort of direct evidence that allegedly proves repugnant Wolff's ideas.
    3
  10.  @donthiebautable  Asserting that those studies are evidence that "MORE co-ops would work" is not the same thing as demonstrating that they are actually evidence for your claim(s). Come. man up, if there is such a "mountain of evidence" choose just ONE study from that "mountain" link it, and logically discuss how it is evidence that makes your case for you.  Because, again, asserting there is "evidence" is not the same thing as demonstrating that it exists.
    3
  11.  @donthiebautable  Like, if you grasped the bare minimum of logic, you would realize that the existence of functioning co-ops proves that they can, at least sometimes, work. It doesn't prove that Wolff is "right" to advocate for more of them. It does not prove that the rest of his "ideas" are "right" or not "doomed to failure". You do know how to think and use logic, right?
    2
  12.  @donthiebautable  There is no "new argument" from me. The fact that you imagine that there is confirms that you do not grasp basic logic, as I already pointed out. You do not grasp the fact the mere existence of co-ops proves one thing and one thing only: That the concept of co-ops can, at least sometimes, work. You do not grasp that it does not "prove" that Wolff is right to advocate for more. It does not "prove" that that his ideas would "work" or that they are not "doomed to failure".
    2
  13.  @donthiebautable  Until you step up and do that, "Just one" will be my response from now on.
    2
  14.  @donthiebautable  Stupid analogy. Inapt analogy. Your taste for, and preference for pineapples is subjective, there is no question of whether they "work" or not. Again: All the mere existence of co-ops "proves" is that co-ops, at least sometimes, work. It does not "prove" that they are preferable or that more of them would "work". It does not "prove" that Wolff is "right" to advocate for more of them. It does not "prove" that Wolff's ideas would "work" or that his ideas are "not doomed to failure". Also, you set up a strawman. I am not arguing that you and Wolff are not free to advocate for co-ops. You are free to believe anything you want, delusional or not. However, that does not mean that you are logically free to claim that more of them would work and that their existence means Wolff's ideas are not "doomed to failure". Be honest and address the actual argument instead of making up strawmen.
    2
  15.  @donthiebautable  5. Again, a strawman argument. However, that does not mean that you are logically free to claim that more of them would work and that their existence means Wolff's ideas are not "doomed to failure". Be honest and address the actual argument instead of making up strawmen.
    2
  16.  @donthiebautable  Like, if you grasped the bare minimum of logic, you would realize that the existence of functioning co-ops proves that they can, at least sometimes, work. It doesn't prove that Wolff is "right" to advocate for more of them. It does not prove that the rest of his "ideas" are "right" or not "doomed to failure". You do know how to think and use logic, right?
    2
  17.  @donthiebautable  You asked a disingenuous question based on your low-IQ strawman. I am not arguing that you and Wolff are not free to advocate for co-ops. You are free to believe anything you want, delusional or not. However, that does not mean that you are logically free to claim that more of them would work and that their existence means Wolff's ideas are not "doomed to failure". Be honest and address the actual argument instead of making up strawmen.
    2
  18.  @donthiebautable  All that the existence of co-ops "proves" is that co-ops can, at least sometimes work, it does not "prove" that he is right to advocate for more of them, and it certainly does not prove that the rest of his ideas are "right". You grasp that, right? You understand basic logic, right?
    2
  19.  @donthiebautable  And the "papers" on co-op "job retention" and yada yada are just a silly red herring. They do not prove, they are not evidence, that more would work.
    2
  20.  @donthiebautable  f you think there is so much evidence for your bullshit, you should be able to link at least just ONE, and demonstrate how it is evidence for your nonsense. The fact that you won't and can't means that either you lack the wherewithal, or that those "studies" really aren't evidence for you claim that just because a few co-ops exists, that magically means that more would "work". (It's probably both, actually).
    2
  21.  @donthiebautable  No, you cannot "extrapolate" that the existence of a few functioning co-ops is "proof" or "evidence" that more would work, anymore than you can extrapolate that the existence of a two functioning gas stations in a town means that more gas stations would work.
    2
  22.  @donthiebautable  No, you are not logically" free to claim that the moon is made of cheese", not if you want to respect logic and evidence.
    2
  23.  @geekybugle4241  I agree. Well said.
    2
  24.  @donthiebautable  Come, pick just ONE from your alleged "mountain of evidence" and use actual logic and evidence to illustrate how it supports the claim that is under contention. Just ONE.
    2
  25.  @cheesemccheese5780  I'll use as many comments as I want.
    2
  26.  @donthiebautable  Again, just so it sinks in: The existence of few functioning co-ops does not "prove" that more of them would work. It is NOT a "high confidence prediction" that more of them would work. For instance, the existence of 3 functioning gas stations in a town does not "prove" that more gas stations would work. That's logic, that's basic economics,. The fact that buffoons have advocated for over 100 years for co-ops and they are not more widespread casts considerable doubt on your alleged "high confidence prediction". Use logic and evidence, not baseless assertions about "evidence" and "confidence" to demonstrate that the exits of a few functioning co-ops somehow "proves" that more would work.
    2
  27.  @donthiebautable  No, the existence of a few functioning co-ops is not evidence that more would function or "work".
    1
  28.  @donthiebautable  By any chance, are you trying desperate deflection tactics that have nothing to do with this topic, bringing up asinine questions that are utterly baseless? And I'm not curious, because I know that is exactly what you are doing. You are truly pathetic. You are truly illogical. You truly have no grasp of evidence and the "scientific method".
    1
  29.  @donthiebautable  I have read papers on "co-ops" sort of vomit before. None of them "prove", or are "evidence", that MORE co-ops would work. It's amusing how you have retreated behind "studies" instead of trying to use your own sound logic and evidence that uses economics discussion and addresses variables to show that you can "extrapolate" from the few existing co-ops to show MORE would work. It shows me you really have no grasp of what you are advocating for. But if you must retreat to "studies", instead of being vague, whey don't you link one that you imagine "proves" your point? Come, if you think there is one that provides "proof" or "evidence" that more would work while being scientifically sound, as in using actual economics and accounting for variable, then link it. Put up or shut up.
    1
  30.  @donthiebautable  But if you must retreat to "studies", instead of being vague, why don't you link one that you imagine "proves" your point? Come, if you think there is one that provides "proof" or "evidence" that more would work while being scientifically sound, as in using actual economics and accounting for variable, then link it. Put up or shut up.
    1
  31.  @donthiebautable  LOL Now you are trotting out the red herring of my alleged anger and how many times I respond. You are truly pathetic. You re truly illogical.  As I already explained, the studies and "papers" on co-op "job retention" and yada yada a just a silly red herring . They do do not prove, they are not evidence, that more would work.
    1
  32.  @donthiebautable  Part of the "scientific method" is to acknowledge that you cannot "extrapolate" beyond your data set unless you can hold everything constant and account for all the variables. You have not done that. You have not respected logic or the scientific method. You have baselessly asserted that the existence of a few functioning co-ops is somehow magically "evidence" and "proof" that more would work without showing that everything else would be constant and that you have accounted for all the variables.
    1
  33.  @donthiebautable  You don't even understand what I'm trying to "drive at". Another misunderstanding or strawman on your part. Probably both. I am not trying to "drive at" your claim being wrong. I am "driving at" your lack of logic and evidence to claim that a few functioning co-ops somehow magically proves, or is evidence, that more would work.
    1
  34.  @donthiebautable  Part of the "scientific method" is to acknowledge that you cannot "extrapolate" beyond your data set unless you can hold everything constant and account for all the variables. You have not done that. You have not respected logic or the scientific method. You have baselessly asserted that the existence of a few functioning co-ops is somehow magically "evidence" and "proof" that more would work without showing that everything else would be constant and that you have accounted for all the variables.
    1
  35.  @donthiebautable  No, you are not logically free to make any claim you want, if you want to respect logic and evidence.
    1
  36.  @donthiebautable  Come, pick just ONE from your alleged "mountain of evidence" and use actual logic and evidence to illustrate how it supports the claim that is under contention. You know,, the claim that a few existing co-ops means MORE would work. Just ONE.
    1
  37.  @donthiebautable  You simply do not grasp that the mere existence of a few functioning co-ops does not "prove" that more would work or should be advocated for. Basic logic.
    1
  38.  @donthiebautable  Nope. It's just a bunch more assertions from you. Use logic and evidence, not assertions, to illustrate how these coops and yada yada "proves" that fatso Wolff's "ideas" allegedly "work".
    1
  39.  @cheesemccheese5780  Understand?
    1
  40.  @donthiebautable  How do they "prove" that fatso Wolff's ""ideas aren't doomed to failure"?
    1