Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

CJNator said:
Well what makes you think in a stateless capitalist society that only cooperations and businesses would have the power and how much of a libertarian are you?
Click to expand...
Because power is given to those in control. Businesses and corporations will AlWAYS have control, given their immense resources. People are only powerful in large numbers, and it's hard to give them control when their only way of communication is through a corporation allowing it.

See that phone you're using? The network it uses is operated by a corporation. See that facebook app you use? Facebook can stop you using it if it doesn't like you.

People will never have control, because a business can take that away from them
 
Jiigzz said:
Because power is given to those in control. Businesses and corporations will AlWAYS have control, given their immense resources. People are only powerful in large numbers, and it's hard to give them control when their only way of communication is through a corporation allowing it.

See that phone you're using? The network it uses is operated by a corporation. See that facebook app you use? Facebook can stop you using it if it doesn't like you.

People will never have control, because a business can take that away from them
Click to expand...

What do you think businesses are made of, robots? Lol people run businesses and the people give the power to the businesses/corporations, that's how individuals would regulate.

No offense but It seems like you don't know what you're talking about so I'll put it this way. Business A, B, and C are evil so someone comes along and creates business D (creating a business wouldn't be that hard due to not having centralize regulations making everything expensive), so now people see how business D is a moral choice so people start going there. So later in the future people are all going to business D so businesses A, B, and C all sell their properties to business D because they want to make some money back rather then let it sit there(this can be used in any situation that includes private property). In situation 2, businesses A, B, and C get their **** together and start becoming more moral to keep making money.

You see capitalism is all about making money, it is ran by the greedy and non greedy. Yes it wouldn't be a perfect because there are faults, resources will be wasted by the evil and neglectful but within every system there is neglect and corruption but it beats the hell out of ANY government, saying that government should do bla bla bla doesnt mean anything because in the real world it isn't and will never be like that.

I'm going to cut this right here, you have a really Marxist view on capitalism which has no room for any argumentation. If you want to understand what I'm talking about and actually conduct legitimate argumentation Google the Mises Institute, Austrian Economics, and Murray Rothbard.
 
CJNator said:
What do you think businesses are made of, robots? Lol people run businesses and the people give the power to the businesses/corporations, that's how individuals would regulate.

No offense but It seems like you don't know what you're talking about so I'll put it this way. Business A, B, and C are evil so someone comes along and creates business D (creating a business wouldn't be that hard due to not having centralize regulations making everything expensive), so now people see how business D is a moral choice so people start going there. So later in the future people are all going to business D so businesses A, B, and C all sell their properties to business D because they want to make some money back rather then let it sit there(this can be used in any situation that includes private property). In situation 2, businesses A, B, and C get their **** together and start becoming more moral to keep making money.

You see capitalism is all about making money, it is ran by the greedy and non greedy. Yes it wouldn't be a perfect because there are faults, resources will be wasted by the evil and neglectful but within every system there is neglect and corruption but it beats the hell out of ANY government, saying that government should do bla bla bla doesnt mean anything because in the real world it isn't and will never be like that.

I'm going to cut this right here, you have a really Marxist view on capitalism which has no room for any argumentation. If you want to understand what I'm talking about and actually conduct legitimate argumentation Google the Mises Institute, Austrian Economics, and Murray Rothbard.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the real world operates like this? Do you actually think people give two ****s about ethics and morality?

If they did, how is it that Nike still exists given there are other clothing brands out there? How is it that the meat and dairy industry continue to thrive given their devestation of vegetation, and other environmental things? How is it that free range products continue to sell far less quantities than what their counterparts can achieve? How is it that tech companies are able to repeatedly obtain your personal data and info?

Because noone cares about morality and ethics. People care about cost to them and that alone.

Not only that, but people LIKE having a company accoutable to a governing power. Take that away and corporations will screw over the public and others in ways you can't even imagine.

Do you think people don't know that dairy companies are polluting our rivers? Why is it that joe bloggs consumer will repeatedly purchase dairy products even though this is occuring? There are other, smaller companies who try ethical and moral pathways, but none are able to dethrone those who can continue to provide products at a lower cost.

The more corners you can cut, the lower the cost and the greater the margin. That's all people care about.

moving on from that, the govenment had many departments who routinely conduct surveys on various environmental factors. Sure, its not perfect, but if they dont do it noone will. Who will pay them if not the govt?

I think you have a deluded idea on what is realistic in the real world
 
Jiigzz said:
Do you really think the real world operates like this? Do you actually think people give two ****s about ethics and morality?

If they did, how is it that Nike still exists given there are other clothing brands out there? How is it that the meat and dairy industry continue to thrive given their devestation of vegetation, and other environmental things? How is it that free range products continue to sell far less quantities than what their counterparts can achieve? How is it that tech companies are able to repeatedly obtain your personal data and info?

Because noone cares about morality and ethics. People care about cost to them and that alone.

Not only that, but people LIKE having a company accoutable to a governing power. Take that away and corporations will screw over the public and others in ways you can't even imagine.

Do you think people don't know that dairy companies are polluting our rivers? Why is it that joe bloggs consumer will repeatedly purchase dairy products even though this is occuring? There are other, smaller companies who try ethical and moral pathways, but none are able to dethrone those who can continue to provide products at a lower cost.

The more corners you can cut, the lower the cost and the greater the margin. That's all people care about.

moving on from that, the govenment had many departments who routinely conduct surveys on various environmental factors. Sure, its not perfect, but if they dont do it noone will. Who will pay them if not the govt?

I think you have a deluded idea on what is realistic in the real world
Click to expand...
You make some valid points, but corporatism and too much government involvement in business and the economy can create barriers to entry for smaller businesses and/or other things that would price/tax/etc them out of business. Hell, look at what some local/state/whatever governments are trying to get rid of Uber because of Taxis. That sure doesn't benefit the consumer or promote innovation and the free market creating preferable options. Balance is key.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
You make some valid points, but corporatism and too much government involvement in business and the economy can create barriers to entry for smaller businesses and/or other things that would price/tax/etc them out of business. Hell, look at what some local/state/whatever governments are trying to get rid of Uber because of Taxis. That sure doesn't benefit the consumer or promote innovation and the free market creating preferable options. Balance is key.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said above! :D
Balance is key, i was simply refuting that people will go for the ethical or moral choice.

They'll go for the one that costs the least
 
Jiigzz said:
Do you really think the real world operates like this? Do you actually think people give two ****s about ethics and morality?

If they did, how is it that Nike still exists given there are other clothing brands out there? How is it that the meat and dairy industry continue to thrive given their devestation of vegetation, and other environmental things? How is it that free range products continue to sell far less quantities than what their counterparts can achieve? How is it that tech companies are able to repeatedly obtain your personal data and info?

Because noone cares about morality and ethics. People care about cost to them and that alone.

Not only that, but people LIKE having a company accoutable to a governing power. Take that away and corporations will screw over the public and others in ways you can't even imagine.

Do you think people don't know that dairy companies are polluting our rivers? Why is it that joe bloggs consumer will repeatedly purchase dairy products even though this is occuring? There are other, smaller companies who try ethical and moral pathways, but none are able to dethrone those who can continue to provide products at a lower cost.

The more corners you can cut, the lower the cost and the greater the margin. That's all people care about.

moving on from that, the govenment had many departments who routinely conduct surveys on various environmental factors. Sure, its not perfect, but if they dont do it noone will. Who will pay them if not the govt?

I think you have a deluded idea on what is realistic in the real world
Click to expand...

I think you live in a fantasy land if you really think the government gives two **** about the environment yet has been incarcerating non violent criminals and committing crimes against humanity lol. So most of the monopolies committing immoral acts are still around due to centralized regulations making it almost impossible for other businesses to come about to create competition. When there is competition then people like you and I can look at these atrocities and start a business in order to better his world.

Stop assuming only bad people want to create businesses just because regulations keep the bad guys in power. I don't have a deluded perspective of the world, you just don't understand a word I'm saying or you can't comprehend what I'm say.

No Central Regulations = Cheaper Resources = More Businesses = More Competition = Good Businesses Vs Bad Businesses = Survival of The Fittest

No Corporate Welfare = No Monopolies

No Patents = No Monopolies

No Monopolies = More Businesses = More Competition

There are plenty of mom and pop shops that can become big if it wasn't for regulations.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Jiigzz said:
That's exactly what I said above! :D
Balance is key, i was simply refuting that people will go for the ethical or moral choice.

They'll go for the one that costs the least
Click to expand...

I've been saying without centralized regulations products would be WAY cheaper since everyone would have more money and resources would be cheaper. This would create more competition.
 
I support patents though, I feel that not having intellectual property rights kills innovation. Can it be better? Maybe, but if I come up with an invention I would like to be the primary beneficiary of that.
 
Jiigzz said:
That's exactly what I said above! :D
Balance is key, i was simply refuting that people will go for the ethical or moral choice.

They'll go for the one that costs the least
Click to expand...

Balance is key, but what up with your support of the EU?????? Their massive regulation book written by unelected bureaucrats is far from fair and balanced.
 
ax1 said:
I support patents though, I feel that not having intellectual property rights kills innovation. Can it be better? Maybe, but if I come up with an invention I would like to be the primary beneficiary of that.
Click to expand...

Not really, let's say business A, B, and C are selling the same type of vacuums. If business A sees a flaw then they upgrade by it making suck more stuff then B and C. B counters by finding a more durable resource so you make it lighter. Lastly business C gets more resources of the same resources so it's cheaper the then other two.

At this point the consumers will choose which they prefer since value is subjective not objective like everyone else assumes it is. Patents make it more likely that resources can be misused and indefinitely monopolized.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
CJNator said:
Not really, let's say business A, B, and C are selling the same type of vacuums. If business A sees a flaw then they upgrade by it making suck more stuff then B and C. B counters by finding a more durable resource so you make it lighter. Lastly business C gets more resources of the same resources so it's cheaper the then other two.

At this point the consumers will choose which they prefer since value is subjective not objective like everyone else assumes it is. Patents make it more likely that resources can be misused and indefinitely monopolized.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Yes, but some basic level of rules and laws protecting basic human rights are needed. You don't want Company X abducting children or slaves to work as slaves in factories.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yes, but some basic level of rules and laws protecting basic human rights are needed. You don't want Company X abducting children or slaves to work as slaves in factories.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Any argument set up has been accounted for, not everything can be solved but the way a stateless capitalist society would be set up is WAY better, more efficient, more moral, and overall better living then now.
 
CJNator said:
Not really, let's say business A, B, and C are selling the same type of vacuums. If business A sees a flaw then they upgrade by it making suck more stuff then B and C. B counters by finding a more durable resource so you make it lighter. Lastly business C gets more resources of the same resources so it's cheaper the then other two.

At this point the consumers will choose which they prefer since value is subjective not objective like everyone else assumes it is. Patents make it more likely that resources can be misused and indefinitely monopolized.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

It takes lots of funds and investment of time to develop innovation....take out protections why should anyone invest so many years and effort and investments to innovate if its easily stolen by the guy waiting to steal the next best thing? Its going to take out the incentives for the best minds and investors to want to innovate so much. I can see someone using someones work with maybe royalty fees...maybe some time-frames of protection to prevent monopolies, but really eliminating intellectual property rights would really set innovation back imo, maybe some people are ok with that. Consumers can choose alright, but it might be between old crap because nobody really wants to waste money and time innovating because its to risky to get a return on it.
 
ax1 said:
It takes lots of funds and investment of time to develop innovation....take out protections why should anyone invest so many years and effort and investments to innovate if its easily stolen by the guy waiting to steal the next best thing? Its going to take out the incentives for the best minds and investors to want to innovate so much. I can see someone using someones work with maybe royalty fees...maybe some time-frames of protection to prevent monopolies, but really eliminating intellectual property rights would really set innovation back imo, maybe some people are ok with that. Consumers can choose alright, but it might be between old crap because nobody really wants to waste money and time innovating because its to risky to get a return on it.
Click to expand...

Like you said, there is a lot of money and time involved with patents. Taking away patent would force companies to constantly keep innovating for the public if they want to stay afloat. Businesses can't have rights and patents give them rights.
 
CJNator said:
Like you said, there is a lot of money and time involved with patents. Taking away patent would force companies to constantly keep innovating for the public if they want to stay afloat. Businesses can't have rights and patents give them rights.
Click to expand...

Ok so if you spent 20 years developing the next age in home PC, borrowed 30 million dollars to get to where your at, you have no problem with 10 other companies stealing your invention the next day before your product and innovations hits the store? Now how are you going to pay that 30 million and what kind of message does that give to the bright minds in the world? Why should anyone ever invest a penny in you ever again and why should someone be motivated to make a big investment into something that can be stolen the very day its revealed when it becomes impossible to get a return on it?
 
CJNator said:
Like you said, there is a lot of money and time involved with patents. Taking away patent would force companies to constantly keep innovating for the public if they want to stay afloat. Businesses can't have rights and patents give them rights.
Click to expand...

If people were stealing my intellectual property and making it impossible for me to reap rewards of my hard work, my next innovation would entirely be on how to overthrow all this freedom and restore law and order by establishing a new innovative teeny puny small government, lol
 
ax1 said:
Ok so if you spent 20 years developing the next age in home PC, borrowed 30 million dollars to get to where your at, you have no problem with 10 other companies stealing your invention the next day before your product and innovations hits the store? Now how are you going to pay that 30 million and what kind of message does that give to the bright minds in the world? Why should anyone ever invest a penny in you ever again and why should someone be motivated to make a big investment into something that can be stolen the very day its revealed when it becomes impossible to get a return on it?
Click to expand...

Well here is the thing, he or she should have kept it to them self in order to preserve it, if it really is that advanced then it shouldn't be able to be copied or at least it should be hard to.

What if someone else on the other side of the world has the same idea and creates the same product? Shouldn't they be able to create the product if it wasn't stolen?

No one is entitled to anything but the right to protect themselves and their property, an idea isn't property. Property by definition can't be a idea, it's contradicting.

prop·er·ty
ˈpräpərdē/
noun
1.
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
 
ax1 said:
Balance is key, but what up with your support of the EU?????? Their massive regulation book written by unelected bureaucrats is far from fair and balanced.
Click to expand...
I dont know much about the EU, but I liked the idea that countries in trade together are less likely to go to war with each other
 
Jiigzz said:
I dont know much about the EU, but I liked the idea that countries in trade together are less likely to go to war with each other
Click to expand...

Of of course, thats a totally different thing....I hope we can be friends with Russia and trade with them for example! Everybody can trade, thats all good stuff.
 
CJNator said:
I think you live in a fantasy land if you really think the government gives two **** about the environment yet has been incarcerating non violent criminals and committing crimes against humanity lol. So most of the monopolies committing immoral acts are still around due to centralized regulations making it almost impossible for other businesses to come about to create competition. When there is competition then people like you and I can look at these atrocities and start a business in order to better his world.

Stop assuming only bad people want to create businesses just because regulations keep the bad guys in power. I don't have a deluded perspective of the world, you just don't understand a word I'm saying or you can't comprehend what I'm say.

No Central Regulations = Cheaper Resources = More Businesses = More Competition = Good Businesses Vs Bad Businesses = Survival of The Fittest

No Corporate Welfare = No Monopolies

No Patents = No Monopolies

No Monopolies = More Businesses = More Competition

There are plenty of mom and pop shops that can become big if it wasn't for regulations.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
The reasons that plenty of companies do not grow to become large businesses is because a) over saturation and b) poor planning, marketing and business capability.

In NZ, there are laws against monopolies in an effort to keep their power down, and to entice competition in the market place. Im not sure how removing regulations will someone equip business owners with a better business sense, but I'm all ears.
 
CJNator said:
Well here is the thing, he or she should have kept it to them self in order to preserve it, if it really is that advanced then it shouldn't be able to be copied or at least it should be hard to.

What if someone else on the other side of the world has the same idea and creates the same product? Shouldn't they be able to create the product if it wasn't stolen?

No one is entitled to anything but the right to protect themselves and their property, an idea isn't property. Property by definition can't be a idea, it's contradicting.

prop·er·ty
ˈpräpərdē/
noun
1.
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Click to expand...

We will never agree on this, lol Im sorry but I dont want to live in that world.
 
ax1 said:
Of of course, thats a totally different thing....I hope we can be friends with Russia and trade with them for example! Everybody can trade, thats all good stuff.
Click to expand...

how much vodka and caviar can we possibly import, lol.
 
Jiigzz said:
The reasons that plenty of companies do not grow to become large businesses is because a) over saturation and b) poor planning, marketing and business capability.

In NZ, there are laws against monopolies in an effort to keep their power down, and to entice competition in the market place. Im not sure how removing regulations will someone equip business owners with a better business sense, but I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Monopolies arent created legally, they are created through loopholes and cronyism. Also where do you get that information from? I don't think you understand how much regulations cost per business Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
We will never agree on this, lol Im sorry but I dont want to live in that world.
Click to expand...

That's totally fine lol I understand we all have our ideas of a better living. I'd prefer to end argumentation on a good point rather then how it usually ends lol.
 
CJNator said:
Monopolies arent created legally, they are created through loopholes and cronyism. Also where do you get that information from? I don't think you understand how much regulations cost per business Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Also here are some linking to read if you would like
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Definitely a must read
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

There is only so much I can type but here are some great links to read, let me know what you think.
 
CJNator said:
Monopolies arent created legally, they are created through loopholes and cronyism. Also where do you get that information from? I don't think you understand how much regulations cost per business Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Who said anything about being created legally? Nor did it mention the illegality of it. I said there are regulations to protect against monopolies.
 
ax1 said:
We will never agree on this, lol Im sorry but I dont want to live in that world.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If you have a unique idea and spend several hundred thousand or more implementing it, you have large costs to recoup.

If you are not allowed to patent ideas, then company X will just come in and undercut you because they have no investment to recoup.

Makes no sense and would destroy innovation.
 
Jiigzz said:
Agreed. If you have a unique idea and spend several hundred thousand or more implementing it, you have large costs to recoup.

If you are not allowed to patent ideas, then company X will just come in and undercut you because they have no investment to recoup.

Makes no sense and would destroy innovation.
Click to expand...

Or it could push people to innovate beyond the minimalistic way of invocation we have now in days, it forces innovation to be huge and advanced. Money is a huge incentive. It's all based on survival of the fittest, not a widely accepted way of living but we are all just advanced animals.
 
CJNator said:
Or it could push people to innovate beyond the minimalistic way of invocation we have now in days, it forces innovation to be huge and advanced. Money is a huge incentive. It's all based on survival of the fittest, not a widely accepted way of living but we are all just advanced animals.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. Noone would invest in development if they knew someone could just come in and rip them off after doing zero work on its development.

I guess that would be a pretty effective way in limiting human technology growth though!
 
Jiigzz said:
Who said anything about being created legally? Nor did it mention the illegality of it. I said there are regulations to protect against monopolies.
Click to expand...

Monopolies are illegal in the US, I forget we are in two different area of the world with two different cultures, laws, regulations, etc... How would regulations stop monopolies? Regulations keep non monopolized businesses down since they are so expensive.
 
looks like some dissention is forming in the republican party....they better get it together-they are damned lucky to have this opportunity and if they blow it might never have it again!!!
 
Jiigzz said:
Doubtful. Noone would invest in development if they knew someone could just come in and rip them off after doing zero work on its development.

I guess that would be a pretty effective way in limiting human technology growth though!
Click to expand...

Not really

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Are you even reading these or at least skimming them? If not then I'm just wasting time lol.
 
CJNator said:
Not really

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Are you even reading these or at least skimming them? If not then I'm just wasting time lol.
Click to expand...
Of course im not reading them. Anyone who just posts material from a single source I just ignore as they clearly have been sucked into the mindset of just one place's viewpoint.

If I got all my information from Invalid Link Removed, would it not be fair to assume my only view point is that obtained from that one source and that It is likely I hate cows and dairy? Cmon.

It makes sense what you believe, given that this appears to be the only site you obtain info from, which is an improper way of conducting research .

In saying that - I lied and did skim over some of it, but they are just opinion pieces that appear coherent, but dont actually cite cases of what they are talking about actually occuring or being a force for the better. Demonstrate how it occurs in the real world (practical application) and ill be glad to consider it.
You know, like actual journal papers
 
I found some i'll read: these are the types of things I like to base my opinion on.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

etc.

I have no idea what side of the fence these journal papers fall, but at least I know they are well referenced and contain several different methodologies for assessing the patent climate.
 
Jiigzz said:
I found some i'll read: these are the types of things I like to base my opinion on.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

etc.

I have no idea what side of the fence these journal papers fall, but at least I know they are well referenced and contain several different methodologies for assessing the patent climate.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Did you just pick up the mic and drop it again?!
 
Jiigzz said:
Of course im not reading them. Anyone who just posts material from a single source I just ignore as they clearly have been sucked into the mindset of just one place's viewpoint.

If I got all my information from Invalid Link Removed, would it not be fair to assume my only view point is that obtained from that one source and that It is likely I hate cows and dairy? Cmon.

It makes sense what you believe, given that this appears to be the only site you obtain info from, which is an improper way of conducting research .

In saying that - I lied and did skim over some of it, but they are just opinion pieces that appear coherent, but dont actually cite cases of what they are talking about actually occuring or being a force for the better. Demonstrate how it occurs in the real world (practical application) and ill be glad to consider it.
You know, like actual journal papers
Click to expand...

Well I'm arguing for a certain ideology and the Mises Institute is strictly Austrian economics whith is the main bases for what I believe in. Anarcho capitalism is a reactionary movement to modern Americanism. The only thing making it legitimate are the last pieces of capitalism within the US and capitalism throughout its history. Socially speaking it's calculated with epistemology, with itself is a theory too but actually looking Anarcho capitalism itself is way different then arguing online. In person it would be way different too lol bit that never ends up well.
 
CJNator said:
Well I'm arguing for a certain ideology and the Mises Institute is strictly Austrian economics whith is the main bases for what I believe in. Anarcho capitalism is a reactionary movement to modern Americanism. The only thing making it legitimate are the last pieces of capitalism within the US and capitalism throughout its history. Socially speaking it's calculated with epistemology, with itself is a theory too but actually looking Anarcho capitalism itself is way different then arguing online. In person it would be way different too lol bit that never ends up well.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - and I can appreciate that. In all honesty, I am very research orientated as a person and prefer to seek out sources that come from as unbiased sources as possible - that's not to say researchers don't have some form of bias, but rather I like to assess how things would actually work based on the climate we are in.

So if I read some interesting information from Invalid Link Removed, then i'd also like to look at Invalid Link Removed to see counter points. Then i'd go to Invalid Link Removed to try gain some neutral insight. But I can appreciate that you are arguing from a very specific viewpoint, which makes it hard for me to debate against seeing as neither you or I will ever find a common ground based on how we approach the research.

I will gladly read any journal articles on the topic though - I enjoy those regardless of what the findings are.
 
Jiigzz said:
Fair enough - and I can appreciate that. In all honesty, I am very research orientated as a person and prefer to seek out sources that come from as unbiased sources as possible - that's not to say researchers don't have some form of bias, but rather I like to assess how things would actually work based on the climate we are in.

So if I read some interesting information from Invalid Link Removed, then i'd also like to look at Invalid Link Removed to see counter points. Then i'd go to Invalid Link Removed to try gain some neutral insight. But I can appreciate that you are arguing from a very specific viewpoint, which makes it hard for me to debate against seeing as neither you or I will ever find a common ground based on how we approach the research.

I will gladly read any journal articles on the topic though - I enjoy those regardless of what the findings are.
Click to expand...
The links don't work. How am I supposed to form an opinion on whether I'm supposed to love, hate, or be indifferent towards cows and dairy now?
 
Jiigzz said:
Fair enough - and I can appreciate that. In all honesty, I am very research orientated as a person and prefer to seek out sources that come from as unbiased sources as possible - that's not to say researchers don't have some form of bias, but rather I like to assess how things would actually work based on the climate we are in.

So if I read some interesting information from Invalid Link Removed, then i'd also like to look at Invalid Link Removed to see counter points. Then i'd go to Invalid Link Removed to try gain some neutral insight. But I can appreciate that you are arguing from a very specific viewpoint, which makes it hard for me to debate against seeing as neither you or I will ever find a common ground based on how we approach the research.

I will gladly read any journal articles on the topic though - I enjoy those regardless of what the findings are.
Click to expand...

Lol not going to lie I didn't expect those to be not working links. There are some silly ass names for web pages out there lol.
 
Haha, I clicked them as well just to see if they were actually taken. The first two wouldn't have surprised me at all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top