I did not call JP intellectually dishonest. The entire statement I wrote was "Mixing quotes from different posts to make a point is intellectually dishonest. "
Ah. So by "It’s actually quite consistent with what I said", you meant "What I said is actually quite consistent with what I said", and not "The argument you guys were debating is actually quite consistent with what I said." Okay, thank you for your input; but actually LD and I already knew what you said is consistent with what you said.
What you actually wrote in post #123 was not just the above "entire" statement; you also wrote a quotation of JP mixing quotes from different posts to make a point, immediately ahead of the above "entire" statement. You're making a distinction without a difference.
As I already told you, those two posts were about WHO's current recommendations for prioritizing girls over boys for the short term until supply can meet demand. It doesn't matter to me whether you're interested in those posts, but you are insinuating that those two posts were about side issues I have with imagined insults. That is you misrepresenting me, yet again. Stop doing that.
Indeed. So if you'd written "How many vaccine factories have you built?", that would not have been an insult. But you wrote "How many (anything) have you built?". It was the "(anything)" that made it insulting. I should not have to explain this to you. (In the event that you have a disability such as Asberger's Syndrome that hinders you from understanding such conversational distinctions, my apologies for not taking that into account in my evaluation of your posts. I didn't know.)
Nobody said it was. Having someone imply that one is intellectually dishonest without just cause is quite a bit more than "expressing an unfavorable opinion about something one has written".
You misrepresented me over and over, up to and including in your current post, and I quoted you doing it. Telling me you aren't is just more evidence of your lack of self-knowledge.
Cool. In that case it was a mistake for you to write post #127 and post #131. Feel free not to compound that mistake further by continuing your argument with me that those posts grew into.
. Nowhere in my post did I call JP anything - I referred explicitly to what was done as intellectually dishonest.
I made a post in an open forum, yes, and that's an open invitation to anyone to make substantive contributions. But I had kept up; and the thread did not contain any explanation for why mixing quotes from different posts to make a point is intellectually dishonest. So no, telling me to keep up was not a substantive contribution. It was a gratuitous put-down.
The case for what? You needed to make an assumption about what it was he was making a case for to have drawn your inference and made your accusation. There is no dismissal of the obvious. The sequence of posts was sufficient to make the case -- the case that skepticism about Toni's profession of non-intent was warranted.
Yes, yes, we know how you love to play rubber/glue. But it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even had JP and I stunk at judging others' self-knowledge, and even were we completely wrong to judge Toni's subsequent insult as evidence of poor self-knowledge, the worst that that would entitle you to say about JP is "wrong". "Intellectually dishonest" is beyond the pale.
Indeed she ought to. That doesn't mean she does. People are biased in favor of themselves; they often construct mental narratives in which they remember acting more nobly than they actually did. The overall pattern of a person's behavior matters. Actions speak louder than words.
Yes, but feeble evidence -- I'm not the one who wrote "Keep up with the thread." Likewise, the above "but optimistic" snipe is evidence that you readily insult others. Stronger evidence.
Or it was made on the assumption that only an intelligent reader would make such a mistake if they had not kept up. You choose to take it as an insult. The fact you choose to take as an insult does not make it one. And as you know, people are biased in favor of themselves.
I made no assumption, I used basic reading comprehension and basic reasoning neither of which required imputing intent to drawn an obvious conclusion. In other words, I used Occam's razor.
Unless you are using the imperial "we", you are wrong.
As I have explained in previous posts, you are mistaken. The conclusion I made is logical, and I did not call him intellectually dishonest. You have no basis to your claim.
You really do think you can read minds.
No, it is not feeble evidence when added to your other posts in this thread.
Not logically. But I do not dispute I willingly and readily insult others. But that fact does not mean that a particular statement of mine is intended as an insult. And, if someone who readily insults others denies intending to insult someone, it might very well be the case that they did not.
Actions do not have intellects. The only intellect available to have dishonesty ascribed to it is the intellect of the doer of the action. Calling an action intellectually dishonest versus calling a person intellectually dishonest is a distinction without a difference.
To call an action stupid is to say the actor was being stupid when he performed the action. A person's intelligence varies constantly with his emotional state, level of alertness, inebriation and so forth. We customarily allow for this and judge overall intelligence by averaging over many actions. In contrast, we customarily hold that it takes but a single act of murder to make you a murderer, full-stop. You have engaged in thousands upon thousands of non-murders, but that doesn't make you an overall non-murderer. To call a killing a murder is to call the killer a murderer, full-stop. Why the difference? It's complicated, and cultural, and not necessarily something we need to settle here. The point is, your counterargument takes for granted that "intellectually dishonest" works like "stupid" rather than like "murder". Got a case for that premise?
If you seriously think you didn't just de facto call me dishonorable, have fun with your delusion.
Nope - people can unintentionally make errors.
Making a stupid statement does not make a person stupid. I realize it is a nuanced position, but it is pretty simple to understand.
I am under no delusions - once again, you engage in the very transgressions to which you castigate others.
You have not exhibited the alleged mistake. There had been no showing of your work up to the point that I asked you for it, even if we make believe that you subsequently delivered.
You didn't answer the question. You wrote "I used a plain reading that did not require mind reading about intent or mental contortions to dismiss the obvious: the sequence of posts is sufficient to make the case." The case for what?
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people on TFT who have observed you playing that game. You haven't been exactly reticent about it.
Everybody can read minds, to some extent, by means of observation and modeling -- that's the only way children are ever able to learn a language.
That appears to be an allegation that I insulted someone who didn't insult me first. Feel free to quote me.
It isn't? Did I insult you first? Feel free to quote me.
True, but it also might very well be the case that he did. A denial of intent is not strong evidence in such a case.
If it's just an unintentional error then it isn't dishonest. That's why they're called "honest mistakes".
That's unresponsive.
Are you suggesting that whether a person needs a vaccine depends on whether his country has a vaccination program?
But how does that support the theory that manufacturers are keeping production down to hold profits up? The difference between, say, $2 and $5 in a poor country is what's going to motivate them to restrict production, at a time when they can sell it in rich countries for $150? What sense does that make? If it's modestly profitable at $2 then it's very very profitable at $150. Of course they're making the stuff as fast as they can.
Huh? According to your explanation of ZiprHead's argument, the drug companies aren't striving to reach it. I'm not disputing their expertise as to what will maximize their profits; I'm relying on it.
No, it's based on the utterly true non-equivalence of "Economies of scale of production would permit the manufacturer to produce enough and still permit them some profit" and "Economies of scale of production would permit the manufacturer to produce enough and still permit them more profit". If the pricing model from post #101 would have increased their profits then the companies would presumably have already adopted it. So "Do more work for us and be paid less" is evidently what the study authors are proposing. Whether "Do more work for us" is achieved by working harder or some other means is incidental -- the point is that "Do more work for us and be paid less" is cruddy employee motivation. So if the authors are aiming for an outcome where economies of scale permit enough for everyone but profits go down, then they need to persuade governments to build their own vaccine factories.
I in effect did, back in post #124. He hasn't replied. I asked you because you volunteered to defend his argument. If you can't justify his claim that I challenged, that "the capitalists are partly responsible for standing in the way", then I guess we're done here.
If you cannot comprehend why $5 per unit earns them more than $2 per unit, then I cannot help you. Perhaps the $5 is a nod to public relations and an attempt to reduce regulatory pressure.
Reaching economies of scale in competitive markets helps firms to maximize profits. Reaching economies of scale in non-competitive markets that face a downward sloping demand curve usually does not maximize profits.
Or regulate the vaccine producers.
I already have - profit-maximization in uncompetitive markets leads to restriction in output. But, you are right, we are done here.
True, but that is not relevant to whether outcome is intellectually dishonest.
You are mistaken.
Repetition of your errors does not make them any more correct. You are mistaken, and we are done here.
Of course I exhibited the mistake - when I showed you my work. Your responses are clear evidence of that.
The JP's claim was intellectually dishonest.
I have no doubt you are confident in your errors.
Learning language is different than showing intent.
No, it is statement of fact that you insult people. BTW, if it is wrong to insult others, then it is wrong to insult them even if they insulted you first.
It is much stronger evidence than mind-reading.
Are you trying to refute a specific argument about a specific situation by appealing to a generic economic theory that's based on generic firms selling generic widgets?
Very likely.
Yes, exactly. The fact that most manufacturers strive to reach it is neither here nor there, as far as the present case is concerned.
Well, in the first place, regulation tends to be a lot more effective at getting a regulated firm not to do something, than at getting it to do something. Reaching economies of scale takes investment. What are regulators going to do, enact a regulation requiring a manufacturer to invest more in production facilities and requiring the public to subscribe to their public stock offering?
