Inequality growing in China

[Bluezoo]

Inequality growing in China
Correspondents Report - Sunday, 25 September , 2005
Reporter: John Taylor
HAMISH ROBERTSON: Anyone who's visited Shanghai recently might be forgiven for thinking that China has made a spectacular leap from third world poverty to first world affluence in just a generation.

However, despite the glittering skyscrapers and gleaming shopping malls, that is, at best, a half truth, and doesn't reflect the reality of daily life in much of China's rural areas.

Even the government-controlled media are now warning that the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming alarmingly wide, and could lead to social unrest.

As our China Correspondent John Taylor reports, the Chinese Government wants its people to know that it is trying to deal with the problem.

JOHN TAYLOR: From the Bentley showroom in Beijing it's a brief walk to see people living in ramshackle dirty homes, struggling to make a living.

China is officially communist. But from its founding, China has been a land of privilege and prosperity for some, and hard times for others.

As economic growth booms and China sucks in investment money from around the world, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting bigger.

It's so blindingly obvious that the national Government has had no choice over the years but to recognise it.

But the inequality is growing. That fact, along with the Government's desire to be seen worrying about it, has prompted renewed publicity in the government-controlled media.

A report published in a newspaper run by the Communist Party's ideological school has received widespread coverage.

It says that the inequality gap has exceeded reasonable limits. If it continues that way, it warns, it may give rise to various sorts of social instability.

The media is reporting some uncomfortable truths, namely that some people have prospered through talent and hard work, while others have relied on official corruption, deceit, and theft.

Beijing economist Mao Yushi says "unequal opportunities" have a lot to do with China's inequality gap.

(sound of Mao Yushi speaking)

"Some people have some special conditions which other people don't have," he says. "Those people received extra incomes. This unequal opportunity means people don't have equal legal rights."

"If people can have equal legal rights, they will have equal opportunity as well. For an example, when a migrant worker, coming from the countryside to city to look for a job, he faces lots of restrictions, there are lots of jobs that he can't take – this is unequal opportunity."

"These are obvious. There are also lots of invisible issues. Some people have close relationship with the Government – they can access to resources which other people can't access – and this is worsening the gap between the rich and poor."

"Overall speaking, there are two reasons. First, it is caused by the marketing reform, and second, it is also affected by imbalanced power," he says.

The growing income gap frightens China's leadership.

The country's Standing Committee of the People's Political Consultative Conference this year declared that the widening income gap is the root cause of disharmony.

Throughout the year China's top leaders have peppered their speeches with the phrases "social stability" and "harmonious society".

China's enormous security network is highly successful in repressing political dissent. But official figures claim that about three million people took part in about 58,000 protests in China in the year 2003, over everything from low and unpaid wages to high bridge tolls and land reclamations.

Government leaders recognise the link between economics and the protests that are happening daily.

The Chinese media is reporting that the Government has begun to take actions to adjust the income gap.

Mao Yushi believes there's no shortage of measures that should be taken.

(sound of Mao Yushi speaking)

"The Government can do lots of things," he says, "but it's pity that our government doesn't do enough now."

"The first doable thing is taxation. The Government should charge more money from the rich people. This is not happening in China at all."

"Social security should protect the people with low incomes. Our social security doesn't work this way. Take education as an example. There is more investment in the richer areas, and there is less investment in the poorer areas. It is an investment from the Government, and the Government doesn't do a good job on education in poorer areas," he says.

China's leaders express their desire to make their country more equal. But it's limited. They are, after all, unelected by ordinary Chinese, putting themselves above the people.
For the original text, go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2005/s1467528.htm

[Creeper]

The beam from the light warms the backs of those ensalved for the spirit of capitalism !
BlueZoo> this seems to counter with the polital thoughts from J-10, no ?

[Para]

Are you trying say that the Political Elite of China where not living better than the masses. The Difference now is that more people are getting a bit of that cherry.

[walford]

Prosperity is not possible w/o 'inequality.' Poverty can be universally shared, but wealth cannot. The only way to acheive 'equality' is by cutting everyone down to the same level, not by bringing everyone up.

The fewer limits on attaining wealth, the greater the general prosperity -- because even the lowest levels are brought up to a higher level -- but this also means the greater the differences in possessions and income. The more Bill Gates makes, the better it is for everyone else because he is a greater benefactor to society than Mother Teresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.

In other words, we can all share in poverty/stagnation/oppression or tolerate wealth 'disparities' in order to benefit from an innovative, prosperous and free society.

The Chinese understand this, which is why they have abandoned Marxism. Time will tell whether this economic pluralism will have an effect upon thier political system as well.

[Lokos]

Prosperity is not possible w/o 'inequality.' Poverty can be universally shared, but wealth cannot. The only way to acheive 'equality' is by cutting everyone down to the same level, not by bringing everyone up.

Ahh, Walford, 'tis an interesting feeling, this 'agreement' thing.

One billion Chinese consuming on a level similar to the Americans? There you have the collapse of the ecosystem, in a nutshell.

Lokos

[walford]

Ahh, Walford, 'tis an interesting feeling, this 'agreement' thing. One billion Chinese consuming on a level similar to the Americans? There you have the collapse of the ecosystem, in a nutshell.

LokosWe in the US have vastly improved our pollution standards and have the results to prove it. I'm old enough to remember how bad it was. Consuming does not necessarily equal pollution. We are also PRODUCING more, are we not? We should remember also that China was supposed to be exempt from Kyoto.

The bottom line is that mankind is no more exempt from the Laws of Nature than any other species. If we poison our environment, we will perish.

not Lokos

[Lokos]

We in the US have vastly improved our pollution standards and have the results to prove it. I'm old enough to remember how bad it was. Consuming does not necessarily equal pollution. We are also PRODUCING more, are we not? We should remember also that China was supposed to be exempt from Kyoto.


You talk pollution, I talk non-renewable resources. We seem to be talking to walls in different rooms.


not Lokos

No ****, old man. So I sign off on my posts. What's the point of being a facetious ass about it?

Lokos

[walford]

You talk pollution, I talk non-renewable resources. We seem to be talking to walls in different rooms.And I still maintain that we are subject to the Laws of Nature as is every other life form. If we consume what we need to extinction, we will have to find alternatives or perish. This does not mean that we need to abolish free enterprise and nationalize everything so that Our Betters in government will manage things more efficiently, sorry.


not LokosNo ****, old man. So I sign off on my posts. What's the point of being a facetious ass about it?
LokosCranky today? :petting:

[Lokos]

This does not mean that we need to abolish free enterprise and nationalize everything so that Our Betters in government will manage things more efficiently, sorry.

Was this what I was saying? I don't think this is what I was saying. In fact, I think I was agreeing with you, before you started off on that whole 'we produce more, cleanly!' rubbish. I was, of course, actually saying that it is impossible to have everyone consume according to the Western model. The drain on natural resources would destroy the ecosystem in a matter of years.

Lokos

[walford]

This does not mean that we need to abolish free enterprise and nationalize everything so that Our Betters in government will manage things more efficiently, sorry.Was this what I was saying? I don't think this is what I was saying.No, but that is the only alternative -- 'command' economy. It is necessary for that fact to be explicitly spelled out.

In fact, I think I was agreeing with you, before you started off on that whole 'we produce more, cleanly!' rubbish.The fact that we have reduced emissions in proportion to our production is not rubbish.

I was, of course, actually saying that it is impossible to have everyone consume according to the Western model. The drain on natural resources would destroy the ecosystem in a matter of years.No, instead, China and other countries will produce and pollute according to a one-party state model, which has a very poor track record with respect to consumption and pollution. That would stand to reason, because they don't care as much what their own people suffer or what the international community thinks about the consequences of their modes of development.

Countries that have governments subject to a popular mandate [the very essence of the 'Western' model] are far better able to modify consumption and pollution.

[Bluezoo]

The beam from the light warms the backs of those ensalved for the spirit of capitalism !
BlueZoo> this seems to counter with the polital thoughts from J-10, no ?

Well, J-10 can post unhealthy news about China. He will be jailed. Why?

Go to: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=61244

[ogukuo72]

Are you trying say that the Political Elite of China where not living better than the masses. The Difference now is that more people are getting a bit of that cherry.

Right on! :) The inequality has always been there. Reading the numerous memoirs and biographies of Chairman Mao and other senior party leaders, there is no doubt that the party leadership lived much better than the workers and farmers.

The inequality has just shifted to include not only the party bosses but also businessmen.

Inequality per se is not the issue. The issue is the inequality of opportunities. There are still many backward areas in China that lacks the basic necessities for a better life, such as schools, reliable supply of electricity, clean water, and food.

[catalyst]

But from its founding, China has been a land of privilege and prosperity for some, and hard times for others.

this is the key!

[Lokos]

Countries that have governments subject to a popular mandate [the very essence of the 'Western' model] are far better able to modify consumption and pollution.

I'll say this one more time, my friend: I am speaking about the drain on non-renewable strategic resources - which goes hand in hand with a Western socio-industrial consumption model. I am not concerned with pollution, nor was I pretending to be concerned with it. Do you, or do you not understand?

Lokos

[Lokos]

Oh, and in regards to the now-locked Avatars thread, please, go all out! Your threats are sublimely relevant! Especially considering that the kid TOLD you what he meant by his comments, and you STILL pushed your own interpretation agenda. That's gold, right there, champ. You see exactly what you want to, when you need to. That must be a special feeling, right there.

Lokos

[Creeper]

The beam from the light warms the backs of those ensalved for the spirit of capitalism !
BlueZoo> this seems to counter with the polital thoughts from J-10, no ?

Well, J-10 can post unhealthy news about China. He will be jailed. Why?

Go to: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=61244

Perhaps--
I read the link, and well I am not one to point fingers, But--- when someone from across the pond seems to point out how a fishpaper news- media has characterized our actions in the handling (etc) of suspected criminals as "questionable activities", I will reply as the method as I did.
(someone got a emoticons with a "middle-finger" ??)
See former--

[b.scheller]

The United States, has vastly improved their pollution standards, and yet, are no where near, where they should be.

I've read somewhere, that although China is becoming more and more of an industrialized, consumerist nation-state. It will never reach the standards that the United States has. The article, stated that most experts, believe that the state will never become a first world nation. Is this true? Perhaps, but I think it's all speculation.

[walford]

...I've read somewhere, that although China is becoming more and more of an industrialized, consumerist nation-state.As I have said elsewhere (http://utopia-unmasked.us/speech2003.10-25.htm):China allowed private markets to grow, as long as they didn’t threaten the power structure and fed the military machine. Marxist in name only, China is now a fascist militaristic dictatorship that is now drawing upon nationalism to get its people used to the idea of inevitable war with the United States.
It will never reach the standards that the United States has. The article, stated that most experts, believe that the state will never become a first world nation. Is this true? Perhaps, but I think it's all speculation.I would say that a ceiling will continue to exist in China's potential development so long as it retains a one-party state. The wild card is whether the economic pluralism will foster political pluralism as well. If this happens, well, look at Hong Kong to see what is possible. Imagine that on a nationwide scale.

If the partocracy persists however, stagnation will eventually sink in, making lashing out militarily more attractive.


Countries that have governments subject to a popular mandate [the very essence of the 'Western' model] are far better able to modify consumption and pollution.I'll say this one more time, my friend: I am speaking about the drain on non-renewable strategic resources - which goes hand in hand with a Western socio-industrial consumption model.I addressed that already, but am happy to cut and paste my answer again: No, instead, China and other countries will produce and pollute [i.e. develop] according to a one-party state model, which has a very poor track record with respect to consumption and pollution. That would stand to reason, because they don't care as much what their own people suffer or what the international community thinks about the consequences of their modes of development.Blue text added for clarification.

I am not concerned with pollution, nor was I pretending to be concerned with it. Do you, or do you not understand?You ignore the fact that I have addressed the issue and have the temerity to be pedantic with me? viz:And I still maintain that we are subject to the Laws of Nature as is every other life form. If we consume what we need to extinction, we will have to find alternatives or perish.Consumption, production and pollution are all parts of development. China is a one-party state and will progress under that model which history has shown to have an unenviable record.

I have momentarily suffered to entertain your digression about the implied natural evil of Western development with respect to consumption, but tire of your whining, evasive hostility. Can you not become hysterical and patronizing when encountering a contrary opinion?

This thread is about growing inequality in China. I offer once again my observation on that issue:Prosperity is not possible w/o 'inequality.' Poverty can be universally shared, but wealth cannot. The only way to acheive 'equality' is by cutting everyone down to the same level, not by bringing everyone up...we can all share in poverty/stagnation/oppression or tolerate wealth 'disparities' in order to benefit from an innovative, prosperous and free society. The Chinese understand this, which is why they have abandoned Marxism...And now to veer into a completely off-topic diatribe:
Oh, and in regards to the now-locked Avatars thread, please, go all out! Your threats are sublimely relevant! Especially considering that the kid TOLD you what he meant by his comments, and you STILL pushed your own interpretation agenda. That's gold, right there, champ. You see exactly what you want to, when you need to. That must be a special feeling, right there.

LokosIf you wish to be Sir Galahad for the young lad, by all means start a thread about it if it is so important to you. I reject your characterizations and have already expended far more time dealing with them than was merited.

[Durandal]

The inequality has just shifted to include not only the party bosses but also businessmen.

Actually, businessmen ARE the new party bosses.

p-)

[Lokos]

I addressed that already, but am happy to cut and paste my answer again:

No, instead, China and other countries will produce and pollute [i.e. develop] according to a one-party state model, which has a very poor track record with respect to consumption and pollution. That would stand to reason, because they don't care as much what their own people suffer or what the international community thinks about the consequences of their modes of development.

Your answer is nice and of a medium length, with words long enough to give what you say credibility in the minds of those who read them and nod, without thinking. Unfortunately, the answer you, yourself, stated 'deals' with my primary contention does no such thing. The United States consumes some 25% of the world's material resources with a population of some three hundred million. Were China to consume - on an individual level - according to the US standard, the global ecosystem would collapse as strategic resource veins are exhausted abnormally rapidly. A one-party state model has nothing at all to do with this. If anything, the difficulty in achieving true per capita economic prosperity in the current global community as a plutocratic state means that China will continue to consume far less than it should, which is great news for any of us interested in recognizable human civilization past 2040.

The 'poor track-record' of 'one-party states' in regards to consumption, therefore, is one of an inability on the part of those states to create a domestic economic situation conducive to the development of a Western model of consumption.


And I still maintain that we are subject to the Laws of Nature as is every other life form. If we consume what we need to extinction, we will have to find alternatives or perish.

You put this forth as if it somehow defeats any one of my given arguments. How does it do so, considering that this is exactly the line of thinking I am advocating?


China is a one-party state and will progress under that model which history has shown to have an unenviable record.

Words without relevance (as shown above) -> fluff.


I have momentarily suffered to entertain your digression about the implied natural evil of Western development

Where have I implied this? I state that the Western world consumes (Europe included) the great lion's share of all planetary strategic resources. If you have facts to dispute this, bring them forth. Don't attempt to draw me into your tangental moralization of this argument - when I have never shown any inclination to take it in that direction.


Can you not become hysterical and patronizing when encountering a contrary opinion?


Can you stop seeing what you want to see in my words, and take them as they are? That would be immensely helpful.


Prosperity is not possible w/o 'inequality.' Poverty can be universally shared, but wealth cannot. The only way to acheive 'equality' is by cutting everyone down to the same level, not by bringing everyone up...

And I agreed with that part. The issue obviously was not born from any disagreement on my part in regards to the above.


If you wish to be Sir Galahad for the young lad, by all means start a thread about it if it is so important to you. I reject your characterizations and have already expended far more time dealing with them than was merited.

Reading past your weak attempt at deflection, I do recognize your concession in the 'making an ass of one's self' department.

And, believe me, I enjoy this idiotic banter with you far less than you might imagine.

Lokos

[walford]

Can you not become hysterical and patronizing when encountering a contrary opinion?
Can you stop seeing what you want to see in my words, and take them as they are? That would be immensely helpfulRight it's all my imagination...
I'll say this one more time, my friend...Do you, or do you not understand?... No ****, old man...facetious ass...rubbish...That's gold, right there, champ. You see exactly what you want to, when you need to. That must be a special feeling, right there......fluff....I do recognize your concession in the 'making an ass of one's self' department...I enjoy this idiotic banter with you far less than you might imagine.You will find no such phrases in my end of the dialogue.

Lokos you are still a carbuncle.

[Kitsune]

walford wrote:

We in the US have vastly improved our pollution standards and have the results to prove it. I'm old enough to remember how bad it was. Consuming does not necessarily equal pollution.

Ehem, the US pollution standards are not exactly its strongest points, nor is energy or more specifically oil consumption. You are aware that the average European (even those living near US standards) uses up only half as much energy or oil as the average US citizen?



walford wrote:
We are also PRODUCING more, are we not?
No, you are not. The USA as a whole consumes far more manufactured products, both high-tech and low-tech as well as raw materials than it produces.


I am afraid the statement of Lokos
One billion Chinese consuming on a level similar to the Americans? There you have the collapse of the ecosystem, in a nutshell.
was quite correct. There is quite some work left to do in our future. And once not only the Chinese but also the Indians, South Americans and one day even Africans knock on our door to demand their right to live as we Westerners do, use as many energy and produce as much pollution as we do, we would be in trouble.

I can only hope that it is managed to make this a world where they can share our level of prosperity instead of us sharing their level of poverty.

[Durandal]

You are aware that the average European (even those living near US standards) uses up only half as much energy or oil as the average US citizen?

An easy thing to achieve in a society where energy is controlled by the government, heavily taxed, expensive, and in a nation the size of my home state. I doubt most Europeans drive in a year what I commute in week.

Plus we have a society of 290 MILLION people. Comparing say France in terms of consumption to the United States is as silly as comparing the United States to a near future China. The scale differences are ridiculous.

[walford]

Given that this thread is actually about the implications of 'inequality' in China -- and that we all agree that freedom [and the consequent prosperity] would cause them to be far more numerous parasites upon the world than are the Americans -- we should do everything we can to encourage the PRC to become even more oppressive. That would stunt their economic growth, thus forestalling the impending disaster.

Of course this would increase the possibility of war with the US, but that might be a good thing. Kill two giant birds and all that, what what?

[Kitsune]

Plus we have a society of 290 MILLION people. Comparing say France in terms of consumption to the United States is as silly as comparing the United States to a near future China. The scale differences are ridiculous.
It's the energy consumption per head that is double as high in the USA than in Europe. And while it has something to do with you guys commuting a lot is has also a lot to do with the normal American giving a flying **** about how much energy he consumes and behaving as if it would be a God given right to use up as much oil as he wants.
So the bad "news" (isn't that new actually) for America is, that in this regard you have to become more European. The bad news for Europe is, that in the long run our level of consumption will not do either.



Given that this thread is actually about the implications of 'inequality' in China -- and that we all agree that freedom [and the consequent prosperity] would cause them to be far more numerous parasites upon the world as are the Americans -- we should do everything we can to encourage the PRC to become even more oppressive. That would stunt their economic growth, thus forestalling the impending disaster.

Of course this would increase the possibility of war with the US, but that might be a good thing. Kill two giant birds and all that, what what?
The problem may be, Walford, that generally freedom needs a certain level of prosperity. And it will be quite difficult for the Chinese to develope a degree of average prosperity that allows them to be a truly free society. And the next problem is that simply to copy the American style is no solutin either (see the Lokos quote). I think that may be what they call a "conundrum".
And neither a conventional war that makes both sides waste their ressources senselessly, nor a nuclear one that destroys Earth once and for all will be an adequate solution, won't it?

[walford]

The problem may be, Walford, that generally freedom needs a certain level of prosperity. And it will be quite difficult for the Chinese to develope a degree of average prosperity that allows them to be a truly free society.This is a typical assumption that is not borne out by history. Prosperity in the modern sense was not possible until limited representative government developed FIRST. Once the Enlightenment bore fruit in the establishment of governance based upon a popular mandate, the Western world transformed from an agrarian to an industrial society.

The cart most certainly did not come before the horse.

Moreover, the idea that poor countries cannot 'afford' freedom is absurd. Tyranny is the very CAUSE of their poverty.

Certainly no amount of prosperity can develop under tyranny. The reason is that economic development cannot occur under a system dominated by cronyism rather than merit. That is why I maintain that Chinese development will plateau if the one-party state persists.

And the next problem is that simply to copy the American style is no solutin either (see the Lokos quote). I think that may be what they call a "conundrum".The assumption that I and others who hold that freedom is the optimal human condition are in fact advocating that the entire world 'copy' the American way of life misses the point.

Limited representative government in which people may criticize the leadership w/o fear of punishment and people can build and invest w/o fear of their earnings and possessions being arbitrarily siezed is an essential matrix for any development to occur. This is not an American principle, it is a universal one.

And neither a conventional war that makes both sides waste their ressources senselessly, nor a nuclear one that destroys Earth once and for all will be an adequate solution, won't it?We're not capable of 'destroying the Earth' quite yet [[i]and would not happen under any likely war scenario between the PRC and US], just a lot of humans. And we are basically vermin anyway, so all the better.

[Durandal]

It's the energy consumption per head that is double as high in the USA than in Europe. And while it has something to do with you guys commuting a lot is has also a lot to do with the normal American giving a flying f*** about how much energy he consumes and behaving as if it would be a God given right to use up as much oil as he wants.
So the bad "news" (isn't that new actually) for America is, that in this regard you have to become more European. The bad news for Europe is, that in the long run our level of consumption will not do either.

I'd actually have to see the hard data to continue, but with that said, Europeans can hardly AFFORD to lower consumption...nor can America, since that would mean radically altering lifestyles, which is not going to happen.

Ultimately its not really a matter usage so much as the type of energy used. I could take hot showers till the cows come home if I was using a geo thermal or solar power using a small efficient water pump running off of thermal and my consumption, would be a closed system.

However, when you start discussing TRUE alternative energy sources, the consumer, currently, regardless of location, simply cannot afford it and Europe, as far as discretionary income goes is A LOT harder off than the United States. its not like Europeans in general are buying the hell out of Smart Cars™, most have crappy 4, 3, and 2 cylinder beaters, not hi-tech TDIs.

[Lokos]

Right it's all my imagination...

From the reams of pertinent text I have shovelled your way, you picked out the tiny precentage of facetiousness (more than amply present in the bocage of your own lambasting sessions) to somehow dismiss the aforementioned majority. You may want to move on to attacking my arguments, as opposed to the way I argue, Walford.

The awesome thing though...


You will find no such phrases in my end of the dialogue.

Is followed by...


Lokos you are still a carbuncle.

The irony is like a supernova going off inside an enclosed space.


we should do everything we can to encourage the PRC to become even more oppressive. That would stunt their economic growth, thus forestalling the impending disaster.

If you want your grandchildren to be living the way you do, then yes, actually. The success of the Western world is built on the backs of the Other world (i.e. everyone else). In any given society, there must be the rich and the poor. The middle class is an option. Yet, there can be no sustainable society where all are rich. The global community is a society in that regard. Not all countries can be rich, regardless of the political system they utilize.


Prosperity in the modern sense [i.e. the Industrial Revolution] was not possible until limited representative government developed FIRST.

You're dragging out the statement I disproved in our earlier philosophical debate again? Let me make this clear: history and historiography show that yours is an incorrect proposition of fact. The Industrial Revolution developed distinctly apart from representative government. If you would like to begin a debate on this in depth, I am quite prepared to conduct one.


Moreover, the idea that poor countries cannot 'afford' freedom is absurd. Tyranny is the very CAUSE of their poverty.

How can you be that naive? Tyranny is entirely contextual. The centralization of power is sometimes a necessary result of circumstances that demand it. And, contextual as it is, it is quite obviously evident that tyranny is not nearly always the cause of any degree of poverty. There have been too many examples of prosperous tyrannies for this kind of generalization to hold any weight.


The reason is that economic development cannot occur under a system dominated by cronyism rather than merit.

Why do you tie in the total centralization of power with the meritocracy/kleptocracy paradigm? It does not hold weight. You make an abusurdly wide generalization, without any sort of evidence, and then you expect it to be consumed at face value. Your statements are sweeping and foolhardy in their reliance on the willingness of the other side to accept them as truth prima facie.


This is not an American principle, it is a universal one.

We've been through these 'universal principles', you and I. As memory serves, you did not come off the better in that particular debate. Do you truly wish to reignite it?


We're not capable of 'destroying the Earth' quite yet [and would not happen under any likely war scenario between the PRC and US], just a lot of humans. And we are basically vermin anyway, so all the better.

Excuse me if I disagree with the 'we are basically vermin' bit.

Lokos

[walford]

I'll say this one more time, my friend...Do you, or do you not understand?... No ****, old man...facetious ass...rubbish...That's gold, right there, champ. You see exactly what you want to, when you need to. That must be a special feeling, right there......fluff....I do recognize your concession in the 'making an ass of one's self' department...I enjoy this idiotic banter with you far less than you might imagine.Right it's all my imagination...From the reams of pertinent text I have shovelled your way, you picked out the tiny precentage of facetiousness (more than amply present in the bocage of your own lambasting sessions) [only if provoked] to somehow dismiss the aforementioned majority. You may want to move on to attacking my arguments, as opposed to the way I argue, Walford.If you cannot be bothered to leave the patronizing hysteria out of your arguments, don't expect me to trouble myself engaging the substance therein -- or even read it.

The awesome thing though...
You will find no such phrases in my end of the dialogue.Is followed by...
Lokos you are still a carbuncle.The irony is like a supernova going off inside an enclosed space. If provoked, I most certainly reserve the right. Now if you will, put on this Frosty the Snowman outfit while I finish this 40oz Olde English 800. Then I shall write my name on your back.

[Lokos]

If you cannot be bothered to leave the patronizing hysteria out of your arguments, don't expect me to trouble myself engaging the substance therein -- or even read it.

In other words, you don't really have any more arguments to offer up vis a vis the primary debate, and are, as such, resorting to semantics. I accept your surrender.

Lokos

[walford]

If you cannot be bothered to leave the patronizing hysteria out of your arguments, don't expect me to trouble myself engaging the substance therein -- or even read it. In other words, you don't really have any more arguments to offer up vis a vis the primary debate, and are, as such, resorting to semantics. I accept your surrender.

LokosYou're so intoxicated with petty arrogance that you cannot fathom that few would care to be rational and dispassionate with someone who cannot refrain from peppering his arguments with personal attacks, fallacies and mischaracterizations of the opposing viewpoint. Perhaps people would consider the merits of your ideas if you flush the sand from your fetid uterus so that you won't be so cranky when you type.

I surrender only to the fact that through your choices in expression, you make your rhetoric unworthy of any more intellectual effort than is required to defecate.

not Lokos

[Lokos]

You're so intoxicated with petty arrogance

I wallow in arrogance in the presence of those who delight in theirs.


cannot refrain from peppering his arguments with personal attacks

... followed by...


you make your rhetoric unworthy of any more intellectual effort than is required to defecate.

Oh, Great Walford, if my rhetoric is so unworthy of your intellectual attention, why is it that you cannot respond to it, without looking like an impotent child?


not Lokos

I can only thank my lucky stars for that.

Lokos

[walford]

You're so intoxicated with petty arroganceI wallow in arrogance in the presence of those who delight in theirs.You're the one who has declared that I have 'surrendered' because I "don't really have any more arguments to offer up" when I explicitly stated that I shan't engage your points because "you cannot be bothered to leave the patronizing hysteria out" when making them. Declaring victory for yourself under such circumstances is embarassingly obtuse.


cannot refrain from peppering his arguments with personal attacks... followed by...
you make your rhetoric unworthy of any more intellectual effort than is required to defecate. Oh, Great Walford, if my rhetoric is so unworthy of your intellectual attention, why is it that you cannot respond to it, without looking like an impotent child?You have a thick skull. I also stated explicitly that "if provoked, I most certainly reserve the right" to meet personal attacks with my own flame-thrower. Get over it. You expect to INITIATE sliming someone and they are supposed to take that **** off of you?

Not going to happen.

You cannot expect to have your arguments taken seriously [regardless of merit] if you insist upon INITIATING patronizing, insulting attacks. You will only get spanked from some and ignored by most everybody else. Those are the consequences of deliberately choosing to be an asshole.

How many discussions have you single-handedly turned to **** anyway? Do you consider that to be an accomplishment?

Perhaps you should consider reading what persuasive rhetoric actually looks like and compare it to yours. You undermine your position with each unnecessary clump of **** that you mix in with your arguments.

You want to be a flamer, go ahead. You want to be a rhetoritician, try it. You cannot do both, 'champ.'


not Lokos
I can only thank my lucky stars for that.X2 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/search.php?search_author=Lokos)

[Lokos]

You're the one who has declared that I have 'surrendered' because I "don't really have any more arguments to offer up" when I explicitly stated that I shan't engage your points because "you cannot be bothered to leave the patronizing hysteria out" when making them. Declaring victory for yourself under such circumstances is embarassingly obtuse.

;)

Let's say I leave 'patronizing hysteria' out of my posts, and ask you to deliver some arguments as opposed to vitriol, for a change. Could you? Because I believe I already have, and you still haven't.


You have a thick skull.

:lol:

Obviously. I keep arguing with walls.


You expect to INITIATE sliming someone and they are supposed to take that **** off of you?

Is that what I did? Initiated this, did I? Where? Let's see this initial volley of mine.


You will only get spanked from some and ignored by most everybody else. Those are the consequences of deliberately choosing to be an asshole.

Have you ever considered upping the dosage of your own medicine in this regard? I earnestly doubt it, but perchance to dream!


How many discussions have you single-handedly turned to **** anyway?

Ask around. Somehow I have a feeling that you will continue seeing only what you wish to see.


Perhaps you should consider reading what persuasive rhetoric actually looks like and compare it to yours.

You mean... your bullcrap (being 'persuasive rhetoric')? Please, Walford, spare me this nonsense. You accuse me of being patronizing, then tell me I'm uneducated. Sincerely: shut it. If you're going to be a hypocrite with every consecutive word you manage to spout, why should I even consider treating you as I would someone I actually have respect for?


You undermine your position with each unnecessary clump of **** that you mix in with your arguments.

Perhaps so! Who knows? Yet, I manage to actually have a position I can consistently argue, as opposed to your vacuous generalizations, circular arguments and inconsistent tripe. When was the last time your stance didn't involve the other side simply taking you at your word?


You want to be a flamer, go ahead. You want to be a rhetoritician, try it. You cannot do both, 'champ.'

Hah. Only you would call this 'flaming'. Have I cursed your mother yet? I've shown no deference to you, and I have shown some disrespect (you having done nothing to earn it - I don't dole it out upon catching sight of an admittedly hefty vocabulary). But I have not yet begun to flame you. I've mocked you, though, for your inability to hold a proper argument.

Is that what you meant?

Lokos

[walford]

*yawn*

[Lokos]

Truly, the response of an intellectual!

Lokos