GOLD

[aliveandkicking]

nonsense.

 

the markets exist first.

 

then the statists come along to try to take a cut of each transaction, by force.

 

 

 

FFS stop repeatedly posting this false dichotomy of 'gov't imposed currencies' or 'barter'

 

 

 

the purpose of gov't is for those in gov't to pillage those who are not.

 

It always seems to me that the purpose of your posts is to, in some way, violently replace our own thoughts with your own ones which you have decreed are the correct ones.

 

Dr Bubb is the government here on this board. He violently removes offending posts and posters.

 

Your posts never seem to invite discussion. You just seem to decree the truth and then object to all reasons why you can be wrong.

 

A market for example is made of people. People have natural leaders. Some are born leaders and others can grow into the role. But it appears you have some while back decreeded that only individuals matter and that only slaves have leaders.

 

Which then brings me back to the way you come over as a tyrant who wishes to impose his reality upon others.

 

I have tried to talk to you about this before but it appears i cannot get thru your latin based pre programmed filter that produces the text 'ad homiem'.

 

Essentially you appear to follow a philosophy of anarchism but you dont seem much interested in philosophy or love or learning which suggests that rather than being philosophical you are close minded and prefer to create your own knowledge.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Disagee. With Hobbes on this one. In a state of nature "the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". The homo economicus of modern economics is an ideological [though useful] construction, yet if taken too seriously becomes a complete distortion and caricature of ourselves.

 

the gov't funds its operations by extorting wealth from those who create it.

 

a parasite needs a hosts.

 

markets came first, then gov't. otherwise the gov't would have nothing to steal!

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

It always seems to me that the purpose of your posts is to, in some way, violently replace our own thoughts with your own ones which you have decreed are the correct ones.

 

Dr Bubb is the government here on this board. He violently removes offending posts and posters.

 

your posts never seem to invite discussion. You just seem to decree the truth and then object to all reasons why you can be wrong.

 

A market for example is made of people. People have natural leaders. Some are born leaders and others can grow into the role. But it appears you have some while back decreeded that only individuals matter and that only slaves have leaders.

 

Which then brings me back to the way you come over as a tyrant who wishes to impose his reality upon others.

 

I have tried to talk to you about this before but it appears i cannot get thru your latin based pre programmed filter that produces the text 'ad homiem'.

 

Essentially you appear to follow a philosophy of anarchism but you dont seem much interested in philosophy or love or learning which suggests that rather than being philosophical you are close minded and prefer to create your own knowledge.

 

the green craps are ad homs.

 

the blue is incorrect. a gov't is a violent monopoly which retains the monopolistic 'right' to initiate force against the innocent across a particular territory. this is quite obviously not what Bubb is doing!.

[drbubb]

Dr Bubb is the government here on this board. He violently removes offending posts and posters.

"Violently"?

 

[nicejim]

the green craps are ad homs.

No, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. What AAK wrote is valid criticism of your style. An ad hominem would be more like this...

 

 

 

"Your posts never seem to invite discussion, therefore markets pre-date government."

 

 

 

I've never seen you use the term "ad hom" correctly. If you ignore criticism on the grounds that it is criticism then you'll never improve.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

interesting

 

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17395/gol...t-hope-for-most

 

[alexreeve]

No, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. What AAK wrote is valid criticism of your style. An ad hominem would be more like this...

 

"Your posts never seem to invite discussion, therefore markets pre-date government."

 

I've never seen you use the term "ad hom" correctly. If you ignore criticism on the grounds that it is criticism then you'll never improve.

That isn't an example of an ad hominem (although it is a logical fallacy). Ad hominem is the discrediting of a proposition, not by logically attacking the merit of the proposition but by discrediting the proposer personally. The most common example on this boards is the dis-regarding of propositions by people in the media because they have a (assumed) "vested interest".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy. The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

[nicejim]

Igglepiggle, doesn't your bolded part of the definition describe my sentence to a tee? The attempt to persuade is there, the link to the characteristic is there and the supposed invalidation of the premise on the grounds of that link is plain to see.

 

I think the important point about AAK's post is that the attempt to persuade is not, for the most part, in the context of the original premise. To me, this shows it is criticism rather than an ad hominem attack. The part which can be considered to be relevant to the original premise was also discarded as an ad hom, so AAK's assertions there didn't get refuted and IRS's position didn't get explained. So throwing out "ad hom" instead of responding makes nobody better off and shows that AAK has raised a very good point.

[nicejim]

interesting

 

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17395/gol...t-hope-for-most

I looked at that, wondered what was so interesting, moved on and THEN noticed the tiny bar on the right.

 

Yep, interesting.

[romans holiday]

No, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. What AAK wrote is valid criticism of your style. An ad hominem would be more like this...

 

"Your posts never seem to invite discussion, therefore markets pre-date government."

 

I've never seen you use the term "ad hom" correctly. If you ignore criticism on the grounds that it is criticism then you'll never improve.

I remember having an argument with a friend at university years ago. He was insisting that an ad hominem is an argument "against the man"... the idea of discrediting the person. I'd always considered it an argument to show how that person's position was logically inconsistent... in terms of itself, incoherent. It does seem that the phrase has taken on this other modern meaning and lost the classic one, which is a shame.

 

edit, just read iggle's post, which affirns the modern meaning.

 

 

Here would be an example of ad hominem as I understand it:

 

You say reason can give us objective and absolute truths.

Yet, you also say reason is a secretion of the brain, and completely contingent. A historic accident.

On what basis can reason give absolute truths?

 

Another example would be "the problem of evil" for theists.

 

Nothing is written in stone, words and phrases often change their meaning. I wonder though if this has anything to do with why people are less concerned with the coherency of beliefs today. It is much easier today to arrive at rationalist conclusions....the old way led too often to pesky [enlightened] scepticism.

[alexreeve]

Igglepiggle, doesn't your bolded part of the definition describe my sentence to a tee? The attempt to persuade is there, the link to the characteristic is there and the supposed invalidation of the premise on the grounds of that link is plain to see.

No, they are just two uncorrelated statements.

I think the important point about AAK's post is that the attempt to persuade is not, for the most part, in the context of the original premise. To me, this shows it is criticism rather than an ad hominem attack. The part which can be considered to be relevant to the original premise was also discarded as an ad hom, so AAK's assertions there didn't get refuted and IRS's position didn't get explained.

Agreed.

So throwing out "ad hom" instead of responding makes nobody better off and shows that AAK has raised a very good point.

Is this a good example?

[alexreeve]

It does seem that the phrase has taken on this other modern meaning and lost the classic one, which is a shame.

 

edit, just read iggle's post, which affirns the modern meaning.

Do you have any citation for this different classical interpretation? I'm genuinely interested (though very doubtful).

[aliveandkicking]

It always seems to me that the purpose of your posts is to, in some way, violently replace our own thoughts with your own ones which you have decreed are the correct ones.

 

InternationalRockstar

 

You have said the above is an ad hominem

 

but:

 

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

 

So now you wish to impose the reality upon me that you are correct about your use of adhominem and i am wrong as if nothing i have said has any merit and it is simply illogical and abusive.

 

And as i said it always seems to me that you are not interested in discussion but you just want to tell us you are right.

 

Your use of the word adhominem to attack me rather than my argument is just an ad hominem by you.

[romans holiday]

Do you have any citation for this different classical interpretation? I'm genuinely interested (though very doubtful).

I hunted around a bit, but couldn't find anything, which I thought odd. Maybe it's thought control!

 

I guess I should perhaps then stick with the generally accepted meaning of the term. But then isn't the kind of argument [outlined above] that points out the inconsistency/ incoherency of a person's beliefs, in need of a fine latin phrase? How about argumentum contradictio?

[nicejim]

I remember having an argument with a friend at university years ago. He was insisting that an ad hominem is an argument "against the man"... the idea of discrediting the person.

I think your uni friend was right, but the idea is that by discrediting the man you are hoping people will consider his argument to be of no merit, irrespective of whether it does lack merit or contain poor logic. I've never heard of "ad hominem" being used for that other meaning.

 

No, they are just two uncorrelated statements.

Maybe, but so are the Wikipedia examples. It wouldn't be a logical fallacy if it made sense:

"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

[nicejim]

Your use of the word adhominem to attack me rather than my argument is just an ad hominem by you.

+1

[Crashman begins]

I wonder if he's thinking of this:

 

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."

-- Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum

 

Are you thinking of ANOTHER?

 

Yes, havent read enough of Another yet to know what this news would mean. But want to test those theories out..

 

Im sure I read somewhere that there was plenty of Oil left & that they would like to keep selling swapping it

so would never cut supply ... unless gold was held down too long ?

 

 

Maybe this is this a "If you dont let Gold go free / higher like it should have done years ago, we will not only let oil rise we will restrict your countires oil, crippling your enonomys further " ?

 

 

[enrieb]

There's a difference between ad hominem and fair comment. If a person has lied repeatedly in the past and then claims something to be true it's fair comment to point out that they known to be a liar. That's different from a person who does not have a history of lying being dismissed as a liar which would be ad hominem.

[Pixel8r]

I wonder how much of this 346 tonnes has already been sold to control the price? This is very bullish news IMO.

 

European banks use gold reserves to raise cash

 

By Jack Farchy in London | Published: July 6 2010 23:11 | FT.com

 

European commercial banks have begun using their holdings of gold to raise cash with the Bank for International Settlements, in a further sign of strains in the money markets on which many rely for funding.

 

The BIS, the so-called “central banks’ central bank”, took 346 tonnes of gold in exchange for foreign currency in “swap operations” in the financial year to March 31, according to a note in its latest annual report.

 

In a gold swap, one counterparty, in this case a bank, sells its gold to the other, in this case the BIS, with an agreement to buy it back at a later date.

 

In the past the BIS has occasionally engaged in gold swaps.

 

There has been no mention, though, of any such operation in recent years.

 

The gold swaps detailed in the annual report began in December last year, according to monthly data from the International Monetary Fund, and have surged since January, when the Greek debt crisis erupted.

 

The amount raised in the operations, just over $13bn at current prices, is small compared with the wholesale money markets. But the fact that banks are using their gold holdings to raise capital is a further indication of the stress in the sector...

[romans holiday]

I wonder how much of this 346 tonnes has already been sold to control the price? This is very bullish news IMO.

 

European banks use gold reserves to raise cash

 

By Jack Farchy in London | Published: July 6 2010 23:11 | FT.com

Getting their houses in order for the stress test, this selling of gold by European banks has contributed to the latest dip in price. Most likely only a small disturbance in the greater scheme of things.

 

As AEP recently mentioned in an article, the BIS is also promulgating austerity these days.

[romans holiday]

 

 

Even if the later steeper trend held, Sinclair's target of 1650 by January 2011 looks unlikely. Did anyone hear whether he'd climb Mt Fuji or something?

[Icarus]

Pulled this off a post on GIM. Good chart

 

 

The chart is logarithmic, which means the trend is exponential. If this contines at some point he price go stratospheric very quicky.

 

BTW, anyone notice the ftse rocketed back over the last couple of days? It's almost as though whenever the imbalances in the economy try to correct someone steps in with a printing press and makes things worse.

[warpig]

I don't agree with this chart. Why should the price of gold rise in a linear fashion when there's nothing linear about this crisis? Icarus's chart is far more accurate IMO.

 

 

 

Even if the later steeper trend held, Sinclair's target of 1650 by January 2011 looks unlikely. Did anyone hear whether he'd climb Mt Fuji or something?

[pjohnp]

The chart is logarithmic, which means the trend is exponential.

I keep reading this sort of stuff on here, and I'm not convinced. Surely it means that the increase is geometric, rather than arithmetic. Exponential would look quite different, woudn't it?

[Icarus]

edit- post was boring and snotty.