Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I agree with Sean because of my ideology? I sense a 'vapid' strawman argument here.....Remember, you are the one who came and defended Krugman while taking a big swipe at me (a second time).
|
Oh?
Looky what I wrote: "So I couldn't tell you who is handing who what *ss in that Krugman versus Sean from Florida debate."
I think you need to go back and re-read that sentence. It explicitly notes no side in the Krugman - Sean from Florida debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I have no idea what Sean's ideology is. What I do know and read is that Sean had Krugman making replies to HIS posts. Then Sean destroying his replies.
|
Let's rewind the tape on that one to show you a replay of exactly what I'm talking about
:
Known Variable: Hoz states "Now, like you, I am no expert in Economics."
The Problem: Who won the Krugman vs Sean from Florida economic debate?
Hoz shows his work:
Step 1: Hoz does not know Sean.
Step 2: Hoz knows that Sean replies to Krugman, and that Krugman replies to Sean.
Step 3: (There is a big chasm you so deftly jumped after Step 2) Hoz states "... Sean destroying his (Krugman's) replies"
Answer by Hoz: Krugman's arguments destroyed! No pulse. No eye reflex. Flatlined.
So, you are no expert in Economics (no shame in that whatsoever), yet you are the one who is explicitly making the judgment that Krugman's economic arguments were destroyed. Me thinks you need to show your work in between Steps 2 and 3 if you're going to get any credit for that answer. Do tell us how you were able to make that judgment, based on your knowledge and interpretation of economic principles. How did you go from Step 2 to Step 3? Perhaps you can show your work? Scribble some graphs and equations onto a sheet of paper, take a pic and then upload to the site? Or is the transition from Step 2 to Step 3 the exact moment when your ideology kicked in?
See, you may not think much of me, but I'm smart enough to notice when someone makes conclusions without showing their work. It may work in the society of the underpants gnomes, but I think on CP your tactic in this regard is transparent.
(Krugman vs Sean Debate) + Hoz + x = Sean FTW!
I think we've solved for X.