The true extent of wealth disparity in the USA

Post Reply New Topic

Viper,
I realize that you have difficulty understanding what everyone else understands. So for you,and only you I will make it more elementary.
If I created my own company or not has nothing to do with this thread. Since you only understand personal attacks you make every debate personal. Attack the argument not the person. *
My point (I apologize to other WP readers, I am not making this extremely simple for you) is that there are alternatives to a single owner. For example, cooperatives. Viper, if even that was too difficult for you to understand, please ask a specific question so I will know what confuses you.
* For example an "argument" that follows the form of your "argumentation " would be,
1. Wittgenstein says that one should give to charity.
2. Wittgenstein does not give to charity.
3. Therefore one should not give to charity.
I hope you can see that that is a fallacy.If I formed a cooperative or not has nothing to do with the value of cooperatives.
PS: I do give to charity. I was showing that your argument follows an invalid form. If you want I can explain to you the difference between validity and truth. Aww what the heck, I know you are too proud to ask a question.
Here is an argument that is valid and true.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates was a man.
3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.
Here is an argument that is valid but not true.
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is an argument that is invalid but true.
1. Obama is a Democrat.
2. Biden is a Democrat.
3. Therefore Carter is a Democrat.

/\

Thanks for proving me right. You cannot understand arguments and logic and only offer childish ad hominums. I won again!

Repeat post

/\

OK It is obvious that you are a troll. One that never offers an argument.
And it is obvious that you think your argument is valid.
1. Wittgenstein says that cooperatives are a way to let those that create value (workers) replace speculators.
2. Wittgenstein never formed his own cooperative. *
3. Therefore, cooperatives are not a way to let those that create value (workers) replace speculators.
You really should take a logic course. Perhaps,at least you would stop committing the logical fallacy called ad hominum and looking childish.
* OK I know you want that spelled out. Technically I am a part owner. I am calling it "mine" like when I say, "my country".

Hmmmm, viper
So if I cannot create a company the size of Wal-Mart, that proves that cooperatives do not put economic power into the hands of workers and away from the hands of speculators?
Obviously, since you lack any rational arguments, you resort to base less namecalling,pseudo philosopher.

There are many huge cooperatives. Land O Lakes to mention just one. You really should do some research.
But anyway a list of huge cooperatives and a list of huge corporations has nothing at all to do with the proposition: cooperatives put economic power into the hands of those that create value and away from the speculators.
I merely pointed out that your opinion that cooperatives are always tiny is massively uninformed. So your empirical data is wrong and your argument is outrageously invalid.
I gave examples of 1. an argument that is true and valid.2. an argument that is not true and yet valid. 3. an argument that is true and not valid. I forgot the 4th form of argument 4. an argument that is not true and not valid. Your "argument" resembles
1. Nixon was a Democrat
2. Bush was a Democrat
3. Therefore, Reagan was a Democrat!

Wow. Are you comfortable revealing the name of the person in question?