GuyInTaiwan wrote:I have addressed it. You just continue to ignore my responses, and then harp on about me not addressing it. Jesus Christ, man, I and others have addressed these points probably dozens of times in this thread already. Are you trolling?
Here's a summary of responses:
1) If you make a commitment, follow through on it;
2) If someone defaults, someone else picks up the tab;
3) If enough people default, the system itself comes into crisis, which then affects the overall price of obtaining credit.
There are probably others, but I'm not going to find them for you when you could just go back and read the thread yourself.
Seems like, on the internet, if you ask someone to provide solid reasoning to support their opinions you get called a troll. Fair enough, maybe that's the standard most people are willing to accept. You have your opinions, I'll have mine and we'll bring them out now and again, have a little something
(can't call it a debate) in a forum and we'll get on with what remains of our lives.
I happen to believe rational debate is possible on all levels of ethics and economics; that there is truth and there is falsity and that we (non-specialists) can discover it and satisfactorily demonstrate it here and now. I know it to be possible to debate ethics and economics rationally and so I recognise when it happens that what looks like a debate is really just an exchange of opinions.
But to others, it seems that if they are asked to back up their opinions with facts or rational demonstration, all they can do is point to other opinions or simply re-state their own previously stated opinion! And apparently there need be little or no connection at all between opinions (or apps)! They are simply what we believe, and for the reasons we stated we believe them
! Nothing more, nothing less.
To call these opinions superficial is almost
inappropriate because I guess the 'reasons' are, superficially
, well intentioned: you should be honest because being honest is good
. You should pay your debts because maybe other people will have to pay them
. You should support the current system because crisis is bad
. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. They are statements that speak for themselves. Unless you want to know what is 'good'? Unless you question logical connections, the definions or the implications of, 'good' or 'crisis.' Even then, it seems, one gets answers like, 'crisis is bad because we don't want crisis' or ''good' is doing what you say you will do, no matter what
.' I.e. more of the same
I guess people believe opinions are just something you 'have' or collect or chose from a selection of previously available; perhaps they see it as their responsibility, so far as they can, to pick from the available opinions those that seem
to make sense and thereby fashion for themselves a 'personal opinion' like one picks clothes in a store. After all, why bother trying to work it out for yourself or seek the truth when the truth is not really there available for you to chose in this case (like so many)
. So, one truth is as good as another.
Unless you happen to find another's disagreeable, then, I suppose, it might be worth a dispute, since there is nothing much to be lost.
One of them might even think it their duty to tell their picked opinions
to people when they apparently need them, set them straight (some kind of straight
anyway), lest another's opinions be somehow more worthless than theirs...