India’s Future in the World - Outstanding discussing between two intellectual giants of our time

[sankranti]

In other words, you refuse to commit yourself to any statement showing any knowledge whatsoever of the talk.

We can go back to your utterly laughable evasion stating that you agree with all Gurumurthy's views after you show your investment in what you are asking us to watch.

I am not on "Trial" here to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever.

I certainly do not plan to play the game you propose, where I give you the power to "Judge" me and thus claim superiority. I find your attempts pathetic.

This is the THIRD time you have resorted to Ad Hominem attack in desperation. Quite an "intellectual" feat I must say.

I don't reject capitalism as a spontaneous human order. I do reject communism.

That is self contradictory. You just rejected the term capitalism as a ugly world used to indicate all that is wrong with social enterprise that reject other aspect of social dynamics.

Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order, is that what you call capitalism ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not on "Trial" here to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever.

I certainly do not plan to play the game you propose, where I give you the power to "Judge" me and thus claim superiority. I find your attempts pathetic.

This is the THIRD time you have resorted to Ad Hominem attack in desperation. Quite an "intellectual" feat I must say.

LOL.

You call a demand that you demonstrate that you have gone through what you are asking us to go through an ad hominem attack? Proving that you have done what you are recommending to others is an ad hominem attack? Then your attempts at getting us to watch is surely also a series of ad hominem attacks?

Have you or have you not watched these? Yes or no? And if your answer is yes, what has Gurumurthy said that is wrong? Or what has he said that is original?

It is about Gurumurthy, but it is also about those promoting him. To that extent, you are vulnerable. As all scamsters must be.

That is self contradictory. You just rejected the term capitalism as a ugly world used to indicate all that is wrong with social enterprise that reject other aspect of social dynamics.

Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order, is that what you call capitalism ?

 

[nang2]

That is self contradictory. You just rejected the term capitalism as a ugly world used to indicate all that is wrong with social enterprise that reject other aspect of social dynamics.

Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order, is that what you call capitalism ?

Nope. I only reject the term capitalism as an ugly word used to demonize the free exchange of goods and services among human beings.

I didn't say "Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order". I only said the capitalism as a social order is a spontaneous human order and I believe it has existed ever since human begins began to exchanges goods. I think the term "human enterprise" is a much looser term than exchange.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not on "Trial" here to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever.

I certainly do not plan to play the game you propose, where I give you the power to "Judge" me and thus claim superiority. I find your attempts pathetic.

This is the THIRD time you have resorted to Ad Hominem attack in desperation. Quite an "intellectual" feat I must say.

Why there should be desperation is not easy to understand. I have gone through the gunk and have my deep reservations. So what is the desperation about?

On the other hand, you cannot find any answer when asked to get specific. Which of the two is likely to be the more desperate?

That is self contradictory. You just rejected the term capitalism as a ugly world used to indicate all that is wrong with social enterprise that reject other aspect of social dynamics.

Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order, is that what you call capitalism ?

 

[sankranti]

LOL.

You call a demand that you demonstrate that you have gone through what you are asking us to go through an ad hominem attack? Proving that you have done what you are recommending to others is an ad hominem attack? Then your attempts at getting us to watch is surely also a series of ad hominem attacks?

Have you or have you not watched these? Yes or no? And if your answer is yes, what has Gurumurthy said that is wrong? Or what has he said that is original?

It is about Gurumurthy, but it is also about those promoting him. To that extent, you are vulnerable. As all scamsters must be.

LOL indeed. You are free not to watch.

There is NOTHING wrong in what Gurumurthy said. I have already confirmed that before. What seems to be the problem here ?

I am not discussing Gurumurthy here, I am here to discuss the views of the two speakers.

YOU are the one keen to

1. Discuss me and attempt to "discredit" me and make ad hominem attacks.
2. Discuss Gurumurthy and attempt to "discredit" him and make ad hominem attacks on him.
3. Use fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the topic.

Its pretty clear who is the scamster here. The one making the Ad hominem attacks. Its pretty straightforward.

 

[Kdpreddy]

Fantastic discussion..
Both giants who have done more for India than any of the so called intellectuals like Guha..

This is the THIRD time you have resorted to Ad Hominem attack in desperation. Quite an "intellectual" feat I must say.

He is a Hindu hating bigot masquerading as an intellectual.

Initially I thought this guy was very knowledgeable. Now I realize he is just a pompous *** who has self aggrandized views about himself. Worse he actually thinks he is being smart by derailing threads, making personal attacks both on people who do not confirm to his ideals as well as on other people here.

It's utterly pathetic see this clown use polemics to derail a potentially great thread where we could discuss opposing views.

The moment this dumb blowhard started discussing people rather than the content should tell us how fearful these clowns are about ideology that they don't agree to.
What's worse is that this same guy would shout around for tolerance for other view points & he is actually here abusing 2 people who have a different one.

He keeps using the word charlatan. This pompousAss should look in the mirror, he will definitely find one.

 

[sankranti]

Nope. I only reject the term capitalism as an ugly word used to demonize the free exchange of goods and services among human beings.

I didn't say "Human enterprise is a spontaneous human order". I only said the capitalism as a social order is a spontaneous human order and I believe it has existed ever since human begins began to exchanges goods. I think the term "human enterprise" is a much looser term than exchange.

Capitalism does define exchange of goods and services in society by a very narrow definition of economic and political system and hence promote a specific social order as well.

If it sounds ugly, it is because it has aspects of it which IS ugly.

Human order goes MUCH beyond the narrow constraints of capitalism. That was the topic being discussed and highlights the limitations of this paradigm. Do you agree with this ?

Why there should be desperation is not easy to understand. I have gone through the gunk and have my deep reservations. So what is the desperation about?

On the other hand, you cannot find any answer when asked to get specific. Which of the two is likely to be the more desperate?

TO which specific question would you like an answer for ? I am waiting.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Capitalism does define exchange of goods and services in society by a very narrow definition of economic and political system and hence promote a specific social order as well.

If it sounds ugly, it is because it has aspects of it which IS ugly.

Human order goes MUCH beyond the narrow constraints of capitalism. That was the topic being discussed and highlights the limitations of this paradigm. Do you agree with this ?


TO which specific question would you like an answer for ? I am waiting.

The question addressed to you was to get specific. Is that difficult to understand? In Gurumurthy's exposition, he has made several conceptual and factual errors? Did you get them, or do you believe that his presentation was flawless?

Capitalism does define exchange of goods and services in society by a very narrow definition of economic and political system and hence promote a specific social order as well.

If it sounds ugly, it is because it has aspects of it which IS ugly.

Human order goes MUCH beyond the narrow constraints of capitalism. That was the topic being discussed and highlights the limitations of this paradigm. Do you agree with this ?



TO which specific question would you like an answer for ? I am waiting.

It is clear that you have no clue about the presentation. Let us try to help.

Gurumurthy made a step by step construction to draw his primary conclusion. Could you paraphrase this, and point out the errors?

 

[sankranti]

The question addressed to you was to get specific. Is that difficult to understand? In Gurumurthy's exposition, he has made several conceptual and factual errors? Did you get them, or do you believe that his presentation was flawless?

I have already answered that question.

1. I have no need to to be specific, since the speakers have already done that.

2. It is for you to first show the errors and then provide proof for those errors. DO that, and I will continue this.

 

[Kdpreddy]

TO which specific question would you like an answer for ? I am waiting.

And you will keep waiting.

You STILL actually think he want's to debate?

This guy is a farrago of Hindu hating bigot and a charlatan.

 

[sankranti]

It is clear that you have no clue about the presentation. Let us try to help.

Gurumurthy made a step by step construction to draw his primary conclusion. Could you paraphrase this, and point out the errors?

This is YOUR CLAIM.

Now prove it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is YOUR CLAIM.

Now prove it.

No, I believe that you have put these up without listening to a word, or having listened to it without getting a single word. I believe that you have no right to ask for our listening to what you have not listened to, to something about which you cannot say a single sentence, for fear of being caught out.

There is little possibility of a discussion where one of us has listened through to everything, the other is posturing to get his idols some space in the public eye.

 

[Kdpreddy]

It is clear that you have no clue about the presentation. Let us try to help.

Oh dear, he goes the intellectual AGAIN thinking high and mighty about "itself".
Help your brain first, if you need help, go to the nearest hospital, the one that treats your brain.

Nothing funnier than a blowhards trying hard to prop themselves over others. Tragic but funny.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And you will keep waiting.

You STILL actually think he want's to debate?

This guy is a farrago of Hindu hating bigot and a charlatan.

LOL.

Don't use words you don't understand!

 

[nang2]

Capitalism does define exchange of goods and services in society by a very narrow definition of economic and political system and hence promote a specific social order as well.

If it sounds ugly, it is because it has aspects of it which IS ugly.

Human order goes MUCH beyond the narrow constraints of capitalism. That was the topic being discussed and highlights the limitations of this paradigm. Do you agree with this ?

The so-called "ugliness" is often due to the disappointment from human beings who demand heaven on earth, especially among intellectuals, who couldn't stand the failures and misery in market competition while still enjoy the material benefits that come from it. The compassion that stems from such a disappointment sustains the human society but the hubris that make them think they could bring heaven on earth destroys it.