[ExI] vaccines again

[John Klos]

>> ...I seriously wonder what you hope to achieve here. Do you want us to
> believe that your understanding of capitalism stops at a fifth grade social
> studies level?... John
>
> Eh, I think of it as my understanding of capitalism stops at a capital
> level.  That's the only level that matters: people with capital to invest.

See? You never answer questions directly.

I suggest your evaluation is naive and oversimplified. I ask if you wish 
us to ignore awareness of the existence of slightly more complexity, and 
you don't directly answer.

So do you wish us to suspend our disbelief and simply imagine that 
capitalism == good, government == bad, and therefore high speed rail is 
bad because capitalism in the US couldn't make it work?

(that's a yes or no question)

Or do you want us to actually point out to you that we know there's more 
to it than oversimplifications, so your assertion doesn't work?

The third option is that we tire of pointing out obvious flaws and simply 
let you say what you want to say, and just silently pretend to agree, much 
like parents do sometimes with kids. Should we do this?

Do you address your desire to have us believe oversimplified assertions, 
or do you make nonsensical statements like, "That's the only level that 
matters: people with capital to invest" and go off on a tangent again?

We know the answer to that - you do the latter, and not the former. Why?

If we REALLY want to have a proper discourse where we take the time to 
understand each other, then we shouldn't be so willing to dismiss 
OURSELVES to try to make points.

You completely dismiss yourself here: The only level of understanding of 
capitalism that matters is: "people with capital to invest"? That doesn't 
even make sense.

And you keep going on with nonsense assertions. For instance:

> so forth.  With trains, anyone can pay and board without being identified,
> can stay on a train indefinitely, all the problems we can see are
> bankrupting BART.  We still don't have a solution to that problem of
> homeless people using the trains as a shelter.  That problem really is
> spelling the end of the rail for that system.  I am not exaggerating:
> generally in non-commute hours, there are more homeless people on those
> trains than there are homeful. Any ideas on how to deal with that?

This is a risk to other passengers? You actually forsee the issue of 
homeless people on high speed rail being a big problem?

These are wildly disconnected things. It makes me wonder if you've never 
been on a commuter rail line where tickets are checked. People without 
tickets are booted and even arrested if they don't comply. How can you 
possibly suggest that homeless people are going to inundate high speed 
rail when it completely defies both common sense and real world 
observation?

> As an unapologetic capitalist, I don't see the need for high speed rail and
> would not invest in it.

Right, but the people want it. You can like that the billionaires get 
richer all the time, and that things that reduce their wealth collecting 
are bad, but others aren't necessarily going to agree. We can even discuss 
that! But why can't we discuss that without silly assertions?

I really wish there were more discourse, with links to data and studies, 
and not sophomoric arguments that do little more than waste time and 
distract from learning and sharing.

John