Loyalty to the 100,000% Dinar RV Myth is Based on the Hegelian Principle

[ewingm]

The difference is I stand on the fact that the 100,000% rv of a currency is a myth.  That fact is solidly backed by the entire weight of world fiscal history.  Period.  End of discussion.  The gurus stand on a sequence of "talking ponts" which are built to prepetuate a myth.  And they are obviously good at it, as posting on this forum so eloquently  show .

[caz1104]

LOL.............fact is that in your negative mind nothing except RD/LOP is possible. In business as in most of the real world your a lonely person, and I can tell you most in business & regular folks have little use for. An RV is possible .....................maybe not to the magnitude that you continuously spew at nausea................but possible. Folks here at DV understand this most simple premise. Millions of events had never happened before they 1st DID occur. So to say something WILL NEVER OCCUR is plain and simple...............WRONG & simple minded.

[Bumper64]

Ewingm: I truly pray that you and yours had a Merry Christmas; and no I didn't miss you. Happy New Year.

 

 

That's one of the funniest things I had read all day!!!!!     

 

ewingm, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!!

 

I ask Markinsa to help me out here in the LOP section as I was about to go crazy and start banning people!!  LMAO!!  I want to thank Markinsa and just know that I tend to give a few more warnings then Markinsa does so PLEASE take him serious when he says PLAY NICE!!  We don't want to ban anyone so let's ALL GET ALONG!!!   

 

Have Fun!!

Bump

[umbertino]

Happy 2015 Ewingm, Bumper and everybody else  reading this thread

[nannab]

Happy New Year to you Umbertino.

Go get em Bump!

[Bumper64]

Happy 2015 Ewingm, Bumper and everybody else  reading this thread

 

Happy New Year to you also my friend!!

 

Happy New Year to you Umbertino.

Go get em Bump!

 

 Happy New Year!!

[dinarbeleiver]

Hey Ewingm - the 100000% RV myth is about to become fact - watch this space I will be eating mainly lobster soon

[ewingm]

So....in the spirit of playing nice, I will keep my comments strictly on the debate subject, which is the study of the Hegelian Principle.  The government once used this principle to change people's minds about the eating of butter versus margerine.  Later, it was shown that the arguments used to convince people away from butter were intentionally skewed, to promote the health benefits of eating of margerine, which weren't true.  As far as the dinar 100,000% RV is concerned, the world's fiscal governance will prevent such a thing.  I have discused how catastrophic it would be to iraq's street economy.  Plus it would have to be accepted and approved by IMF, WTO, the FEDS, before you could ever expect to cash out.  That represents "the problem" in the Hegelian Principle.  The gurus have spun it to make it seem not only possible but LOGICAL to perform a 100,000% RV.  That's the part 2.  The misrepresentation of financial facts.  We are standing at part 3 right now.  Trying to undo the twisted tales of fiscal improbability, You stand at a cross roads.  What's it gonna be......butter or margerine?

Edited January 3, 2015 by ewingm

[Nelg]

Ewingm, for the purpose of playing nice, I commented the argumentation you gave concerning the present discussion.  

 

So....in the spirit of playing nice, I will keep my comments strictly on the debate subject, which is the study of the Hegelian Principle.  

 

The government once used this principle to change people's minds about the eating of butter versus margerine.  Later, it was shown that the arguments used to convince people away from butter were intentionally skewed, to promote the health benefits of eating of margerine, which weren't true.  

 

Your Argument or Proof:  The government one used this principle to manipulate individual’s minds (doesn’t really matter what it is).  Later their words were proved false. 

The government has made statements that we were told were true.

Later it was discovered that he government had lied.

Therefore we can NEVER trust the government. 

 

Irrelevant conclusion or ignoratio elenchi refers to using an argument for one conclusion, irrelevant, to prove a different one.  Thus, it is a fallacious argument and has no bearing on an rv. 

 

 

As far as the dinar 100,000% RV is concerned, the world's fiscal governance will prevent such a thing.  

Plus it would have to be accepted and approved by IMF, WTO, the FEDS, before you could ever expect to cash out.

 

Your Argument:  The world’s fiscal governance will prevent such a thing.

An appeal to authority, also known as ad verecundiam:  In general, appeal to authority is a fallacy in the sense that it does not necessitate the conclusion being argued.  There is no way of knowing what the “fiscal governance” will or will not do.  You said yourself that such an event has never happened before.  Therefore, how can you know what they will do?  You don’t.  Therefore the argument is fallacious. 

 

I have discused how catastrophic it would be to iraq's street economy.

 

Your Argument:  an appeal to catastrophic on the people.  The appeal to pity is never sufficient to demonstrate the truth of a proposition.  We can never establish the fact of a revaluation or a non-revaluation event by appealing to the results.  Stating that people will be hurt or helped does not make it so or deny it.  Therefore it is fallacious to use it as proof.

 

  That represents "the problem" in the Hegelian Principle.  The gurus have spun it to make it seem not only possible but LOGICAL to perform a 100,000% RV.  That's the part 2.  The misrepresentation of financial facts.  We are standing at part 3 right now.  Trying to undo the twisted tales of fiscal improbability, You stand at a cross roads.  What's it gonna be......butter or margerine?

 

Your Argument:  A revaluation is improbable and a misrepresentation of financial facts. 

An argument from silence or ignorance, also know as ad ignorantiam, alleges that something is true because it has not been proved false, or vice versa.  In this case, “the revaluation is false because it has not been proven true.”

Now, whether this form of argument is a fallacy one depends on whether the proof has been established.  But that proof must not be assigned arbitrarily.  At this point no proof has been offered; except the proof assumed by you. Therefore it is a fallacious argument. 

You are correct in stating that we stand at the crossroad of decision, but not a decision about the dinar.  That is a simple decision.   The dinar is a “long shot”” and no one knows what it will do. It has been a “speculation” from the beginning and one should not spend more than they can afford to LOOSE.  It is that way with most speculative investments.  That’s Investment 101! 

The choice?  Speculate or not.  Invest a little with hopes that it will revaluate and you can make a profit.  Decide not to invest. 

It should not concern you what anyone else does.  They are adults who can make a decision.  They did not make the one you made.  

[dontlop]

"Keep pumping the same line repeatedly until the followers are in lock step with the desired ideology".....................LOL this is marketing 101 and not uneek to Dinar............unless your a LOPster. LOPsters could go after any retail company or Government............they all use this technique. LOL LOL

It's exactly what ewingm is doing to promote his anti 100 000 % rv that no one is talking about to hm except him he talks to himself about a 100,000% rv , no one else brings it up , no one engages him about it

He claims his family at home does so he directs his arguement at other people who don't want to talk about a 100,000% rv

Ewingm is using the Hegelian principle with his 100,000% rv arguement

[dontlop]

So....in the spirit of playing nice, I will keep my comments strictly on the debate subject, which is the study of the Hegelian Principle.  The government once used this principle to change people's minds about the eating of butter versus margerine.  Later, it was shown that the arguments used to convince people away from butter were intentionally skewed, to promote the health benefits of eating of margerine, which weren't true.  As far as the dinar 100,000% RV is concerned, the world's fiscal governance will prevent such a thing.  I have discused how catastrophic it would be to iraq's street economy.  Plus it would have to be accepted and approved by IMF, WTO, the FEDS, before you could ever expect to cash out.  That represents "the problem" in the Hegelian Principle.  The gurus have spun it to make it seem not only possible but LOGICAL to perform a 100,000% RV.  That's the part 2.  The misrepresentation of financial facts.  We are standing at part 3 right now.  Trying to undo the twisted tales of fiscal improbability, You stand at a cross roads.  What's it gonna be......butter or margerine?

This Hegelian principle is you and your tactics of repeating the same thing over and over about a 100% rv

So lopster guruism is no different from rv guruism

You know you said 100,000% rv more than all the 45,000 members combined

Your hegelistic lopster guruistic hegelmonious monstrousity is the back bone of your existence , without it , your in a corner crying about granny

At least the gurus come up with a new angle every so often

Like now we're on the budget again, yes yes its a repeat from the past years but hey there's a lot of newbies out there and repeats are ok when your bored

I watched Seinfeld episodes a few times each

[ewingm]

That is the beauty of the Hegelian Principle.  Once people have accepted the misrepresentation as truth, they cannot be convinced otherwise.  Once the german people were convinced the Jews were evil, and bad for their economy, they were quite willing to look the other way as their countrymen marched six million off to the gas chambers.  Some may call it "brainwashing" and I suppose it is, but it is very difficult to undo once the human mind has made the switch.  I don't expect there will be many survivors from this dinar thing once it is over.  There will be millionaires, however.  Can you quess where?

[Nelg]

Ewingm, I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see that you are unarmed.