hoe! hoe! hoe!

[Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>]

in order:

1) the expansive model of opportunity costs

hunh?  counterplans, in particular ONLY same agent competitive
counterplans is an expansive model?  hello ... {knock on Hoe's skull}

Josh says about the Mexico topic that:

"one can infer that the naturally occurring worlds created by the policy
process are more likely grounds (and more logically sound grounds) for
comparison of the foreign policy process.  Looking at the more expansive
model of opportunity costs all tangentially related potential costs
become naturally competitive with any example of the resolution."

eh?  what?  hunh?

the first sentence seems irrelevant to the discussion.  plan compared to
status quo forces us to ONLY look at the "naturally occurring" world
with current policy compared to the "naturally occurring" world made by
the aff plan.  how in the name of Mallard does that use "more likely
grounds (and more logically sound grounds)"?  a warrant would have been
pleasant.

so foreign policy agents evaluate "NAFTA should be extended." by
comparing the status quo to NAFTA extension without looking at OTHER
competing actions they could take?  very unlikely and if true extremely
disturbing because that would make them fools.

the second sentence is nonsense.  how? an example? a warrant for that
assertion?

2) opportunity costs is weird thinkin'

Josh opines that:

"I will instead claim that Mike's model is less typical of the way we
think than the counterfactual model that I Ken and I forward.  When I
make a decision in my daily life, I rarely examine the whole world of
alternatives but rather the range of most likely or most closely related
options that might be mutually eroding (nearest possible worlds) to the
world in which I make no choice.  Opportunity costs are indeed evaluated
but only in relationship to the nearest possible worlds in which I
ground my decisionmaking."

beats me what this means.  if the argument is that Josh doesn't think
that utopian counterplans are good, thanks for the FYI, big guy.

let's see:  a) how ARE opportunity costs evaluated by whatever it is
that you do?  b) why is it GOOD to teach BAD decision-making just
because that's how we do it when we're playing SEGA? c) how does
opportunity cost require that we examine the whole world of
alternatives? rather than, say, those which compete? especially those of
the affirmative agent that compete? d) so WE ought to put our money into
the savings account because our choice to put that money into a mutual
fund is not the actual world -- the question is savings account or
mattress, damn it!  why, Josh?

3) connects poorly to the way we think

we need to rethink the way we think.  it should make sense.

and perhaps you will consider attempting to answer the examples?

you ALWAYS look good, kid.
micahel korcok

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Fw: [Fwd: Books for children's hospitals]
• Next by Date: California hotels My partner and I (both guys) have a room in the Holiday Inns for Good luck to all competing, Josh
• Prev by thread: Go Noles
• Next by thread: California hotels My partner and I (both guys) have a room in the Holiday Inns for Good luck to all competing, Josh
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page