The Glade 4.0

Not quite sure where you're going with this. I assume you mean Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, but maybe I'm wrong.

The general description of Chapter 13 is as follows:



Basically, it's about adjusting debts and repayment plans to develop a court-sanctioned set of new payment obligations. In other words, an individual was not able to make their debt payment obligations, and had to file bankruptcy and have the debt restructured and/or partially eliminated.

I'm not seeing anything that says you're forced into bankruptcy because liabilities exceed assets.

An entity can be able to pay its debts and still be bankrupt. Chapter 13 is clearly used by insolvent entities in order to repay their debts.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Arathain:

I read your posts. My observation stands: you're arguing with a dictionary based on an appeal to popularity, an appeal to tradition, and a hasty generalization.

And you're continuing to do so ...

_________________

I think Khross means to say "My observation stands: you're arguing against a dictionary based on an appeal to popularity...", where Rynar is the one using this so-called dictionary.

I could be wrong though, I didn't do a full analysis of all the last posts.

There's more to it than that. First, you have to file for it, which means from strictly a Chapter 13 perspective, you're not bankrupt unless you say you are. Second, Chapter 13, as I understand it, is in place for the restructuring of payments. So yeah, you may be able to repay your debt if it's restructured.

If I owed $250k, to be paid back over the course of one year, I'd immediately file for bankruptcy. It can't be done (not in any kind of reasonable sense). But, if it were restructured to be paid back over the course of 3-5 years, I could do it.
That's a measure of cash flow, not assets versus liabilities. It considers my income against the payments on the debts that I need to make. That's my point. It's not about total debt versus total assets, its about whether or not you can make your debt payment obligations.

Uh...aren't the entries in the dictionary themselves based on, you know, popularity and tradition of usage?

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you just hadn’t read the posts. Your observation is unsupported. What dictionary am I supposedly arguing against? I posted a definition, from a dictionary, that supports what I have been stating. This is in conflict with the definition posted by Vindicarre. However, I clearly, and several times, accepted Vindi’s definition as well, merely stated that’s not how it’s applied. If I accepted the definition, I cannot be arguing against it. Thus, you are wrong.

Now, regarding your “appeal to popularity and tradition”. This is merely another case of you having isolated yourself in your ivory tower. Tradition? It’s the way things work. It’s reality. It’s the world. It’s the stuff you can’t see from the tower. It’s nice to look at definitions, and discuss ideology and how things should be, but it’s folly to assume that a definition provided in one text is what occurs in reality. So it’s not an “appeal to popularity and tradition”, it’s an “appeal to reality”.

That compounds the foolishness. Saying that a definition using the argument of usage i.e. popularity and tradition) isn't acceptable when the dictionary definition is based on usage is illogical.

Arguing that an entity is bankrupt because they can't pay their bills has been proven incorrect by the mere fact that people who are legally bankrupt often pay their bills.

Arguing that an entity is not bankrupt unless they file for bankruptcy is merely tautological.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If that was the case, then Arathain is quite obviously very very wrong...

Oh, I don't doubt that's the case. And like I said earlier, portions of the bankruptcy code are structured to promote this. The idea being, if you can't pay under these circumstances, you may be able to pay under adjusted circumstances.

Then, I am quite sure there's a bunch of people that could pay their bills under current circumstances and get into bankruptcy anyway. Not too sure about this. But that's not what we're arguing. It still has to do with ability, willingness, whatever, to pay debt payments, not a result of the liabilities exceeding assets.



Of course, but nobody's arguing that. It is a requirement of Chapter 13 that you file for protections under that Chapter. So Chapter 13 doesn't apply to you, unless you request it. You're mistakenly expanding a very specific requirement to all of bankruptcy, and assuming I'm making that broader argument. I am not.

I'm guessing you didn't read my posts either? There have been multiple definitions posted, one of which agrees with what I'm saying.

It's easy, guys. Show me in the real world where someone is declared bankrupt while making required debt payments, simply because their liabilities exceed their assets, and you win.

Arathain, you don't get to choose which definition you want to use and tell others they are wrong when they choose one that contradicts what you assert. Saying, "No, this one's the right one, that one isn't used 'in the real world'", is just plain missing the forest for the trees.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Ahh, so someone is only bankrupt if they file for bankruptcy, definitions and usage be damned, got it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Oh, I agree, and I'm not doing that at all. Like I said (many times), I'm not arguing with the definition you provided. I provided one that contradicts it, but I have no basis or historical definition to lean toward one over the other. What I have said, above and beyond the definitions provided, is how it actually works. So, it can be defined however people want, I don't care - this is how it's applied.

No, that's exactly contrary to what I just said, four posts up.

I guess I'll have to walk through it...

You stated:


I provided a definition of bankruptcy that included insolvency; hence, insolvency is considered bankruptcy.
Here's more:

They are considered to be synonymous case closed. Yet, you chose to argue the point by using "in the real world"...

You provided your own definition of bankruptcy:

That sounds an awful lot like "If you file for bankruptcy, you are bankrupt" to me, your assertions aside.

Further, I pointed out Chapter 13 bankruptcy which allows you to keep your assets.

Now you want to see an example of an entity that "is declared bankrupt while making required debt payments".

Again, I'll show you Chapter 13. The whole point of Chapter 13 is to repay debts. When a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is adjudicated, that entity is declared bankrupt - while repaying their debts.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Which, on several occasions, I've agreed with based on that definition, which I have not argued against.



True.



You're being a bit disingenuous there. Since that post, I have made 14 others. Why are you choosing to ignore the vast majority of the conversation?

In those posts, I have provided the following:



A quote from another dictionary that provides a clarification on the "insolvent debtor":



The following clarifications about my opinion of your definition:



And this summary:





Correct, by restructuring your debt obligations, allowing you meet these revised obligations, within a time frame given.



No, that's not what I said, you are being disingenuous. I'm not arguing that, and specifically said otherwise. What I said was:



Bolded for importance. This was the original point I argued against all the way back from Rynar's post. Simply having liabilities exceed your assets does not mean bankruptcy in the real world. Bankruptcy means you are unable or unwilling to meet your payment obligations, from a general sense.



No, you're missing the point. In order to file for Chapter 13 protection, and keep their assets, the debtor must develop a new plan on how they will repay their obligations, and then their obligations are revised. They generally (and I don't know if there are exceptions to this) have to show they can't meet their obligations as they exist. Thus, they cannot meet their current debt payment obligations and go into bankruptcy. Once in bankruptcy, the obligations are revised per Chapter 13.

Once someone goes with:

1) I agree that the definition contradicts my statement, but I'm still right.
and
2) I defined a term; made subsequent claims when shown the error of my definition, but I'm still right.
and
3) In order to prove me wrong you must prove someone's motivation for an action and it must be a singular motivation.
and
4) I don't know enough about the subject to be sure that my point is valid.

further discussion is pointless.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You seem to be having a problem with feeling the need to change my statements in order to argue with them. How about just discussing the statements I actually made instead of applying arguments I didn't make? If you were to stick to the points I actually made, this might be easier.



That's not what I said. At all. I respected your definition, and stated that's not how its applied. Why are you not getting this? Furthermore, I provided a definition from a different source that agrees with me. You are glossing over this. Why is it that my view is contrary to the definition when I provided a definition that agrees? Why are you ignoring this fact? In what way have you addressed the conflict between the two definitions? I have. I have stated that I'm not sure which is technically correct, but that it doesn't matter too much because here's how it's applied. You're completely ignoring this and just assuming yours is right to argue with me. Furthermore, the definition you provided does NOT contradict my statements, as you would know if you read my posts. My statements are regarding HOW IT'S APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD.



Made clarifications, and provided dictionary definitions that support my definition. STILL, I'm talking about the application. You have made no acknowledgment of the alternate definition. Why? Because it hurts your case? You have also jumped around all over the place between real world application and the definition. Why? What exactly are you arguing against, application or are you arguing that the definition you posted is how it's applied? I've made several attempts to try to get you to clarify your position - let me try again. Are you arguing that bankruptcy is applied in the real world to people who can make their debt payments, but who's liabilities exceed their assets?



Never made that claim. What are you talking about? This would be easier if you stuck to the points I actually made.



Well, sure. What would be the point of discussion if I knew everything? I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer. If you know more about the subject, show me where I'm wrong. But, don't show me where the points I didn't make are wrong, show my where I'm wrong.



Would be if you stick to the actual discussion.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Hate to chime in here... but really? You're using a list of synonyms to support your argument? Your same list of synonyms says that bankruptcy is synonymous with "destitute."

Using your logic, bankruptcy = destitute.
Therefore, if you say the US is bankrupt, you must also be saying that the US is destitute.
Since the United States has piles of gold and plenty of food and vast amounts of resources, it's clearly not "destitute."
Therefore, the United States is also not bankrupt.

Actually, no one knows how much gold the United States has at the moment; it's been almost 20 years since we did a real inventory and audit of the gold reserves.

_________________

And it might be gold covered tungsten anyway.

Thanks IMF.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

"Piles" is nonspecific enough that it could be applied to almost any amount we do have.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."