RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Raiikun -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 5:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Kirata, Ralikun: You both strike me as straight shooters, so I'll count on you to level with me. If a liberal poster had used the same image in discussing whether a conservative columnist's statistics were valid, would you have accepted it as an apt analogy? A fair comparison?



If the analogy fits, I'd really have no problem with it. It was to the point and IMO highlighted the issue that was intended to be highlighted. Maybe it's just coming from a different perspective and way of thinking, but any kind of equating between Krugman and a serial rapist didn't even enter my thinking.

The analogy I referred to above that I'd used before, was in regards to the Catholic school not wanting to cover contraceptives. Someone asked "What's the difference between their insurance covering their employee's birth control, or the employee taking his wages and buying birth control? It's the same thing!"

So I responded "It'd be like your employer supplying heroin to it's employees, or their employees taking their wages and buying heroin on their own."

In that case, the analogy only worked if I used something that most would agree employees shouldn't supply to their employers to demonstrate why it's not the same thing...and in no way was I actually equating birth control to heroin.



dcnovice -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 6:08:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In terms of the general P&R reaction in such an instance, my guess is that the analogy would have been cited as an example of the "demonization" tactics that the left learned at Alinsky's knee.

All inferences are the property of their owners.

K.


An elegant aphorism indeed!

Do you think my inference was mistaken?



GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 8:27:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
If all people are trying to do is "warn" against Krugman, that is one thing. But that's not what's happening. People are trying to "convict" him in the public eye, of misleading because they happen to believe he has misled in the past. To which others in this thread are simply saying, "PROVE IT". And as no proof is forthcoming, it's starting to look like Krugman might be trustworthy in this instance.


I'm saying more than that, seems to me that the continued claims about Krugman are a sort of distraction (commonly known as a red herring) from the actual topic of this thread i.e. conservative reliance on wealth redistribution.


P.S. didn't there used to be a wambulance emoticon?



GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 8:42:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
So I responded "It'd be like your employer supplying heroin to it's employees, or their employees taking their wages and buying heroin on their own."

In that case, the analogy only worked if I used something that most would agree employees shouldn't supply to their employers to demonstrate why it's not the same thing...and in no way was I actually equating birth control to heroin.


It does seem to me like both the rapist example and this current one constitute bad analogies.



Kirata -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 10:01:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In terms of the general P&R reaction in such an instance, my guess is that the analogy would have been cited as an example of the "demonization" tactics that the left learned at Alinsky's knee.

All inferences are the property of their owners.

Do you think my inference was mistaken?

I question its relevance to the truth value of the position you're raising it against.

K.



Kirata -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 10:18:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

It does seem to me like both the rapist example and this current one constitute bad analogies.

In the first case, that is because you are misrepresenting the analogy. I'll repeat: In both examples under consideration there, reason proceeds on the basis of relevant information. The arguments are analogous in that regard. And neither commits a logical fallacy, contrary to your claim. Any other inferred analogies are invention.

K.




Raiikun -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/6/2012 11:55:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

It does seem to me like both the rapist example and this current one constitute bad analogies.



Kirata demonstrated why his wasn't, so I guess it's my turn:

In my analogy the comparison was between two things that a company might not want to fund for it's employees; that's it. So again, it's only a bad analogy if you misrepresent the analogy.



Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 3:41:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Which leaves me wondering: Do you see a basis for comparison or a similariity between Krugman (if that's whom Kirata meant) and a serial rapist?

Each has an aspect in which they shouldn't be trusted, would be what Kirata is pointing at seems to me.


Well let's briefly go back to the beginning on this one. Leaving specific individuals out of it, just consider the following statement:
    it has to do with accepting numbers at face value from one that has a history of misleading.
This was declared to be an argumentum ad hominem. I said no:
    Advising Jane against dating Dick because he has six rape convictions is not an ad hominem argument.
My purpose was only to show a starker example of the same form.

In both cases the arguments rest on relevant information that cautions against accepting something at face value. An ad hominem is by definition based on factors that are irrelevant. It's the irrelevancy of these factors that make the argument false; a logical fallacy. Where the factors are relevant, as they are in both examples above, there is no ad hominem and no fallacy in the logic advising caution.

Also no package of hidden meanings.

K.

If his history actually was unreliable you'd be right but reading the editorials those powerline hit peices were based on it was hard to even see the connection bnetween the editorial and whattheyclaimed he was saying in some places. In others reading the edotorial meade him seem prescient 10 yrs later and the powrline folks unreliable at best.



Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 3:44:34 AM)

Did anyone actually expalin how a state paying 1/3 as much for goverment services per capita isnt being subsidized by taxpayers in a state paying 3 times as much per capita for the same services?



dcnovice -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 6:39:47 AM)

quote:

I question its relevance to the truth value of the position you're raising it against.


Perhaps because I haven't had any coffee yet, that seems awfully opaque to me. I made a simple point, rooted in spending way too much time here in P&R: Conservative posters would likely have objected if a liberal had used the serial rapist analogy in discussing the credibility of a conservative columnist's statistics. And, I added a bit playfully, those objections would probably have included a reference to dear old Alinsky.

I could be mistaken, though. Do you think I've misread the dynamics of our P&R crowd? Would conservatives, in your view, have accepted the analogy as a fair comparison if applied to one of their own?

Edited fir typo. Sigh.



dcnovice -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 9:07:37 AM)

quote:

Edited fir typo. Sigh.


Oh, Good Lord. Even deeper sigh.



papassion -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 11:23:04 AM)


If I remember correctly, Krugman won the prize for doing some kind of research that basically boiled down to "buy low and sell high." wow, what a revalation!



dcnovice -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 11:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


If I remember correctly, Krugman won the prize for doing some kind of research that basically boiled down to "buy low and sell high." wow, what a revalation!


[8|]

Nobelprize.org provides an overview on why Krugman won the award. The Scientific Background PDF includes 23 pages of detail, complete with equations, for those who'd like to dive into the issue.



GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/7/2012 12:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms
Did anyone actually expalin how a state paying 1/3 as much for goverment services per capita isnt being subsidized by taxpayers in a state paying 3 times as much per capita for the same services?


He used the Chewbacca Defense.



GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/8/2012 8:05:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
In my analogy the comparison was between two things that a company might not want to fund for it's employees; that's it. So again, it's only a bad analogy if you misrepresent the analogy.


quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy
Bad Analogy:

claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't.


In this case conflating a legal prescription medication used by the majority of women in the US to their benefit with an illegal addictive recreational drug that's harmful to the majority of people who take it.



Raiikun -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/8/2012 8:12:27 AM)

Both of which a Catholic organization would not want to subsidize, which is where the comparison ends, and why it's not a bad analogy.



GotSteel -> RE: conservative reliance on welath redistribution (5/8/2012 9:35:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
Both of which a Catholic organization would not want to subsidize, which is where the comparison ends, and why it's not a bad analogy.


That is a way in which those two things are similar but that's not all you're doing as you've pointed out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
In that case, the analogy only worked if I used something that most would agree employees shouldn't supply to their employers to demonstrate why it's not the same thing...and in no way was I actually equating birth control to heroin.


You've swapped birth control out for something that's highly dissimilar specifically in order to exploit that difference.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875