Diversity of Everything but Thought

Pssh, I don't need you to tell me what a straw man is, Ican...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[quote]Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Oh, yes you do! It's obvious you did not understand your own reference. Foxfyre did not attack your position by attacking a false inference made from your position. She didn't attack your position at all. She simply stated what she inferred your statement meant. All you had to do was identify her error (if any) and provide her the correct inference. Instead you pulled the old straw man dodge again, and rather than clarify your position you falsely accused her of doing what you did: provide the old straw man dodge as a your straw man.

Foxfyre has repeatedly stated in this forum that her objective is not to debate positions. It is simply to learn and understand what the several positions are and what their advocates think those positions mean.

ican711nm wrote:

We agree!
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is an infinite times greater than Joe's tax of $0.00, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 1,000 times greater than Joe's income of $28 thousand.

On the other hand,
Joe's Uncle's tax of $3,636,360 is 999 times greater than Able's tax of $3,640, while Joe's Uncle's income of $28 million is only 500 times greater than Joe's income of $56 thousand.

What does all this have to do with anything?

It was my response to the following:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... Your 'flat-tax' proposal, of a sort, isn't practical, because it doesn't take into account the vast sums of money that people accumulate over time. There could not be a proportional tax that is fair, from a real purchasing power standpoint.

For example, let's say Joe makes 20k a year.

Joe's rich uncle makes 20 Million a year.

How do you tax this proportionately, and fairly? You cannot do so unless you take a far larger proportion of Joe's Uncle's money. Not that that matters, as Joe's Uncle still has more money than he will ever concievably need, and therefore has no use for the extra other than greed, which there's no reason to support. Cycloptichorn

So I responded:

ican711nm wrote:

I define fair as "having the same rules for everyone."

I define unfair as "having different rules for different people."

What's the objective? Pay for government services [fairly].

What's the fairest way to pay for government services? Tax everyone according to the same rules.

I then illustrated the obvious. Namely, with a uniform set of rules, the rich will pay far more tax than the poor.

... Have you ever tried to live on $28,000 a year, ican, Foxfyre? I mean ever tried to live on that adjusted for inflation?
I sure did (to adjust for inflation divide by 25)

It is very difficult, and even more so if Joe has a family or is getting older. What happens when Joe or one of his family gets sick? Do you suppose his $28,000. a year comes with any benefits like health or life insurance? If he's lucky enough to have a full time job rather than one defined as part time in order to avoid the employer providing benefits, he may. What kind of car can he drive, how old a car and what kind of housing can he afford? Have you ever tried to raise kids on this kind of income? And what about retirement.....oh yeah, social security will take care of that. Right? And if Joe loses his job, but while he had a job he has tried to make it by borrowing money, for his house or other needs, he can always declare bankruptcy and get relief from the debt he owes other multi-billionaire folks at CitiCorp or some similar poor Mom and Pop banking institution. And what about higher education for Joe's children? How well educated do you think they will be even before they get to college level on $28,000.? What kind of personal and social difficulties do Joe's children have, living in the slum they have to live in since they can't afford good housing where there are no gangs and such? Oh well, when they get in trouble with the law, let's give them the ole three stikes and you're out treatment. That'll teach em. And let's make sure none of them get an abortion, certainly be sure taxpayers don't have to pay for it......

I define fair as "having the same rules for everyone."

I define unfair as "having different rules for different people."

I think you have bought up another dichotomy here.

I define my worthy political objective to be:

Government secures the unalienable rights (e.g., liberty) of all people who honor the unalienable rights of honorable people.

I infer (no straw man intended here; please just tell me if I'm wrong) that you define your worthy political objective to be:

Government secures the material well being of all people by transferring wealth from those with more to those with less.

What I infer to be your worthy political objective can be achieved only if my worthy political objective is not achieved and vice versa.

...You can see how mute a point it is for Joe and his family whether there is diversity of thought encouraged in universities or not.[/b] Maybe some of Joe's uncle's taxes will help subsidize the education of Joe's children or others like them. Those who manage to make it, in spite of all these problems.

While I think adoption of my view is in the best interest of humanity, I am not going to try to persuade anyone here that is true.

Meantime, Joe's uncle has to scrape by with his piddly little 25 and a half mil....... Wow. We're not talking about level, we're talking about a drop off a high cliff. Do you suppose Joe's uncle's children are at Yale or Harvard? I'm sure they're hard workers like their father. Poor things, they have to put up with liberals for professors......heaven forbid the little darlings should have to learn to tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

Foxfyre wrote:

And Lola and Cyclop have just eloquently, without intending to I think, illustrated the ideology of the left on this point:
1) the playing field has to be level
2) equality of result is the only ethical result
3) prosperity cannot be achieved ethically on your
own
4) If some are prosperous, it means that some are
disadvantaged by that prosperity.

Now I didn't say any of this... Foxmyre........you've ignored what Cyclo and I did say and have formulated a...........oh my God! a straw man. Big surprise. Thank you for that demonstration of contemporary conservative spin. Like we haven't gotten our fill of it already.
I made the same mistake that Foxfyre did. I thought she fairly summarized the true logical implications of your positions. OK! I get the message. Were wrong! Please clarify your position. We'll ty to do better next time.

It is hard to have a respectful conversation when what a person says is so badly distorted.

Foxfyre wrote:

If you don't like my list, Cyclop prepare your own. The assignment for this thread was not to attack the others for their point of view but to give your definition of the ideological position of the left and right. Whehter you agree that you did or not, I see that both you and Lola supported my definition of how the left views taxes.

If you want to know what our ideological positions of the left and right are, read back and try to make a list of what we did say. Or shall we draw you another picture for you to distort. I doubt you are unable to read and decipher what we have said, so why do you keep doing it?

But if you can't get it, I'm not sure I have the energy or the interest to try again. Maybe tomorrow......but I doubt it. Good night.

Probably you are right: going back won't help us understand any better. Please try again now and do what you can to help us understand you position.

Pssh, I don't need you to tell me what a straw man is, Ican...

Quote:

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
OK! I claim Foxfye, like I, thought your position was actually what Foxfye said it was. I accept your claim that we were both wrong. However, Foxfyre did not attack that position which she and I mis-inferred, and neither have I (no will I).

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You're playing semantics, ican. You think the emphasis in that definition should be on the attack, rather than the distortion? She distorted what we said and then, when she gets the time, she's going to present an argument against it.........it's her version of X therefore she'll be arguing with herself. This is a logical fallacy.
It would be a logical fallacy if you are correct about Foxfye's intent. If she actually does attack her false inference from your actual position, then you're point is proven valid. But in the meantime, on the chance I'm correct about Foxfyre's intent, how about, restating your position, and we (Foxfyre and I) try again to better understand your position.

If you don't like my list, Cyclop prepare your own. The assignment for this thread was not to attack the others for their point of view but to give your definition of the ideological position of the left and right. Whehter you agree that you did or not, I see that both you and Lola supported my definition of how the left views taxes. I will show you how I came to that conclusion when I get back.

Meanwhile you can say 'straw man' a dozen more times and it will won't change a thing.

Quote:

Alas, your problem is truly pernicious envy.

ican,

How exactly do you know this?

And Lola and Cyclop have just eloquently, without intending to I think, illustrated the ideology of the left on this point:
1) the playing field has to be level
2) equality of result is the only ethical result
3) prosperity cannot be achieved ethically on your
own
4) If some are prosperous, it means that some are
disadvantaged by that prosperity.

Later I'll formulate the right wing view on all these points unless somebody else who will no doubt do it much better beats me to it.

Oh, I just saw what was coming and nipped it in the bud. ...

finn

Quote:

It is ridiculous to have your romantic regard for universities. Your comment,s so obviously, suggest that universities are uniformly the opponents of tyrants. Pure nonsense.

Universities and their students played no role in the anti-intellectual Chinese Cultural Revolution...yeah, right.

German universities rejected the study of eugenics during the Third Reich...yeah, right.

In blatham's world view, Academics somehow equate with Arthurian knights in search of the Holy Grail.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

All the above would be bullshit. If I said it. Or if I even suggested it. Which I didn't.

What I did say was that tyrants always go after universities. Tyrants go after any voice or institution which might act in opposition to their controls or their desired portrayals of reality. In this situation, universities are no different than an institutionalized court system, or an independent press, or a resident religious community, etc. The goal of a tyrant is totalitarian control, or as much as they can manage in any case.

A church community, or a court system, or a university, or a military, or a press, etc, who stand actually or potentially in opposition to a tyrant will have to be removed or altered for totalitarian goals to be achieved. Simple point. Where they can be altered to fall into line and support the totalitarian, then so much the better, as that strengthens totalitarian control.

Members of the judiciary, members of faith communities, members of the press and members of universities and members of trade unions may well, and often have, allowed themselves to align with totalitarian leaders or forces. Membership in none of these groups necessarily entails saintliness, heroism, selflessness, nor knighthood.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

I've heard this at least five times from two different sources... that must mean that it's true!

And I've heard, at least five times, from multiple sources, that the US never landed on the moon. Unfortunately, I've never had the cognitive ability of DrewDad that might enable me to understand that volume equals truth.

And the reference went right over your head. Not surprising, considering the orifice your head habitually occupies.

How eviscerating DD. I am now so less likely to call you to task.

Finn, you responded to a light-hearted jab (which wasn't even directed at you) with petulance and an insult. I'm more than happy to continue this if you wish, but I'll give you a chance to back off since you're handicapped by that foot in your mouth.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:

I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me.

Someone is following you Finn, but that doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.

Huhh?

Didn't get it? Oh well, try again next time.

I'll continue with a post I began earlier stemming from the Karl Rove statement (from a week or two past) that "the press is not so much liberal as it is oppositional" and continuing into some thoughts on 'groupthink' and the sixties.

So let's start by defining 'groupthink'. From American Heritage:

Quote:

The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.

From Wordnet (Princeton U):

Quote:

decision making by a group (especially in a manner that discourages creativity or individual responsibility)

Seems clear...something like
- falling into agreement with a popular notion but without critical investigation or thought

- AND where any such critical investigation of the notion is held as negative or mainly negative

- AND where individuals holding the notion are discouraged from altering or re-evaluating or improving the notion on their own - "don't think for yourself" and even "don't get the notion you have any responsibility to think for yourself, we've done the thinking for you already, and if you try you'll just mess up what's already correct"

We'll all agree that sounds pretty oppressive. Do we have some examples?

I had a discussion some years back with a young lady who was speaking about the evils of clearcuts. When I asked her whether a clearcut that was forty feet by forty feet might be ok, she said all clearcuts were destructive. She wasn't able to critically think through or past the idea.

Bloom gives a wonderful example too. He mentioned that his students commonly could not get past a dogmatic moral relativism and when he would bring up a problem such as "When the Brits were in control of India, they passed a law banning the stoning of women who brought an insufficient dowry into the new husbands family. Was such a law not a moral improvement?" The responses, Bloom said, tended to be of the dilemma-evasive sort, "Well, the Brits shouldn't have been there in the first place"

But another example would be, "My nation right or wrong". Nationalist sentiment, if we look closely at those definitions again, can fit them in a most uncomfortable way. "Our country is right and critical investigation is not appreciated, thank you very much. Keep your nose out of what your betters already have in hand. Go watch a football game."

Another example would be certain sorts of religious belief, the more fundamentalist or literalist sort, the sort that holds itself to be in exclusive possession of the 'truth'. Creative interpretation of - or personal responsibility to understand the scriptures or tenets for oneself - become not an example of faith or spirituality but an example of heresy.

Partisan political membership can be another obvious example of groupthink (as defined above). "Don't question, don't complain, don't second guess...that will only hurt our enterprise...trust us always. You say anything different than we tell you to say and you are OUT!"

(more later)

Although I tremble at the prospect of being in your sights, I enjoy living life on the edge.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Although I tremble at the prospect of being in your sights, I enjoy living life on the edge.

I'm afraid you're not my type.

Get over yourself DD.

Tremble with fear, not desire

I hear Slappy's free this weekend, though.

Good Grief! Have you just revealed yourself to be a member of the bizarre Bostonian Abuzz Crew?

Get over yourself DD.

Tremble with fear, not desire

I guess I identify with the adamsists.

Quote:

I guess I identify with the adamsists.

As well you should you greedy twit.

Joe(I mean that in the most loving way.)Nation