|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Dangerous socialist programs in the USA that must be stopped!|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
* |
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ2aJm1gxCw&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=A1750D7A5C2D3666&index=1"
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=A1750D7A5C2D3666"   |
||
|
Experienced Member |
Those were very well done.
I enjoyed the correlation that by privatizing either you would instantly create a market that would promote more crime and fires. Someone, I think it was Scott Adams of 'Dilbert', once wrote about a process he witnessed at a company he worked for where software programming managers were attempting to eradicate bugs in the new program they were creating. The managers came up with the ingenious idea of paying programmers $50 for every bug they found as a way to quickly eliminate all the bugs (let that sink in for a second... they wanted to pay people who are experts at writing programs to find errors that had been written into the current program). Almost instantly, there were a hundred times more bugs in the program as there had been before and they had dozens of programmers who were suddenly claiming insane amounts in bounties ($1,500, $2,000 or more per week, sometimes that much in only a day). The bounty idea was quickly shelved. |
|||
|
* |
Still using this ridiculous strawman argument, huh?
How clever..  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Do you even know what a "strawman argument" means? Comparing the police and fire departments to healthcare wouldn't even qualify as an allegory since there is no figurative representation of the police and fire departments as socialized entities because - get this - they are in fact operated as socialized entities and not private ones making the comparison between socialized police and fire departments and socialized medical services a corollary. The comparison is literal. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position by creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man |
|||
|
|
* |
The strawman here is that those who are opposed to socialist programs such as government-run health care, (Obamacare), would wish to do away with publically-funded police and fire departments.. which of course is ridiculous.
I wouldn't exactly call these snide little videos "very well done" either. Whiny teenage boys speaking to the camera with their neighborhood in the background.. yeah, real impressive. Based on their t-shirts, they're from New England, so their arrogant ignorance doesn't really suprise me. They're just a couple more mindless O-bots trying to be clever... and failing. This message has been edited. Last edited by: shades_of_grey, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Nicely done - this, boys and girls, is a brilliant example of the ad hominem argument. Shades is giving us all kinds of examples in logical fallacies today. Ad hominem fallacy - an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Something that Shades still doesn't understand about the straw man argument is, by definition, he (ironically) is the one setting up the straw man by claiming "it's a straw man", when it's obiously not. For example:
Filmmakers - We've made a satire about socialism, using the demonstration of how our nation has already successfully socialized certain public services and we've drawn a comparison between what is already socialized and what we would like to see socialized. Shades - it's a straw man because the filmmakers are really advocating that people who oppose socialized healthcare would also oppose publicly funded police and fires services. Let’s review: Straw man - creating the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. The filmmaker's position wasn't that people who oppose socialized healthcare also oppose socialized police and fire services (that bit was satire), their point was that socialized healthcare is probably not as evil as those who oppose it would have you believe because there already exists many examples of successful socialized services in our country that are similar to what socialized healthcare would probably become. |
|||
|
|
* |
Oh, thanks for the pompous "lesson" there, "professor".
Are you going to point out the ad hominem arguments that nearly every far left member of this forum makes against conservatives all over these boards on a daily basis? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If they use it and define it completely wrong, like you just did... abso-fuggin-lutly! |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Thank you for continuing the lesson with your wonderful example of Argumentum ad Misericordiam, Appeal to Pity aka whining. |
|||
|
|
* |
I haven't defined anything erroneously.. you are deliberately misrepresenting both the message of those insipid videos and what I've said regarding them. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Swing and a miss... Since I did not exploit Shade to support my argument by making him feel pity or guilt about what he had stated or how it effected my position, Appeal to Pity does not apply. Do none of you guys know how to define specific logical fallacies? Is your Google broken or something? |
|||
|
 |
Ironic seeings how you always refer to me with the petty moniker "red son". |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
and the whine continues... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
So, if you just keep saying it over and over (without bothering to actually prove your point with anything of substance), you'll just wish it true. Argumentum ad ignorantiam |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Wow, you can cut and paste latin!! Very impressive. By all means please continue with your whine. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Silly boy, I was merely making an observation. All things considered, the fact that you can actually cut and paste anything is impressive. Adding color and making things bold are other great strides, do keep up the good effort! |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
 It is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. ~ Thomas Paine |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Scootch over a little and share some of that will you? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Don't worry, the "whine" is just adminnco1's brain running under a "no-load" condition.  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Sure! Grab some and pass it on! It is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. ~ Thomas Paine |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Usually under no-load, it tends to free-wheel and pretty soon you get smoke! It is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. ~ Thomas Paine |
|||
|
* |
I love it when us dumb GIs try to act as if we had degrees in philosophy.
  |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I was going to go with Argumentum ad Hominem. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Already covered it... see post # 6 |
|||
|
Member |
Wow such great video's and a great argument....
. These kids never thought of personal responsibility. As for security, and personal protection. When a dangerous situation arises, you have seconds to act, the police take minutes to arrive. When someone breaks in your home and wants to kill you and your family, what are you going to do? Make the choice of self defense, or wait minutes for the police to arrive while watching your family get killed? The police are there to serve and protect, however, it all comes down to you to ensure your safety and survival. Leaving it in the hands of others is a dangerous gamble. These arguments posted by the makers of these video's make a poor argument in the defense of socialism. And then there is this argument: "Someone, I think it was Scott Adams of 'Dilbert', once wrote about a process he witnessed at a company he worked for where software programming managers were attempting to eradicate bugs in the new program they were creating. The managers came up with the ingenious idea of paying programmers $50 for every bug they found as a way to quickly eliminate all the bugs (let that sink in for a second... they wanted to pay people who are experts at writing programs to find errors that had been written into the current program). Almost instantly, there were a hundred times more bugs in the program as there had been before and they had dozens of programmers who were suddenly claiming insane amounts in bounties ($1,500, $2,000 or more per week, sometimes that much in only a day). The bounty idea was quickly shelved." So the managers in this case were not managing. They did not take the responsibility of checking the software, and take notice the bugs were actually increasing, rather than decreasing. They failed to hold the programmers responsible. **** poor management, and a sorry argument. You make it seem like the government is free of mismanagement and so on. I would again like to point out a difference. A business owner that takes risks, invests his capital, and works hard, will do everything in their power to ensure the success of the company. They are encouraged to manage the business responsibly, and ensure accountability. If not, they will find themselves in bankruptcy, with no business and no one to bail them out. The government on the other hand, does not treat taxpayer money as their own. They have a near unlimited supply, and throw it at anything they see fit, without much research on their part. There is no encouragement for the government to ensure responsibility, accountability, as well as good managerial practices. They usually have an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars. What they don't have, they can always write more legislation, to confiscate more tax dollars. That in essence offers no encouragement to go about business in a responsible way. If a government program is failing, instead of reform, which they would have to do on the outside if they wanted to stay in business, is replaced by more taxpayer dollars. This does not encourage reform, but has the opposite effect. The bailouts are a prime example. They bailed out irresponsibility, abuse and mismanagement, instead of allowing these companies to accept their actions and move toward bankruptcy, and, if decided, liquidation. Liquidation would have allowed companies whom have acted with responsibility to take over aspects of the failed business. Instead, they gave taxpayer money away to the irresponsible, for them to continue their ways, without much, if any reform. To advocate the government to run yet another program is ludicrous. They can't even get a handle on the programs and GOC's they have of now. What makes anyone think it will be different this time around? If the program goes in the red, the tax payer will subsidize it. You can guarantee that. China has abandoned their socialist economic policy in favor of capitalism. If you've noticed, China now has over 30 million private businesses. Private enterprise was illegal before the late 70's. Now they make up two thirds of China's industrial output. So what has faired better for China, their socialist economic policy, or their move to a capitalist economic policy? The latter holds true. If they would have continued the ways of the past, they would not even be where they are today. Who did we borrow that money from? You guessed it, China. India is fairing better as well. They have also reaped the benefits of moving to a more capitalist economy. So yes, let's just restrict what the bogeyman capitalist does over here, while other countries reap the benefits of their recourses, and gain wealth. All while we sit over here and revert to the failed policy that many striving countries are getting away from. They have learned from the west, and many elected officials seem to want to turn to those failed policies that others are running from. What a great idea. |
|||
|
|
Member |
SPOT F'N ON. But don't hold yer breath for the "others" to grasp your context. They enjoy picking apart the wealth creators and punishing them with all their "might" while complaining that there tain't no jobs, Pres Bush sux, we are all dying in droves on the streets, and every country that has massive socialist programs are better than us cause the WHO says so. And did I mention that Pres Bush flew the planes into the trade centers and personally became a billionaire over night because of the Afghan/Iraq wars. |
|||
|
|
* |
There's one reason and one reason only that China and India are "fairing" better than us (As if they actually were...). They'll work for wages lower than dog pooh. That's it. End of story. You don't like it, don't buy their products or services. I'd like to see what any of the geniuses who post here would have done differently to save the entire world from the depths of depression. If you say that you wouldn't spend any money, you'd have just starved your family and everybody else's. Somebody has to spend money if the private sector isn't doing it, or there's no tomorrow. When the Dow is back on top and unemployment is back down to 6% and falling, then I'll join you in wanting the clamps put on spending. But, until then... try to lend a little support. Or, as the previous president said: Lead (with better ideas of your own), follow, or get the fek out of the way. The cries of socialism are a big red herring, narrative injected by a party which got it's abs kicked in the last election and can't find a constructive way to get back on top other than name calling. Capitalism is alive and well in the USA, thanks to the political bravery of your much-hated Obama. |
|||
|
-------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group -------------------  |
You just don't get it. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Dangerous socialist programs in the USA that must be stopped!
