Liberal Fallacies

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So you can't name any tax that is going to go up as a result of same sex marriage legalization. Thanks what I thought.

Where legislators shift the burden when the exempt category increases is up to them. That they will is a certainty.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Disclaimer: Malcolm, I apologize if I have mischaracterized any part of your position.

Thanks. Looks good. I will add a consideration to the arguments from the other side: more stability in homosexual unions might reduce current (non-benefit, social) costs.

Love is wonderful, and I hope everyone finds some. It's not for me to dictate other people's choices and I find it offensive that some people presume to dictate for others. This includes Federal judges.

 

[Spindrift]

While I am in favor of legalizing same sex marriage, I do think that Malcolm's argument is not mathematically flawed. Mr. K. already mentioned estate taxes. Let's run an example. Adam and Steve want to get married but the law prevents them from doing so. Adam dies (in 2013) and leaves $10,000,000 to Steve. If they are not married in the eyes of the state, then the federal government government will step in a snag a share^[1] of that money. However, if Adam and Steve are married, then the government doesn't step in to grab that money because money left to a widow is exempt from estate taxes.

If the government collects less money and keeps spending constant, then either the deficit goes up or someone is going to have to pay more federal taxes.

One might then say, the amount of money lost in that manner is so negligible that it would be silly to even consider it. I would disagree with that assertion. If one truly believes a tax to be unjust, then making that tax very, very, very small does not make it a just tax.

Note: there are other taxing scenarios and situations which would involve gay couples keeping more of their income. I do think it is necessary to spell each one out in detail in order to validate the claim that if gay marriage were legalized, the federal government would collect less money.

Disclaimer: Malcolm, I apologize if I have mischaracterized any part of your position.

...................
[1] upwards of $ 1,500,000 if I am reading the tax tables correctly.

Very good post but the CBO has a different take on it.

The Congressional Budget Office looked into the question in 2004 at the request of Republican Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio. The CBO’s findings suggest that federally recognized gay marriage would reduce the budget deficit by about $450 million a year, or roughly 0.01 percent of total federal spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/what-is-the-fiscal-impact-of-gay-marriage-.html

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps the marriage custom is a relic of a time before reliable contraception, when regular sexual intercourse reliably meant children. Directing benefits to children rather than couples might make sense.
Whether resources or parents in early life make the difference in adult outcomes is an empirical issue.

Those of a tempermentally conservative disposition will no less reluctantly dismiss tradition than they would surgically dispense with an organ whose function they cannot identify. "It's useless" does not necessarily follow from "I have no idea what this dang thing does".

And the empirical studies show that children of homosexual couples do just as well as those of hetero couples. So what if it is a tradition?

So is racism, slavery and oppression of women and children.

Did you demonstrate animals engaging in marriage other than humans?

 

[Dancing David]

There's also a difference between "you said" (or "wrote") and "I inferred".

There is also a difference between taxation and violent oppression. In fact if you want to take the government is violence route, I would assume that condemnation and imminent domain are much worse then the 'violence' of taxation. Considering that in one your rarely go to prison but in the other you loose your property.

 

[Ladewig]

Very good post but the CBO has a different take on it.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/what-is-the-fiscal-impact-of-gay-marriage-.html

Personally, I believe civil rights should trump the tax issue no matter if it is positive or negative.

I cannot believe I was clueless enough to post a hypothetical that is equivalent to one of the most publicized court cases of the year: U.S. v Windsor. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court started Tuesday.

 

[Bill Thompson]

it is a Liberal Fallacy that this discussion thread belongs under "USA Politics"

 

[Bill Thompson]

1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
2. Obama is "African American"
3. If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars
4. If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us
5. 9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something
6. Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow
7. MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions
8. The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction
9. The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.
10. Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's
11. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong

I will add more when I think of or remember them.

This might be the most gargantuan of Liberal Fallacies. If the USA needs to invade a country because that country has weapons of mass destruction, there are a lot of places we need to invade like, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India....

 

[Upchurch]

If the USA needs to invade a country because that country has weapons of mass destruction, there are a lot of places we need to invade like, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India....

In fact, some of us said that at the time.

 

[rustypouch]

This might be the most gargantuan of Liberal Fallacies. If the USA needs to invade a country because that country has weapons of mass destruction, there are a lot of places we need to invade like, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India....

That's what we get for listening to Republican politicians.

 

[lomiller]

is an empirical issue.

Evidence can be empirical, not issues.



While your posts are difficult to read at the best of times mostly because of your sloppy use of language for some reason this one really bugged me.

 

[lomiller]

This might be the most gargantuan of Liberal Fallacies. If the USA needs to invade a country because that country has weapons of mass destruction, there are a lot of places we need to invade like, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India....

Something many Liberals pointed out at the time of the Iraq invasion. While the right was parroting the "we need to find the WMD" it was the liberals saying "I don't believe that's the real reason Bush wants to invade Iraq".

 

[lomiller]

There's also a difference between "you said" (or "wrote") and "I inferred".

Which is different again from "you implied" which is what I actually wrote.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Which is different again from "you implied" which is what I actually wrote.

This is tedious. You use "implication" where my actual words do not imply what you say, anymore that "I prefer Coke to Pepsi" implies "someone should kill the president". Only a lunatic would see that implication. Let's backtrack:
(lomiller): "Apparently it’s wrong to tax people he agrees with and also wrong not to tax people he doesn’t agree with."
I have said (or written) nothing of the kind. A reduction in taxes (smaller government) across the board would reduce taxes on Baptists and atheists, Marxists and Libertarians, vegans and carnivores.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Directing benefits to children rather than couples might make sense.
Whether resources or parents in early life make the difference in adult outcomes is an empirical issue. ...

Evidence can be empirical, not issues. While your posts are difficult to read at the best of times mostly because of your sloppy use of language for some reason this one really bugged me.

Lomiller won't take "yes" for an answer. I agreed with the comment previous to "Directing.." Here's the dictionary

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

My point was that given the impulse to surround children with a supportive environment, the choice between sustaining marriage or various child services (WIC, Head Start, etc.) might depend more on evidence of what works than on prior values. Did anyone other than Lomiller not see this? Was anyone else confused?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

There's also a difference between "you said" (or "wrote") and "I inferred".

Which is different again from "you implied" which is what I actually wrote.

True. Had Lomiller written "I inferred" he would have accepted responsibility for his delusional interpretation of what I wrote. "You implied" assigns to me responsibility for his delusional interpretation: "Apparently it’s wrong to tax people he agrees with and also wrong not to tax people he doesn’t agree with".

 

[varwoche]

Bill, I'd like to introduce you to some facts you ignored, and vice versa. You two have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[lomiller]

This is tedious. You use "implication" where my actual words do not imply what you say, anymore that "I prefer Coke to Pepsi" implies "someone should kill the president". Only a lunatic would see that implication.

Mainly because there is none in that example. It doesn't follow that no statement or set of statements ever implies anything.


You have repeatedly argued in favor of lower taxes on these forums. When a group you dislike wants lower taxes in the form a tax breaks already available to you, you oppose it.


I very much doubt you ever intended to admit it, perhaps not even to yourself, but the implication of this is that what you really want is lower taxes for people "like you" and are willing to have higher taxes on people not like you in order to pay for it.

 

[lomiller]

Here's the dictionary

1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

While it could apply to the information used to take a stance on an issue it certainly makes no sense to call the issue itself empirical.

2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>


Again, while it could apply to the information used to take a stance on an issue it certainly makes no sense to call the issue itself empirical.

3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

And a third time, while it could apply to the information used to take a stance on an issue it certainly makes no sense to call the issue itself empirical.


Empirical is an adjective, it qualifies the meaning of a noun. In this case you used it to qualify the word "issue" but there is no sense in which this qualification makes sense, hence me pointing out your sloppy use of language.

I infer that you wanted to say that it was an issue that could be addressed with empirical data. I suspect that you wanted to bypass the whole empirical data step of constructing that argument because there really isn't empirical data to support your position.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Mainly because there is none in that example. It doesn't follow that no statement or set of statements ever implies anything.

True, but "A implies X" also doesn't follow for all A and X.

You have repeatedly argued in favor of lower taxes on these forums. When a group you dislike wants lower taxes in the form a tax breaks already available to you, you oppose it.

a) Which group do you infer I dislike? On what do you base this inference?
b) From what evidence do you infer that I'm eligible for spousal benefits?

I very much doubt you ever intended to admit it, perhaps not even to yourself, but the implication...

here "implication" means Lomiller's delusional inference.