Liberal Fallacies

[RandFan]

deleted

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yet you can't explain why private industry values a public education.

NOT(education = attendance at school). NOT("public education" = attendance at State-operated indoctrination centers). Whether "private industry values" graduates of government schools more highly that graduates of independent schools or homeschoolers I doubt.

... your conspiracy theory.

Randfan's idea of civility: call the opposition "bigot", "racist", ignorant, and delusional.

 

[Chaos]

Randfan's idea of civility: call the opposition "bigot", "racist", ignorant, and delusional.

Your idea of civility: Make a very transparent false claim about another poster.

My idea of civility: Call a blatant lie "a very transparent false claim".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Randfan's idea of civility: call the opposition "bigot", "racist", ignorant, and delusional.

Your idea of civility: Make a very transparent false claim about another poster. My idea of civility: Call a blatant lie "a very transparent false claim".

My idea of civility: don't call an obvious truth "a transparently false claim".
(Randfan): "So no good excuse for your bigotry? After all has been said and done you are just a pathetic bigot?"
(Randfan): "Own your bigotry and keep it to yourself."
(RandFan): "Ignorance is bliss though, right Malcolm?"
"Delusional" is the clear intent of "conspiracy theory". I could locate "racist" with some search time.

 

[RandFan]

My idea of civility: don't call an obvious truth "a transparently false claim".
(Randfan): "So no good excuse for your bigotry? After all has been said and done you are just a pathetic bigot?"
(Randfan): "Own your bigotry and keep it to yourself."
(RandFan): "Ignorance is bliss though, right Malcolm?"
"Delusional" is the clear intent of "conspiracy theory". I could locate "racist" with some search time.

[sources missing] If you are going to claim that I said something I'd appreciate a link. But you are clearly a bigot and you are often obtuse. I stand by those claims. As far as the CT, that's not controversial. You have claimed that school is a make work project and little if anything more. That could only happen by conspiracy.

So, I thank you ahead of time for providing the links and I stand by the facts.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Randfan's idea of civility: call the opposition "bigot", "racist", ignorant, and delusional.

Your idea of civility: Make a very transparent false claim about another poster.
My idea of civility: Call a blatant lie "a very transparent false claim".

How 'bout calling a transparently accurate statement "transparently false?

... you are clearly a bigot and you are often obtuse. I stand by those claims.

Doesn't look so "transparently false" anymore, does it?

 

[Chaos]

How 'bout calling a transparently accurate statement "transparently false?
Doesn't look so "transparently false" anymore, does it?

Firstly, he isn´t "calling the opposition" these things, he´s accurately describing your observed behavior here. "Ignorant" is an accurate description of your claims about a vast variety of topics, and "bigoted" is an accurate description of, for example, your stated reasons for opposing gay marriage. Deal with it.
Secondly, still waiting for your evidence that RandFan called you racist and delusional. Actually, a lot of people are still waiting for you to provide actual, real evidence for a lot of your claims.
Thirdly, I wasn´t talking only about that statement. You have a long history of dishonesty in debate. It isn´t uncivil to point that out - it´s uncivil for you to behave that way.

 

[RandFan]

Doesn't look so "transparently false" anymore, does it?

Yes, when you seek to discriminate against a group of people based on their sex then you are a bigot. No controversy there.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... he´s accurately describing your observed behavior here.

So, contrary to your earlier assertion that it was "transparently false" that RandFan agrues in this style, you agree that he does, and you approve (as if approval somehgow turned the factual claim that RandFan argues in this style into "transparently false").

Thirdly, I wasn´t talking only about that statement. You have a long history of dishonesty in debate. It isn´t uncivil to point that out - it´s uncivil for you to behave that way.

a) That just means we disagree and you argue in RandFan's style.
b) I expect that the moderators would disagree. They sanction "liar", which is what your last comment means in plain English.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, when you seek to discriminate against a group of people based on their sex then you are a bigot. No controversy there.

That makes every heterosexual OR homosexual a bigot. Guys who prefer girls are bigots. Guys who prefer guys are bigots. That makes employers who refuse to put fertile women in contact with mutagens "bigots". It makes track meet organizers (and the IOC) bigots for sponsoring separate men's and women's events.

 

[Chaos]

So, contrary to your earlier assertion that it was "transparently false" that RandFan agrues in this style, you agree that he does, and you approve (as if approval somehgow turned the factual claim that RandFan argues in this style into "transparently false").

That´s another transparently false claim there. I did NOT "agree that he does" what you claim, I stated that he did something else. He is NOT making claims about the opposition, he is describing YOUR observed behavior.

a) That just means we disagree and you argue in RandFan's style.

No. It means that you continue to twist everything until you are always right and everyone who calls you on your antics is uncivil.

b) I expect that the moderators would disagree. They sanction "liar", which is what your last comment means in plain English.

What you claim something means in plain English has nothing to do with reality - see your claims about what "school" means. Or "slavery". Or "agree" (see above) for that matter.

 

[Border Reiver]

That makes every heterosexual OR homosexual a bigot. Guys who prefer girls are bigots. Guys who prefer guys are bigots. That makes employers who refuse to put fertile women in contact with mutagens "bigots". It makes track meet organizers (and the IOC) bigots for sponsoring separate men's and women's events.

You know you should really try this wonderful idea of using the actual definition of words, to wit:

big·ot/ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

A bigot is NOT therefore your sexual preference, etc.

By the way, the dictionary (ie. the source of the accepted defintions of words) also defines such terms as "slavery", "education" and "government" much differently than you do.

 

[bruto]

You know you should really try this wonderful idea of using the actual definition of words, to wit:

big·ot/ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

A bigot is NOT therefore your sexual preference, etc.

By the way, the dictionary (ie. the source of the accepted defintions of words) also defines such terms as "slavery", "education" and "government" much differently than you do.

The meat of the argument here is bad definition. If standard definitions were used, what would be left?

 

[Border Reiver]

The meat of the argument here is bad definition. If standard definitions were used, what would be left?

Reasoned discussion?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You know you should really try this wonderful idea of using the actual definition of words, to wit:
big·ot/ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
A bigot is NOT therefore your sexual preference, etc.¹By the way, the dictionary (ie. the source of the accepted defintions of words) also defines such terms as "slavery", "education" and "government" much differently than you do.²

1. Tell that to RandFan. As to "utterly intolerant": note that Randfan draws the "bigot" conclusion on the basis of our difference over the issue of State recognition of same-sex marriage, which I oppose as a tax increase. From this, Randfan infers "bigot". And he pretends to reservations about anecdotal (i.e., incomplete) evidence.
2. Actually, dictionary definitions don't differ much from mine (depending on the dictionary). Dictionaries of Sociology and Political Science paraphrase Weber's definition of "government" as "the monopoly on legitimate force". Since monopolies are seldom absolute, the State itself defines "legitimate", and "force" includes non-human sources of destruction (e.g. storms, earthquakes) my definition, "the largest dealer in interpersonal violence" is more precise.
Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Where dictionary definitions involve commerce in people, they are imprecise; the Soviet Union used slave labor and labor camp inmates were not sold. You "control" someone's labor if you can force (there's the compulsory part) them to do what you want (like pose as "students" in your make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Has Upchurch left us?

It has been very big of everyone to not point this out and laugh.
I'm not such a good person. *snicker*

 

[A'isha]

1. Tell that to RandFan. As to "utterly intolerant": note that Randfan draws the "bigot" conclusion on the basis of our difference over the issue of State recognition of same-sex marriage, which I oppose as a tax increase. From this, Randfan infers "bigot".

Yes, because the "oppose as a tax increase" argument is blatantly nonsensical and even despite all the strange mental gymnastics required in order to make it fit with your ostensible weltanschauung, it's still so egregiously inconsistent and self-contradictory with your other expressed positions that RandFan's alternate explanation is really the obvious conclusion.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Where dictionary definitions involve commerce in people, they are imprecise; the Soviet Union used slave labor and labor camp inmates were not sold. You "control" someone's labor if you can force (there's the compulsory part) them to do what you want (like pose as "students" in your make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel).

Do you keep all that dross in hotkeys or macros or something?

Look: So grocery stores are "public sector" because they sell "goods ... for citizens"?

No, because grocery stores are not "a part of the state that deals with either the production, ownership, sale, provision, delivery and allocation of goods and services by and for the government or its citizens", but are instead "that part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the state" - the private sector.

 

[RandFan]

That makes every heterosexual OR homosexual a bigot. Guys who prefer girls are bigots. Guys who prefer guys are bigots. That makes employers who refuse to put fertile women in contact with mutagens "bigots". It makes track meet organizers (and the IOC) bigots for sponsoring separate men's and women's events.

I'm talking about you advocating keeping gays and lesbians from marrying based on their sex and for no other reason. There are many families of gays and lesbians that you want the state to prevent from having the same opportunities as others based solely on the people's sex. That's bigotry.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It is a reasonable conclusion as you have been completley unable to demonstrate that increasing the number of couples eligible to get married increases the tax burden.¹

Actually, dictionary definitions don't differ much from mine (depending on the dictionary). Dictionaries of Sociology and Political Science paraphrase Weber's definition of "government" as "the monopoly on legitimate force". Since monopolies are seldom absolute, the State itself defines "legitimate", and "force" includes non-human sources of destruction (e.g. storms, earthquakes) my definition, "the largest dealer in interpersonal violence" is more precise.

Actually it is not. The authority for state actors to use force comes from (in western democracies such as the US, Canada, Australia, Great Britian, among others) comes from society itself. Which would make society the largest dealer in interpersonal violence.² In addition, based on many of your earlier posts, you have defined state violence so broad as to include any form of sanction, rendering your definition so broad as to make it nearly worthless.³
Actually Slavery is defined as an economic system based on the ability to treat human beings as property and to be able to exploit their labour and bodies in the same manner that we exploit the labour of machines or animals. Without the ability to treat humans as property it is not slavery - it is a system of forced labour, which oddly IS what was practiced in the gulags of the Soviet system.⁴Your definition of slavery as "compulsory, unpaid labour" is inaccurate, as it captures far too much, such as household chores by children, to make it worthwhile.

1. I have demonstrated this, and advocates have closed their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and chanted "Nyaaah, nyaaaah, I can't hear you" (actually it was "bigot, bigot, bigot" but you get the point). Spousal benefits (access to employer-funded medical care, exemption from inheritance taxes) have a cost . Expanding the class of people eligible for those benefits (a) increases the cost and (b) reduces the class of people paying those costs.
Furthermore, the conclusion "bigot" (your "reasonable conclusion") relies on a narrow selection of evidence (internet policy discussions). Only a shill, paid by the Democratic Party to manipulate public opinion with hostile rhetoric in internet forums, would make such an assertion on such thin evidence. It's the only possible explanation. /SARC
2. Across this planet and across time most governments are NOT democratic.
Consent is not an element of the definition of "government". Who consented to ObamaCare? Remember "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? NOBODY read the bill before the vote. The fantasy that rulers are altruistic, wise supermen is most definitely an element of government-worship.
3. We disagree about "worthless". Finally, this argument isn't (or, shouldn't be) about definitions of words but about the effects of different legal/institutional environments on incentives.
Parent control works.

'We're just average folks': The family sending all ten of their home-schooled children to college by the age of 12
A mother who home-schools her ten children in Montgomery, Alabama, has opened up about how six of them began their college degrees by the age of 12.
Those of the Harding siblings who have already graduated from college have gone on to become a doctor, an architect, a spacecraft designer and a master's student. Another two - 12 and 14-years-old - are still finishing up their degrees.
...
Hannah was the first to take her college entrance exams - at the young age of 12. 'I didn't expect to pass,' the 24-yead-old told Today.com. 'So I started crying, because I was thinking, "Now what?"'
She passed the exam and, at just 17, became Auburn University Montgomery's youngest ever graduate, obtaining a BS in mathematics.
...
For Serenneh, that passion was medicine. The 22-year-old is currently on her way to becoming a Navy doctor - which will make her one of the youngest physicians in American history.

4. If you follow the chain of definitions, from "slavery" through "property" and onward, you ultimately bump into "control" (i.e., compulsion). Zeks were slaves. Do a word search for "GULAG, slave" and count the hits. It's standard usage.
Motivation matters crucially in education. The welfare-economic issue hinges on the different effects alternative assignments of control have on motivation, mostly of students but also on parents and education system employees.

 

[elbe]

1. I have demonstrated this, and advocates have closed their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and chanted "Nyaaah, nyaaaah, I can't hear you" (actually it was "bigot, bigot, bigot" but you get the point). Spousal benefits (access to employer-funded medical care, exemption from inheritance taxes) have a cost . Expanding the class of people eligible for those benefits (a) increases the cost and (b) reduces the class of people paying those costs.

Obviously if you said it it must be true.

...especially considering your track record...