Quote:

---

aiyobro said:
The goverment gave out 37 billion dollars to bank of america so they would have some money to spend

A lot of republicans are evangelical religous persons.

1) Obama thinks its the goverments job to protect people from themselves.

2) The republican party is conservative.

---

1: That is not a valid argument, FOR ME, because I do not know what he actually thinks.  In case one it is an argument from ignorance since I can't read his mind.  I could say it is a valid statement if he affirmed that was his position.

2) That is also not a valid argument.  One cannot assume that what is true of one part, is true of the whole...many reps are conservative therefore all are conservative.  it is a fallacy of composition.  In addition, there is more than one definition of 'conservative' therefore I cannot determine validity.

One other thing, I have no idea what the two statements at the top are referring to.

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
I will post some statements from current society, politics etc. Give a simple logical explanation why the statement is valid or not.  Use logic, not emotion or political opinion.  Then set up a question on your own hot topic to be validated/invalidated.

I claim that the following statements are not valid logical have arguments:

1) The Obama Administration has created or saved millions of jobs with its policies.

2) Everyone knows that most republicans are against women's rights because several candidates have supported arguments influenced by the Evangelical Base or their own moral values.

I am not saying true or not I'm saying they are invalid arguments.  If you agree, why?  If you don't agree, why?  If you don't know why state the position you take anyway.

The reason I'm doing this is to both entertain, and suggest the US school system no longer teaches logic and reasoning in terms of rhetoric.

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
I will post some statements from current society, politics etc. Give a simple logical explanation why the statement is valid or not.  Use logic, not emotion or political opinion.  Then set up a question on your own hot topic to be validated/invalidated.

I claim that the following statements are not valid logical have arguments:

1) The Obama Administration has created or saved millions of jobs with its policies.

2) Everyone knows that most republicans are against women's rights because several candidates have supported arguments influenced by the Evangelical Base or their own moral values.

I am not saying true or not I'm saying they are invalid arguments.  If you agree, why?  If you don't agree, why?  If you don't know why state the position you take anyway.

The reason I'm doing this is to both entertain, and suggest the US school system no longer teaches logic and reasoning in terms of rhetoric.

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
1) The Obama Administration has created or saved millions of jobs with its policies.

---

Quote:

---

2) Everyone knows that most republicans are against women's rights because several candidates have supported arguments influenced by the Evangelical Base or their own moral values.

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
1) The Obama Administration has created or saved millions of jobs with its policies.

---

Quote:

---

2) Everyone knows that most republicans are against women's rights because several candidates have supported arguments influenced by the Evangelical Base or their own moral values.

---

democrats are waging a war on children  especially the unborn, they're trying to kill babies!

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
Cervantes, you are trying to make a political argument to prove or disprove.  If you can form a logical argument that refutes or supports the argument you win.  Not the dems did this the R's did that...blah blah blah.

If you know how to do that, you will see right through the smoke that politicians of all stripes are trying to blow up your ass to get your vote. 

here's a link to very useful resources.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Insurance companies use 20 to 25% of premiums for administration and profit, while Medicare uses about 11% for administration. Get your heads out of your dogmas, people, as far as healthcare goes, the government is actually MORE efficient than private insurance companies.

The only way to reduce healthcare costs is to spend money on preventing illness and the only way to reap the benefits of preventing illness is to ensure the enrollee stays with the program long enough for the benefits to accrue to whoever paid the prevention costs. By definition, you can't do that in a private or 'free' market with lots of choice for consumers. Hence, the public option will always be cheaper in the long run for everybody.

That's why other countries have public healthcare; its not because they are socialists, its because they can do math.

We use general taxes to pay for law enforcement and fire prevention. Imagine if we treated those things the way we treat health care. Would we let people burn to death if they can't afford their fire department premiums? Would we let the poor suffer at the hands of criminals because they couldn't afford to pay their police premiums? Some things just don't belong in the private sector.

(And calling it the 'free' market is a nice little rhetorical trick. Its a private market; 'private' does not equal 'free'. The so-called 'free' market has taken away the freedom of a great many workers who are afraid to leave jobs because of health care benefits. It has taken away the freedom of many small businesses to hire on equal grounds with large employers who can provider full benefits. It has taken away the freedom of General Motors to compete internationally without having to pay a $1500 penalty per car to provide healthcare coverage that is provided to the people building cars in other countries by their governments. The 'free' market has destroyed much more freedom than it has created.)

for an excellent piece on this topic I recommend http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/26/why-the-supreme-court. oh, and this issue perfectly showcases this nations moral bankruptcy.

---

Quote:

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:
Right, I see where your coming from now, to validate such claims would require a immense amount of paperwork to sate your desire for a logical and rational conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:
How is equality of opportunity a logical fallacy?

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:

Quote:

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:
Right, I see where your coming from now, to validate such claims would require a immense amount of paperwork to sate your desire for a logical and rational conclusion.

---

It requires nothing from me.  It requires that the person who makes the claim, can support the claim.  Logic is logic.  To

Exactly, the question you were asking then is of a rhetorical nature. No I cant prove the statement is valid, doing so would require resources and motivation far beyond anything but a massive document.

Quote:

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:
How is equality of opportunity a logical fallacy?

---

again, you miss the POINT of the thread.  It isn't to PROVE your political postion, it is to defend it or attack the others by logical argument. 

Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.

So I would say, that there is a presumed pretense of equality in using equality as the justification of healthcare. 

There fore, you would have to say, no there isn't because:  and present a logical argument.  Not everyone thinks, or that's the way it is, or Obama, or the Republicans say so....etc.  you have to present an argument that cannot be logically refuted.  IF it can, it does not PROVE your idea is right or wrong.  It just shows you have not justified the position logically.

That's why arguments go nowhere here, and nowhere in the government.  Because about %90 of the people, especially politicians, justify their response with some sort of logical fallacy.  The people in the US are no longer educated well enough in logic and reason, and rhetorical argument, to see through them.  So they blindly follow them, and make their arguments based on herd mentality.

---