Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Innvertigo]
    #784810 -

LOL, Fran Drescher? Or perhaps an eighteen year old Swedish Au Pair?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Innvertigo]
    #784935 -

Innvertigo writes:
"I have a 401k, 2 seperate mutual funds and some stocks in preparing for my retirement."

Not a terribly diversified portfolio is it? I hope for your sake that not too much of that is invested in companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Qwest that cook their books. It's getting harder and harder these days to find a company that DOESN"T cook it's books, or to find "analysts" whose "objective ratings" aren't tainted by the analysts' under-the-table connections to the coporations they rate.

Anyhoo, let's take some Libertarian principles out for a test drive, shall we? A little thought experiment of sorts.

A couple of first principles:
Property is sacrosanct.
Taxation is a violation of human rights.

That's about all we need to work with for the moment.

Exhibit A: John Doe, Billionaire.

Exhibit B: Sally X, orphan.

Sally's parents, not well off to begin with, died in a car accident. No remaining assets to speak of. They were irresponsible in planning for such a contigency. Unfortunately for Sally, she has no relatives. Nobody is willing to step forward to take responsibility for her welfare or upbringing. So, the only option is to be taken in by the social services organizations. Oops! No such organization exists. There are a couple of privately funded orphanges in town, but they are filled to capacity. Over capacity in fact.

The state, or what remains of it (Military, police, and courts) are aware of Sally's plight, but are not in a position to do anything about it. They have no funding for such projects. Why is that? They barely even have enough funding for their primary responsibilities, since their budget fluctuates from year to year depending on how many people decide to play the National Revenue Lottery.

There are private individuals who are willing to step forward in such cases, but they have already devoted the resources they're willing to expend for such endeavors on other needy cases. Also, they have had to invest in libraries, parks, roads, garbage disposal, telecommunications infrastructure, and other such services that were formerly provided by the state.

Therefore, Sally will have to do without. In other words, Sally will have to beg on the street. Only problem is, Sally is two years old and doesn't know how to walk yet. The police debate whether to let her on the street to die slowly, or simply to administer euthanasia to spare her the suffering. The second course would obviously be illegal, of course, so they deposit her on a street corner in the hopes that some kind stranger may adopt her. Problem is, Sally isn't the only one on the street corners. There are only so many kind strangers.

Because taxation is a violation of John Doe's human rights, it is unconscionable to imagine that even one dollar of his billions can be taken away from him by the state--that is to say, by force. John Doe's billions are his and his alone. He earned all of those billions all by himself, by inheriting them. He keeps them intact by carrying out the backbreaking labor of calling his broker twice a day to see how the markets are doing.

Because property is sacrosanct, because taxation is a violation of human rights, to take away even ONE DOLLAR of John Doe's billions is morally wrong, unacceptable. Even if it is to save Sally X's life. Because, in the Libertarian universe, property is sacred. Life is sacred too, as long as it is being protected from initiation of force. If it is being allowed to wither away from neglect, however, it is not sacred. Or at least, not as sacred as property. That is to say, life is sacred as long as that sacredness has been secured by an ever higher sacredness, that of property. Life is sacred so long as it is bought and paid for.


An exaggeration you say? An impossible scenario? Somebody will surely, surely come to Sally's aid? It doesn't matter. This is a thought experiment. An acid test of principles taken to their logical conclusions.

These are your principles. I have no desire to pass judgment. I am simply to trying to present them in crystal-clear relief. I have no doubt that you will embrace them with pride.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #784981 -

Why don't YOU help her?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #785023 -

RE: "No one is stopping you from helping them. You are totally free to spend as much of YOUR OWN money and time on them as you please."


Your missing the point of a bleeding heart liberal.


We want to change the fact that many people sit in air conditioned rooms playing in chatrooms while bitching about the people that really do the work in 95 degree heat (and make FIVE times the salary with paid vacations/HEALTH CARE etc.. while we get none of that - thanks to modern day "temp. servicies" and then we get layed off after manager's bad accounting books hit wallstreet!!) - I figure that this isnt a news flash.

Some like to call the common worker a "lazy welfare rat" (once they get lay-off due to so called "free trade policies"). Do tell?

Liberals want to change the PAY structure.... You know... WHO DESERVES WHAT? - It's not simply about supply and demand... Many people get paid way too much money 'cuz it's been that way in the past. - Fuck the tradition of the white collor workers making more 'cuz they think that there smarter! If the ones that got paid the most were actually paid based on how hard they actually WORKED they would be the Liberials.

Work is work. People deserve to get paid for actual work. - Not so called "thinking" work-(thats not work). Wall Street has shown us where this leads! (Enron/Worldcom etc...)

It's all a ignorent bunch off pyramid scams and PR controll that cant last forever. (EX: Oct. 1929) - Sooner or later the ones that have it so easy thinking that they are smarter will have to dig in the ditches with the rest of us for let's say $5.75 an hour!! - (if we have any jobs left!)

The Liberials are NOT the lazy ones!! Thats our main issue. We are totaly sick and tired off doing all of the work for others that think that they should some how deserve more money for doing far less work...and then to go around complaining about how Liberals are lazy.... (shesh!)

Dream on.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Edited by Jammer (07/29/02 07:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #785035 -

To elaborate on my point. Liberals lack the strength of moral conviction to put THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE! Thats right, it's easy to be charitable with someone else's money. If YOU really believe in helping someone, DO IT. Don't use the state to rob your neighbor for it.

To paraphrase Bastiat, the moral test of any law is whether it enables the state to perform an act which would be a crime for a private citizen. If you have no right to rob your neighbor, you have no right to ask the state to tax him for your purposes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: ]
    #785050 -

RE: "Liberals lack the strength of moral conviction to put THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE!"




--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #785120 -

Echovortex writes:

There are private individuals who are willing to step forward in such cases, but they have already devoted the resources they're willing to expend for such endeavors on other needy cases. Also, they have had to invest in libraries, parks, roads, garbage disposal, telecommunications infrastructure, and other such services that were formerly provided by the state.

If all available private individuals feel it is better to spend their money on libraries and parks than on orphaned children, and the various church organizations and secular charities are full to capacity and no childless couple who has been waiting in line for years to adopt an infant is willing to take her, then I guess Sally is out of luck.

Because taxation is a violation of John Doe's human rights, it is unconscionable to imagine that even one dollar of his billions can be taken away from him by the state--that is to say, by force. John Doe's billions are his and his alone. He earned all of those billions all by himself, by inheriting them.

Or by winning them in a State Lottery, perhaps. The relevant concept is: did John Doe obtain his money by force? If not, what right has anyone to take it from him by force? To give orphans an upbringing? Why stop at Sally? Why not take every last one of John Doe's billions and provide homes for a tenth of one per cent of the orphans on the streets of New Delhi, too?

Because property is sacrosanct, because taxation is a violation of human rights, to take away even ONE DOLLAR of John Doe's billions is morally wrong, unacceptable. Even if it is to save Sally X's life.

Correct.

Because, in the Libertarian universe, property is sacred. Life is sacred too, as long as it is being protected from initiation of force. If it is being allowed to wither away from neglect, however, it is not sacred.

Correct. However, just because you are alive today doesn't mean you will be tomorrow. It is true that life without property is impossible, but that does not mean that life WITH property is guaranteed.

An exaggeration you say? An impossible scenario? Somebody will surely, surely come to Sally's aid? It doesn't matter. This is a thought experiment. An acid test of principles taken to their logical conclusions.

You are correct. It is possible that no one may come to Sally's aid, and that Sally may die. What's your point?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Sally's Dad picks up Sally's Mom on his way home from work, and both die in a car crash when the brakes on the thirty year old beater fail because -- due to Sally's parents being taxed within an inch of their lives -- there's no money to buy a new car or even to maintain the beater properly.

Who is responsible for Sally being an orphan?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Jammer]
    #785208 -

Jammer writes:

Your missing the point of a bleeding heart liberal.

Ummm... no, actually I think I understand it pretty well. BHL's want the power to force others to do things their way.

We want to change the fact that some people that sit in air conditioned rooms playing in chatrooms bitch about the people that really do the work in 95 degree heat...

You have the right to try to persuade others that what they are doing is wrong. You don't have the right to tell an employer what pay scales he chooses to pay his employees, whether those employees work in the boiler room or behind a sales counter or in an air conditioned office.

Liberals want to change the PAY structure.... You know... WHO DESERVES WHAT? - It's not simply about supply and demand...

Actually, it is about supply and demand. Almost anyone can be a janitor. There is an oversupply of people capable of sweeping floors and digging ditches. Far fewer can do brain surgery, or even simply manage a successful sales team.

Many people get paid way too much money 'cuz it's been that way in the past. - Fuck the tradition of the white collor workers making more 'cuz they think that there smarter! If the ones that got paid the most were actually paid based on how hard they actually WORKED they would be the Liberials.

I used to work sixty to eighty hour weeks. I once went several months working twelve or even fourteen hour days from Monday to Friday, eight to ten hours on Saturday, and four to six hours on Sundays. I wore a suit and tie to work, and my office was air-conditioned. I actually worked. I wasn't lazy.

Work is work. People deserve to get paid for actual work. - Not so called "thinking" work-(thats not work).

Whoa! The only work that counts is manual labor? Computer programmers don't work? Lab researchers don't work? Civil servants who administer all the sacred BLH social programs don't work? You sure you don't want to rephrase that statement?

The Liberials are NOT the lazy ones!! Thats our main issue.

Liberals aren't necessarily lazy, just incapable of thinking their policies through to their logical conclusions.

We are totaly sick and tired off doing all of the work for others...

As am I. I worked for everything I own. I've never drawn a penny of unemployment insurance, never been the recipient of a government grant or subsidy, never took out a student loan, never inherited a dime, never won anything in a lottery other than a free ticket for the next one. Yet for years I had more than half (I do not exaggerate) of my money taken from me before I ever saw it. Of the remaining amount, I paid another fifteen per cent on virtually everything I bought, and MUCH more than fifteen percent on every liter of gas, pack of cigarettes, and bottle of beer. I also paid over two hundred bucks a month in property taxes.

At the same time able-bodied people of my age were sucking off the public teat. They had apartments, cars, cablevision, and ate well enough to get fat. In a very real sense, I and others like me were "doing all the work for others". And the only reason those people can exist in the manner they do is because BLHs make it possible.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #785238 -

RE: "As am I. I worked for everything I own. I've never drawn a penny of unemployment insurance, never been the recipient of a government grant or subsidy, never took out a student loan, never inherited a dime, never won anything in a lottery other than a free ticket for the next one."

So? I stayed out off prision.... Does that mean that I deserve a cookie?


RE: ""You don't have the right to tell an employer what pay scales he chooses to pay his employees"

We can express are opinions no? America God Love it!- Freedom of Speech.


>PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!<


--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Edited by Jammer (07/29/02 08:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #785262 -

RE: Whoa! The only work that counts is manual labor? Computer programmers don't work? Lab researchers don't work? Civil servants who administer all the sacred BLH social programs don't work? You sure you don't want to rephrase that statement?"


Yes... I have worked a very easy ass white collor job that dealt 90% with computers... I was grossly over paid... and I gained about 30 lbs. When I lossed my job due to to corperate money scandells I got a rude awaking to what it's really like to work again.

I have been on both sides of "the tracks", (more than once) as I assume you have. We must of just drawn diferent conclusions at this point in our lifes.

Having said that... I'm still very PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!!

Fire away.


--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #785375 -

One final last point.....

in RE:"At the same time able-bodied people of my age were sucking off the public teat. They had apartments, cars, cablevision, and ate well enough to get fat. In a very real sense, I and others like me were "doing all the work for others". And the only reason those people can exist in the manner they do is because BLHs make it possible."



Much off this kind off life-style is 'cuz of ileagle drug dealing... if we take away the profit margin (legalize) just think about how our views of welfare/politics might change?


--------------------
>>Jammer>>

Edited by Jammer (07/29/02 11:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #785608 -

****Not a terribly diversified portfolio is it?****

you're not a financial advisor, are you...


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #785618 -

Evolving: Your reply misses the point completely. My post was a thought experiment that was designed to test one's bedrock principles in a hypothetical lose-lose situation. "I" as a living entity don't even necessarily exist in the hypothetical world described. Or I may be one of the people who has stretched his resources helping other needy cases. Or I may be a selfish bastard like John Doe, for all it matters. It doesn't matter. That's not the point of the exercise.

Pinky: You write:

"Why stop at Sally? Why not take every last one of John Doe's billions and provide homes for a tenth of one per cent of the orphans on the streets of New Delhi, too?"

For a number of reasons. First of all because New Helhi is in a different country from our hypothetical one. Second of all, because the point of the exercise is not to take away John Doe's money just for the sake of taking it all away, the point is to render immediate aid to save a life. Third, because if ALL of his billions are taxed away he will become a welfare case himself and develop a form of "learned helplessness" that will prevent him from ever wanting to work again. Why work if it's all taken away? Before you get all hot and bothered and start saying "gotcha!" I should point out that this same psychology does not necessarily apply in the case of people who are taxed at a proportion of their income. I've said it before, much to your mirth and derision, but I'll say it again: taxation often spurs people to work harder so that they can make more to afford the goods that they want. The motivating benefits of "insecurity" are well known to economic planners such as Alan Greenspan, who DELIBERATELY try to keep unemployment from going too low, A) because it causes pressure on the labor market to raise wages and B) because they believe that too much job security makes for less frantic, anxiety-ridden workers--therefore, lazier workers. I'm just taking this logic from the Alan Greenspan playbook (a devotee of Ayn Rand byt the way) and applying it in slightly different way. This is all beside the point from the thrust of my post however.

"It is true that life without property is impossible, but that does not mean that life WITH property is guaranteed."

Who ever said it was? Nothing is guaranteed or certain in life except, to quote one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, "death and taxes." He apparently had a more sanguine view of taxes than you do. Sure , John Doe could die of an aneurysm tomorrow. But, all other things held equal, the wealthy person with access to food, shelter, and first-rate medical care has a much higher chance of survival than a person who lacks those things.

"You are correct. It is possible that no one may come to Sally's aid, and that Sally may die. What's your point?"

The point is simply this. Given two options:
A--Tax a billionaire for a dollar
B--Let a two-year-old child die

Libertarians would choose option B, because it is, according to Libertarian thought, morally wrong to tax someone, even a billiionaire, even for only a dollar. This type of immorality takes priority over the immorality of letting a child die. It's simply a matter of priorities. Which type of morality takes precedence in your system of principles? The question has been answered and the point has been clarified.

"Here's a thought experiment for you. Sally's Dad picks up Sally's Mom on his way home from work, and both die in a car crash when the brakes on the thirty year old beater fail because -- due to Sally's parents being taxed within an inch of their lives -- there's no money to buy a new car or even to maintain the beater properly.

Who is responsible for Sally being an orphan?"

My thought experiment was a good deal more straightforward than this. I simply asked you to make a choice given a set of circumstances. In this way your bedrock principles would be illuminated. This, however, is asking me to assign responsiblity (read "blame") in a complex case. There are a number of possible answers:

The state, for taxing Sally's parents to "within an inch of their lives."
Sally's parents, for not taking responsibility for their and their child's safety. If they can't ensure that their car is reasonably safe, they should take public transportation or find some other means of transport.
The state again, for allowing an unsafe car to pass inspection and get on the road. Such a car poses a threat not only to the owners, but everybody else on the road as well.

The "correct" answer is probably a combination of the above. In any case, it is not Sally's responsibility, but she'll be the one to pay with her life if the state is reluctant to touch John Doe's precious billions.

But this is besides the point. The point is that you believe that taxation is wrong, is theft, in every case and at every time--even if it means taxing a billionaire for one dollar to feed an orphan. I don't define taxation in the same way, and would argue that there are cases in which even "theft" is justifiable. While I respect property rights, they are not quite at the top of my list of moral priorities. You can argue that this makes me "immoral" or that I'm confusing "morality" with "compassion" or something of the sort, but all it does is illustrate a difference in assigning moral precedence. People with different moral priorities are infamous for not being able to reach a conclusion or even a compromise so it's futile to think of it in that way. We've been through all of this before and there's no need to rehearse all of the arguments here. But there's nothing wrong with clarifying one's principles and making them known. I believe that anybody who is interested in Libertarianism should know exactly where Libertarian principles stand on such matters of life and death--take it for a "test drive" as I said--before they close the sale. If they can do so in good conscience, more power to them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Innvertigo]
    #785632 -

****Not a terribly diversified portfolio is it?****

you're not a financial advisor, are you...

No, and it's a good thing too, because over the past 10 years the vast majority of financial advisors (something like 80-90 percent) were shown to be OUTPERFORMED by simple index funds like the Standard and Poor's 500. That is to say, for all of their analysis one would make less money with them than if one simply bought shares in an index fund that reflects the broad movements of the market. In other words, if you hired a financial advisor during this period, you were paying him to LOSE YOUR MONEY FOR YOU. Well, maybe not lose money, but at least make less money than you could have.

Have you looked into your investments to see just how diversified they are? Some 401(k) plans and mutual funds are more diversified than others. Keep the 401(k) of course, but In the long run most people are better off with index funds than with mutual funds. You get a better return and you don't have to pay those parasites their fees and commissions. You should balance the index funds with some T-notes, government and municipal bonds, and other safe havens. Putting all your eggs in the equities basket is a mistake in this kind of volatile market.

But what do I know . . . I'm not a financial advisor ;-)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #786125 -

An interesting thought experiment. I didn't post the reply I had written because, when I read Pinkys reply and compared it to mine, it looked like I had plagerized him.

I do have one tiny little, eensy, bitsy point to make though. Your though experiment, and further answer to Pinky's refutation takes as an axiom that it immoral to let a child die. (yeah, I know, I'll get hammered for this one).
You fail to logicaly prove that this axiom is accepatable. While most would consider that "theft" is wrong in any circumstance, your provision that it is ok in the regard to save a dying child is not well supported.

I also use the possible extremes to measure the true breaking point of ones moral stances. In this case, the child will die, sad, but that is the nature of a moral stance. When it is hardest to hold to ones morals that is when one learns if they are worth holding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #786329 -

you sound like a financial guy in my book

I'm not a financial wizard when my investments come but they are pretty diversivied, ie foreighn, domestic, utilities, tech....i could put the actual names of the industries but i would only confuse myself....


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: Phred]
    #788820 -

Pinky: "I used to work sixty to eighty hour weeks. I once went several months working twelve or even fourteen hour days from Monday to Friday, eight to ten hours on Saturday, and four to six hours on Sundays. I wore a suit and tie to work, and my office was air-conditioned. I actually worked. I wasn't lazy."

Pinky Floyd: "In the end you pack up, fly down south, hide your head in the sand--just another sad old man, all alone, and dying of cancer."

Okay, okay, just a little joke. I'll try and be a little seriouser.

Phluck writes:"I think everyone should have the right to equally good health care and education, no matter what their financial situation is to start out with."

Pinky replies: "Why stop there? Why not increase taxes to the point where they'll provide free housing (and free energy to heat the housing), free food, free shoes and clothing for everyone?"

Why are you forcing Phluck further toward an extreme? We spend a lot of time pushing others toward one pole and retreating toward another. Your response reminds me of another, by Senate Transportation Committee chairman Ernest Hollings, arguing against arming airline pilots with handguns: "I guess we're going to give the passengers machetes and let them fight it out."

There may be some good arguments against arming pilots with handguns, but Holling's slippery slopism isn't one of them. Just as there might be good arguments against free health care, but your slippery slopism isn't one of them.

Let's follow the slippery slope the other way: So you want to take away my hard-earned money to pay for a police force and and army? Hey, if you want to pay for those, fine, but don't take MY money for it!

Okay, we're zipping up and down a big slope, and I'm tired. You can all go back to your original positions now. I feel that I have several shades of libertarianism in myself, but as it has been projected by you and mr freedom, I have serious doubts. It just doesn't answer some big questions. I already see that Sally might very well have to die to preserve the integrity of the system that abhors the evil of taxation (except for "acceptable" taxes). What else has to bottom out?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: EchoVortex]
    #791337 -

Apparently, you do not understand logic very well. Your example is a classic case of argumentum ad misericordiam, appeal to pity.

Try again without any logical fallacies.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: ]
    #791500 -

Mr Mushrooms, I disagree. I say that the great challenge facing civilization is to establish a system that balances these three imperatives:

1-- to protect basic human rights (let's say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for now, though of course this is still a bit vague I know)
2-- to avoid robbing individuals of their initiative
3-- to prevent the gap between rich and poor from increasing unchecked

I don't believe a system exists which by itself does this successfully.

EchoVortex's post, as I understand it, is suggesting that libertarianism (which unless I'm wrong is basically the same thing as capitalism, in its philosophical sense) has no answer for number 3. Or, that its answer is something like "It's a cold world, but that's how it has to be."

To further complicate matters, whether we approve of it or not globalization is now a fact of life. Since the United States has been happy to capitalize on globalization, with business alliances, investments, interests, whatever, in nearly every other country iin the world, we have to consider these three imperatives on a global scale as well, though surely to a lesser degree as within our own nation. Indeed, our way of life depends on our international trade.

The Sally story is a logical exploration of how a purely libertarian system addresses the issue of social welfare, as an essential aspect of a whole, healthy society. The conclusion: it doesn't. I hate to sound Calvanistic, but I just don't think we can count on man's basic goodness to pick up the slack. Would that we could!

I've written this presuming that it's the Sally story you're talking about--I may have presumed wrong, as it wasn't clear which of EchoVortex's posts you were referring to.

I'm afraid I won't have a chance to continue my end of this. I leave the country tomorrow morning, and my internet time will be scarce for a while. Maybe the weekends, I may find my way to a cafe in the big town.

peace to all y'all,
hongomon

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Personal Responsiblity [Re: hongomon]
    #791944 -

hongomon,

You seem to be disagreeing with something I did not say. I did not say I disagreed with EchoVortex's socialism. I said that s/he used a logical fallacy to make the point. Another good example of this is in the abortion debate. Each side uses the appeal to pity to make the point. People who favor abortion on demand talk about women using coat hangers to induce labor and people who disagree with abortion show pictures of dead fetuses. Those are logical fallacies and do not contribute to the truth of either side.

EchoVortex's argument is the same. Whether he is right or wrong he cannot use argumentum ad misericordiam to make his point. If a person truly wishes to convince others that t hey are correct it is best to use logic and stay away from emotional arguments. I use my mind to come to conclusions, not my heart.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* liberals vs. conservatives
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 1stimer 6,637 70 06/21/03 09:32 PM
by Anonymous
* you dont get a job from a poor person
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 ehud 6,001 84 01/23/03 06:43 PM
by hongomon
* Liberal vs. Conservative silversoul7 1,547 4 09/19/04 08:34 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Liberals suck. So do conservatives.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Anonymous 10,913 105 01/26/03 12:53 PM
by GoBlue!
* Liberalism
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 RandalFlagg 5,638 88 12/03/02 03:13 PM
by Xlea321
* This is Liberation?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Angry Mycologist 2,171 52 04/12/03 12:45 AM
by Xlea321
* What do our opponents mean when they (call) us... "Liberal"? GernBlanston 1,443 18 11/23/03 06:53 PM
by Anonymous
* Why don't liberals want to stop voter fraud? Ellis Dee 1,558 8 01/04/02 01:47 AM
by isis

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,337 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.