6 studies that show everything Republicans believe is wrong

Post Reply New Topic

^^^
As I recall, we had been promised time and again by conservatives and free marketeers that capitalism would make us all rich. Well, if good wages only drives business off shore, then it seems to me free market capitalism is only a scam perpetrated on the rest of us by the captains of industry in order to get rich at our expense.

Your "self-evident" 'argument' is a tautology.
Look it up.
It means that your 'argument' assumes, without presenting any factual, verifiable evidence of their relation to objective reality, premises which assure that it must be true and then argues that it must be true because those premises make it true, which is what's referred to in Philosophy as circular logic because it has no beginning & no end and much like the number it resembles, 0, means nothing.

A tautology is a form of logical fallacy.
You can look that up too.
It essentially means that your 'argument' lacks logical validity and thus is utterly meaningless.

Please learn to make a logical argument, and I will gladly rebutt your conclusions if they are incorrect or unsound.
Unfortunately since you've made no logical argument here, you've essentially said nothing, and thus there's nothing for me to rebutt.

That bit about assuming 'your logic' in reference to your non-existant conversation with your imaginary professor as my argument & then proceeding to ridicule it combines two logical fallacies into a single completely meaningless anecdote about something that never happened.
The first one is in assuming that I made an argument I never made, and then proceeding to ridicule that argument.
This is what's referred to as a straw man argument, and is in fact a logical fallacy.
Then, you proceeded to use, within that straw man argument, another logical fallacy referred to as reductio ad absurdum, which is another form of the straw man argument which makes an argument on another's behalf which they did not make by taking an argument they did in fact make and blowing it out to ridiculous proportions, which is an argument they did not make, and then ridiculing the result.
The sad part is that I made neither argument, or any even close to those arguments, so you're really just attempting to put words in my mouth & then blowing those words, which I never said, out to ridiculous proportions and then calling the result your 'argument'.

Nice nested logical fallacies you got there, unfortunately meaninglessness nested inside of more meaninglessness just makes for a whole lot of nothing again.

Congratulations, you've managed to get me to teach you all about how everything you've just said is basically meaningless drivel with no actual semantic content which is logically tenable.
Maybe this lesson will help you, in the future, to avoid embarrassing yourself when attempting to argue about whatever it is you were trying to say but failed to because you were unable to put together a statement about it containing any discernable coherent meaning.

Your reasoning assumes I am making a deductive argument, however, I am not.

I listed my self-evident observations, and inductively, made my conclusion.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 25 Apr 2014, 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Capitalism is good at best allocating resources. For example an American job is outsourced, and with the "saved money" not spent on the American - three Chinese workers get jobs, and the capitalist gets paid too. There was a poor allocation for the American worker to be paid so much, and the capitalist corrected that.

Yes, we come out losers as Americans, however, now three people have jobs, not just one, and the capitalist got paid too.

If that makes you feel better.

To be clear, none of this is my reasoning.

It is just logic.
I did not create it, and it exists independant of any person as an accessible concept which anyone can understand, since it is the very essence of reasoning.

Statements which are logically true can be said to have meaning, because they can be parsed and thus understood in a logical fashion, and thus one can say other logically valid things about them with greater or lesser degrees of certainty, thus enabling them to have meaning because the meaning of any given statement can only be derived from the relationships between that statement and other statements.
Logical fallicies are just that: statements which are logically false, meaning they are things without any logical truth value, and if a statement contains nothing which can be said to be logically true, then nothing in that statement can be parsed using logic and if you can't understand (parse) something logically then there's nothing you can say about it with any degree of certainty whatsoever, and thus it is without meaning.

Your 'arguments' were neither inductive nor deductive nor even actually arguments because they were, once again, all logical fallacies and thus had no actual meaning to them in any sense. Again, they were entirely meaningless because they were not logically valid statements, not because of any assumptions I made about anything, just because logic always and only works the way it does, and meaning can only ever be derived from logically valid statements.


To illustrate:

blahblahblahblahblah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This has approximately the same amount of coherent meaning as the words you strung together as 'arguments', because even if language parses gramatically, without logical validity statements don't actually mean anything.

This sentence is a lie.

Grammartical, yes. Parses, yes. Has any coherent meaning to it? No. Why? Because it is not a logically valid statement, just like your 'arguments'.
Only logically valid statements can be arguments of any type, deductive or inductive, because to be an argument, a statement must actually have some sort of coherent meaning, which logical fallacies don't.

Moreover, you need to look up the meaning of inductive reasoning, because it does not mean what you think it means.
Inductive reasoning is a form of proof used when it is possible to prove as an objective fact that something is objectively true for every actual test case it has been possible to test, given that that number of test cases is so large as to constitute a high likelihood that all other test cases would also prove that thing objectively true.
Since none of your logical fallacies contain even a single objectively proven fact or test case, your claim that you're using inductive reasoning, if it weren't already impossible due the fact that you can't actually use any type of reasoning on a logical fallacy since it has no meaning, clearly shows your ignorance of the meaning of the term.

Would you like me to teach you about anything else, or are you done having me expose your glaring ignorance for all to see for now?

This is not going anywhere. I cite real-world observations, and you focus on the form of what I write. So, I am giving up. You can get the last word in if want, and maybe someone else will pick up the discussion.

However, contrary to your above bolded words ...

Quoted: "Inductive reasoning is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion".
source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Most of the named fallacies are errors in deductive reasoning, including the ones you cited previously.

Searching the internet, I found, inductive reasoning fallacies named:

Hasty Generalization
Unrepresentative Sample
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion

This will give you some "ammo" for your next discussion

Great, so you don't understand that you just proved my point.
Come back when you have something other than meaningless logical fallacies, like maybe, I dunno, evidence, a requirement for inductive reasoning, as I stated, and of which you provided not a single data point.
My definition matches that in the article precisely, yet you refuse to understand that you can't just state that things are a certain way in an argument without providing hard evidence of those premises.
Because you didn't, at all, your argument is just a circle of logic that goes round and round in an infinite loop which can never have any chance of being true or false and therefore has NO MEANING.
Your own observations aren't considered objective evidence of anything except what you think you're seeing.
HARD DATA is EVIDENCE.
PROVE IT or it's all just meaningless circular logic, tripe, like everything you've said.

Uh, no, no it doesn't make me feel better.
And just the same, the same free marketeers still make the same argument that Americans are going to end up rich if we just stick with it a little longer. I think we've been had.

Just for the record, if Wal Mart reduced its stock dividend payouts (instead of increasing them yet again), they could easily give every single employee a hefty raise without raising prices and still maintain the same profit. But then the stockholders who are paying a much lower tax rate on their investment income would get angry.

God forbid we make the stockholders angry.

I won't lie, WalMart is almost 2% of my self managed IRA. Corporations that consider employees to be nothing more than a renewable resource make for a higher return on investment, I wouldn't cry if they cut (or eliminated) my dividends. Improved public image and employee happiness are extremely importnat to the long term survival of most companies, especially when their competitors are doing better.

Good for you.

http://www.alan.com/2014/04/30/south-da ... o-animals/