Reply With Quote
As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.
That is normally called lying when you say I think X when I say I think Y.
Or to put it another way,
A strawman logical fallacy.
Fallacy: Straw Man
Person A = RandomguyDescription of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Position X = I, Randomguy, desire less human misery in the world.
Person B = vy65
vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.
QED.
As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.
Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"
Funny way to talk about children.
What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?
So the question was what do you do about the children.
The response was:
"Let them starve" with " to death." generally understood and implied.
Then when you get called to the mat on it, it is suddetly "man", and dissembling about "murder" and intentional killing.
Sophistry:
a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously
I could be simply misinterpreting intent. Vy could simply not have read my original question closely, in which case, the question still stands, unanswered
What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-18-2013 at 12:33 PM.
Yeah boy, jump on that dogpile
Not done yet. I am about to shred the bull philosopher that he posted as "evidence". What he is using as justification for his views on the subject is laughably flawed, when you put it all in one place.
Feel free to tell me if you think letting children starve to death is moral. He accused me of being sanctimonious about that, but that charge requires that *I* am the one attempting to be morally superior to other people, when my point is actually that someone who advocates harm to children is morally inferior to most people. (yet another strawman fallacy)
I kind of already know your answer, but in your own words would be helpful.
I didn't even bother reading this.
I still stand by what I've said. You've conceded that it's not the equivalent of murder (because it's not).
Others have noted that pleasure you gain in showing off how concerned you are with the plight of others. The national geographic-esque post of suffering children confirms how you use there suffering to appear morally superior to others. You're using other people's suffering for your own gain. If you can't see that now, you never will.
Philosophy isn't reducible to numbers and data. Posting inane and irrelevant dictionary quotes isn't relevant either. The point's been made above - you use other people's suffering for your own gain. That's ed.
And what's been lost in all this is how you have no scheme for holding people accountable for their decisions. There's no responsibility in your book. And what's even more ed than that is that you expect people like me to hold the bag for these other assholes.
Now go post some inane logic proof or quote an irrelevant article in response to this. That should get you good and frothy.
Unfortunately for your dumb ass, this *IS* a fully verifiable claim. It can be proven true or false. A simple test of human beings under controlled conditions can have their drive or desire for human suffering or even images of such suffering tested.
It can be quantified using numbers.
It also forms the basis for Buillards bull philosophy. BUillard's bull claim is not sourced to any scientific study that I could find. It is, therefore, quite possibly made the up, pulled out of his ass, and then he handed that steamy turd on to the world. The burden of proof is on the man making the claim, who is dead. Vy is certainly welcome to show any verifyable evidence to support this, although he has already admitted there is none.
Vy has taken it as a given assumption. He called it "evidence".
I have asked for the basis for this statement, and have not gotten an answer.
We all know one will not be forthcoming. We know bull when we see it.
I can, though, simply ask a related question:
If a philosophy is based on underlying assumptions that are provably, objectively verifyably false, is it reasonable to think that the conclusions based on those false assumptions are more likely wrong?
Vy is trying to have the steamy turds that pass for "true" in his mind shoved under his nose. I think he really does not care if innocent children of poor "filth" starve to death, he has certainly had ample opportunity to be clear on that and say he does not believe that. He has not done so.
The only "evidence" in this "indictment" is some bull philosophy.
I reject bull when I see it. The burden of proof is not mine, and has not been met.
I reject your unproven assertions out of hand, until you can prove them.
You can hand wave all you want, sophist, and until you can prove them, your arguments have about as much validity as the lunatic rambling about moon landing hoaxes.
I do not need to get frothy.
More strawmen.
I do have a scheme for holding people accountable, and I do very firmly believe in personal responsibility. To represent otherwise is a distortion.
That is three logical fallacies so far, all strawmen.
If kids are starving or suffering malnutrition here in the states, then why is their parent or guardian allowing such child abuse? There is plenty of social benefits out there to take care of children.
Again, that's why I jumped to the whole world idea when you guys started to talk about such things as starvation.
We do not put enough effort into curbing child abuse, IMO.
Unfortunately.. i have to get going
Like I've said before, there are no studies supporting this claim. That's because it's philosophy and not statistics.
If you disagree with the reasoning and explanation I've provided, please feel free to cough it up. However, the absence of numbers is not, in itself, a response because said numbers are not necessary. Not everything is reducible to ones and zeros.
What assumptions? I've merely seen you post pictures and called bull on it. You're trying to obfuscate that fact by trying to inject irrelevance
The only basis for your claim of falsity is the fact that you haven't been psychoanlyzed. That's irrelevant. The object of the criticism is how what you've done gets played out in the real world. Regardless of what you think the effects of your actions are, there are different perceptions of how they work in the world.
The fact remains that your response has been to 1) say its bull 2) say there are no numbers and 3) say its bull . That's not substantive. That shows that you've got nothing to say.
Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?
Feeling hounded, chachi?
You make a pretty asinine argument. You said straight out that you don't give a about poor people starving and you have been taken to task for it. Your defense has been two parts.
1) your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it. you have pretty much abandoned ship here although you have done an admirable job whining about numbers. whether or nor philosophy can be quantified like that is a central question in philosophy and not a foregone conclusion. all we have left is a keening whine coming from your direction.
2) RG is somehow exploiting their suffering for his own gain. this is what I call blind flailing. you are upset because you have been made to look the uncaring asshole. so what do you do? lash out at your tormentor of course. its what you see from children and thus it is called childish.
Now I get that this is just interwebs arguing but for over three days now it is the best you can come up with. thus my 'jump.'
Seeing that you seem so punitive in that regard how about you tell us. Or is that at the crux of it: you cannot so you just say ' em?'
Your inability to answer the question is duly noted.
Not at all. Thanks for the concern though
Don't see my not giving a about people has any relevance to a criticism of imagery and its use in connection with moral argument. You'll have to explain that.
Um, my being a philosopher is news to me. And when did I abandon ship? I've been pretty consistent in standing by the claims I've made. All I see here is whining about my alleged whining. Great contribution to the discussion bro, keep it up.
So the reason why the claims advanced here are bull is because I'm butthurt? I find it odd that a philosopher who's never met me, has no relationship to me, and doesn't give a about would have his argument rejected because I'm butthurt about being called a meanie. Again, solid contribution. You've presented cogent, applicable, and really insightful analysis here.
Lol lashing out
I get the philosophy of personal responsibility but is kind of irrelevant in the real world. Do you think it is good public policy to provide no social safety net?
I don't really have an answer to that question because it's pretty broad.
Do I think that people who have abused federal welfare deserve more of it? No.
Do I think that there should be some kind of safety net? Yes. But I think it needs a lot of strings associated with it. I had some ideas about it in a thread from a month ago, if you care to look it up.
Exactly.
The progressives talk about making it look normal, as to avoid stigmas.
I'm sorry, but prodding one's pride will get many of those who are slackers motivated to get off the system!
Make them do terrible jobs that become available.
Make them do drug testing.
Do anything to make them want to get off the social welfare systems.
So you don't think the filthy poor should starve to death? That was hyperbolic attention whoring?
I think in some cir stances they do.
Why are you so concerned with whether or not I'm attention whoring?
You first.
I asked:
What do we do with the children of the people on food stamps?
You seem to be unsatisfied with your original answer, and pissy at me for "misrepresenting" your words. Now's your chance. Tell me what you really mean.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6952671
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-18-2013 at 02:50 PM.
Drug testing costs more than it is worth, if your intent is to catch people on welfare doing drugs. It would add to the cost for little benefit. I don't see such a thing deterring anyone from looking for assistance either. It is a stupid "feel good" thing that lets sanctimonious people feel like they are punishing people for some imagined bad decisions.
Failed either way.
I don't give a what people think is normal or not, stigma or not. I view such assistance as akin to a life preserver on a boat. There for people who need it, when they need it.
As I said before, I support work requirements and so forth to encourage people to get jobs, and I fully support expanding help to those who show the initiative to do so, with things like subsidized day care.
The system for TANF we have now is designed to do pretty much that. It has some lifetime limits and work requirements.
What more do you want?
Which programs are you specifically talking about, because it makes a difference when it comes to who qualifies and what they get out of it.
I view not harming people as a basis for my morality.
"harm" can sometimes be something of an amorphous, abstract concept, sometimes it is obvious.
It is my direct assertion that most people can identify many kinds of harm just from looking at it, therefore an image of harm is fully relevant to making that case. If minimizing or avoiding harm is a basis for morality, then being able to generally agree on what is harmful is pretty important.
You have stated that you are harmed by having the government tax you. You find this harm immoral. Do you agree that actions that harm other human beings are generally immoral?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions