Slashdot Mirror

DeBeers was also involved in industrial diamonds which are not at all useless.

Well, and guess what, within a little more than a decade, industrial diamonds were fabricated on a large scale, breaking any market control DeBeers might have had.

Enron had a pretty good go at it until it got caught.

They "got caught" committing fraud and self-destructed as a result. What does that have to do with stable monopolies?

If DeBeers isn't Scottish enough, consider the Phoebus cartel

Yes, and that cartel lasted less than a decade.

I didn't claim that monopolies or cartels never exist at all, I said that they aren't stable (or, more accurately, they aren't stable if people try to use them to extract monopoly rents). They aren't stable because they inherently create a strong incentive for competitors to enter the market. Each of your examples actually illustrates that fact.

Then again, not all transactions are fully voluntary. For example, in the emergency room, it's questionable how voluntary the transaction is when the alternative is death within minutes.

Your fallacy is ambiguity. The transaction may not be "voluntary" in some sense, but it's a free market transaction: no third party is coercing the patient to seek treatment. It would still be a "free market transaction" even if the patient were unconscious, since it would be governed by whatever legal instructions the patient put in place before losing consciousness (provided those instructions weren't coerced).

You would be wrong. As someone who spent a fair amount of time in Belgrade during the troubles there in the '90s, I've seen first hand how black markets work. They use currency (govt) and weights and measures (govt) and almost certainly local police are involved (or they couldn't function)

The criterion for a free market is that people conduct business transactions voluntarily and without having terms or conditions imposed on them by others. How does the voluntary use of government currency and the voluntary use of government weights and measures make the market non-free?

As for police involvement, you're engaging in circular reasoning: you assume that police are necessary for markets to function, then infer that police were "almost certainly involved", and then use that to argue that government is necessary for markets to function. In fact, police are not necessary for markets to function; many markets function perfectly well without police, laws, or a legal system to back them up. Reputation and repeat business are sufficient in and of themselves to make sure people live up to their commitments.

But it's a quote about something that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you still can't offer a single instance of a "free market".

I have offered several instances; if you don't understand them why they are free markets, that's your problem. But you haven't explained why this is even relevant. Can you offer historical instances of societies with gender equality? Historical instances of societies that have eliminated economic inequality? Nationally recognized gay rights and gay marriage? Would the lack of historical precedent convince you that those things are bad ideas?

Good, then offer some examples of safety and measurement standards being "provided" (and by this, I assume you mean "enforced") without government.

That question is rife with several logical fallacies.

In any case, I'll just refer you to the literature, for example http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/p...

Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" also has a pretty good explanation of how these things work, and provides ample historical precedent.

Ok, so you've changed the argument to tu quoque then: "You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... If you can't argue coherently against the point then perhaps there may be some truth in it?

You wish me to give you a free pass for denial of an obvious ongoing effort to influence and suppress media reports critical of a the actions the political party currently running Israel?
Yes or no?

From your perspective: Yes.

It's called "Freedom of speech". You allow others with opinions you do not agree with, maybe even that makes you angry and offend you, to speak out their minds. What you get in return is a pass from me to hold opinions completely unsubstantiated by facts under the guise of "self evident" (essentially the appeal to authority fallacy, except without specifying any authority).

And the real beauty of it is that I don't actually need your "free pass". Watch this place for my complete lack of any more comments on this thread, whether your pass is given or not.

Have a great, blissful, life.
Shachar

Whenever the stark reality of data flies in the face of warmists agenda they get hostile and to ad hominem.

That was quite masterful the way you used satire to demonstrate the same logical fallacy you were decrying. And with a dash of strawman thrown in, too - are you a former Colbert writer?

I also love the way you use ridiculous hyperbole to lampoon the layman who thinks he knows so much about such a vastly complicated issue that he is fully confident in calling it black or white, and calling anybody an idiot who does not agree with the stark color of his vehemently stated but argumentatively void comments.

The more I read your post, the more I think you might just be this century's Voltaire - a true master. I mean you lit this fucker up like a winning bingo card:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

I'm truly impressed. A+.

The US Supreme Court has also ruled that all three of those are not covered by the first amendment under certain circumstances.

False.

You can still be sued for libel there.

What does that have to do with free speech?

Meanwhile the US continues to detain people for upwards of a decade in a secretive prison in Cuba without trial and using evidence they are not permitted to see.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

This entire post is nothing but virtue signaling.

It is also a gigantic Ad Hominem. Why not try to analyze whether his statements have some merit, rather than just fuel the culture of outrage?

So you were born yesterday and don't know what a straw man is. Not my problem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Here you go, fuckboi. People who argue by doing nothing but naming logical fallacies are fucking idiots. Go jump off a bridge.

And not just Breitbart - Milo-freakin'-Yiannopolous. That dipshit is as dishonest as the day is long, even Andrew Breitbart die-hards despise the guy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Please explain how a fallacy could be true.
It's literally defined as being a false belief or a failure in reasoning.

It's the "fallacy fallacy."

If you conclude that because a line of reasoning contains a fallacy, the statement reasoned about is false, you just fell into the fallacy fallacy..

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Hate to break it to apple people but you buy a good enough machine it or the parts will be worth something later, not just apple.

Your logical fallacy is straw man.

Congratulations, your logical fallacies are:

False Cause
Appeal to Emotion
Slippery Slope

Congratulations, your logical fallacies are:

False Cause
Appeal to Emotion
Slippery Slope

Congratulations, your logical fallacies are:

False Cause
Appeal to Emotion
Slippery Slope

While YOU might support racism and slavery

Hello kids, today we present you with the logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Stay tuned, you're sure to discover some more logical fallacies below!

And your logical fallacy is...Genetic Fallacy

Perhaps you should be the one who is auto-modded down ;-)
(CAPTCHA was "baseless" ... that is just too good)

Ooh I can post links too!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"? If you think that the mere act of inspecting and republishing public records is pro-GOP propaganda, then I submit you have a terribly low opinion of Mrs. Clinton, and expect that she engaged in a lot of malfeasance and abuse during her time in office.

It's funny that you're trying to discredit this *before a single word has been uttered by anybody* about the content of the emails.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Explain how Paul's strong, principled criticism of the Patriot Act is misguided, without resorting to "he has crazy opinions on vaccines!"

That he might have bizarre or erroneous beliefs on vaccination has absolutely no bearing on whether or not his opposition to the Patriot Act is a good thing.

Are you saying they are more successful because blacks are inferior, or are you saying they are more successful for some other reason?

Just like you, I do not know the reasons. But I can see, that Asian Americans are more successful than White Americans, and White Americans — more successful than Black ones. It is evidenced in disproportional college admittance, arrest-records and other measures.

Whatever the reasons, the results are indisputable. Calling me "racist" over this is as stupid as blaming someone for stating, Blacks have more melanin in their skin...

I see you only responded to my assertion

Once again, my person is not the topic of this — nor any other forum on /. Not yet, anyway. Turning the conversation onto the person of your opponent is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. You automatically lose whatever the debate was about...

See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?

Darling, I handed your sorry ass back to you so many times already, I'm surprised, it is not yet falling off on its own. Or maybe it does? That would explain a thing or two...

Seek help — your obsession with my person, however illustrious, has already lead you to stalking — it is not healthy...

I certainly will not encourage you any more.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Sorry, son, but society voted and you're wrong.

Ah, so "right" and "wrong" can be determined by popular vote now?

Is not that nice... All those committees voting for Pi to be "3" or for rejecting the theory of evolution are now vindicated, aren't they?

Your response is an example of Appeal to Authority: unable to defend the point yourself, you can only state, that some others support it. Fail.

what most don't understand is that threats to your freedoms do not come only from above, corrupt authority, but also from losers around you who abuse your freedoms out of malice or stupidity

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

The word "threat" has two entirely separate meanings: (1) a declaration of an intention, and (2) a risk or possibility of loss or trouble. The first is a speech act, the second is a state of nature. Try to understand the difference between these two fundamentally different meanings, then formulate a coherent statement of what you mean by "freedom" and how it is put at risk through speech acts. Be sure to look up and understand the different meanings of the word "freedom" as well.

Prepare for another culture-shock, my dear passport-less American. Tokyo has competing privately-owned subway lines. Japan's wonderful highspeed trains are privately-owned too.

Now, if a country introduced to free market capitalism (at gun-point) by America does not need socialized transit, why must America herself suffer it?

setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity

A strawman. Nobody claimed it to be a necessity. Good job scoring an imaginary point.

Smart urban planning

If a government is doing it, it can not be smart...

Isn't that a little contradictory?

Strawmen are often contradictory.

Third option: tell the person asking loaded questions to get lost. Assisting in the publishing of a written statement one knows to be false or malicious is already covered by defamation laws.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem.

It is your problem — you answered my challenge (for the second time in a month) and failed.

The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.

If it were this easy, you would've done it yourself long ago instead of extending this silly thread well beyond the point, where your inability to meet my challenge became painfully obvious.

you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says

I don't want to argue with somebody else's words — history of this very thread shows, how easy it is for you to throw other people statements under the proverbial bus:

• "Maslowski's colleagues didn't agree with him", you said,
• "Al Gore is an asshole" (dave420 implied — without any objections from you),
• "Viner was talking to a popular publication, rather than a peer-reviewed magazine" (as if it makes any difference)

— whatever. Like I said already, I don't want to think through an argument only to find myself attacking something you consider inconsequential...

When you asked for an example, I gave you some — summarizing both the failed predictions and their disproofs in my own words instead of simply referring you to other people's articles (of which there are plenty). Because to do otherwise — as seems your wont — is to appeal to authority.

You knew, what the "format" needs to be from the beginning. That you could not meet it is not my fault — it is your failure. Or, more likely, it is the failure of this belief, which you continue to call "science".

You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.

I'm not a scientist — nor do I need to be in order to be convinced (rather than compelled ) to do something about "the dangers of humanity's contribution to global warming". I am just a somewhat educated man, who knows of humanity's long history of fads and beliefs, and is aware of some of the scientific and philosophical mechanisms invented to help prevent our falling into the same holes and stepping on the same rakes again...

Well, it turns out that the protesters were 100% right on that one.

It only "turns out" that way, because those same people, who protested it back then, also run major media outlets. Do you suppose, that Time-magazine's reporter could've written: "We were all morons doing the bidding of America's enemies"?

No, the most you could get 10 years after he went protesting, was to admit, their protest was coordinated — though it is unclear by who...

Bush II and the neo-con war criminals

Please, what "war crimes" are you talking about? Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement of 1992 so many times, Clinton should've resumed shooting in his time. No, it was no "war crime". But let's not get too side-tracked...

much trouble beating Vladimir Putin in a global popularity contest

Every little bit counts. Like I said, Putin does not need a "win" — a "tie" would be sufficient. And Westerners have always been gullible — the generation calling Bush "war criminal" was raised by morons seriously equating Joseph McCarthy to Lavrenty Beria...

Or is it that invading a distant nation for its oil wealth

Ah, I should have known... Where there are "war crimes", "war for oil" can not be far behind — like Moon-landing denials it just would not die. For 10 years Saddam Hussein was prevented from selling his oil. All we had to do to get it was to agree to lifting the sanctions — which would've been much cheaper than war. Instead, we went after oil-tycoons for breaking the embargo.

Of course, it was "better" — for we didn't annex anything. But see, win an argument, just use a (false) tu quoque to tie your opponent. And you are now doing (or trying to do) the same to me...

peninsula that was recently part of Russia

Score another one for Kremlin! Last time Crimea was part of Russia was 1954 — or 60 years ago. Before that, in 1918, it was part of Ukraine (36 years earlier). So, which one was "recent"?

and is still full of Russians

It is just as full of ethnic Ukrainians now, but, more importantly, achieving that nice White appearance required ethnic cleansing it off Crimean Tatars, who were only allowed to return by the newly-independent Ukraine in 1990-ies. They are now in trouble again — suspected by the occupiers for their loyalty to Ukraine.

So what if it is "full of Russians"? Texas, Arizona, and California are full of Mexicans — would some new Santa Anna be justified invading those states and organizing a referendum?

Khrushchev should never have given it to Ukraine.

Yes, and Romanov should not have sold Alaska — did you just pre-emptively justify Russian invasion into US? Can Japan now use the example to take back Kuril Islands? Japanese special forces may be just as "polite" as Russians were in Crimea and, once the occupation succeeds, arranging a "referendum" i

Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top

Whose money? Who is to do the dumping?

This is what occurred in reality [...] upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s

In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"? He certainly is not denounced as such by bashers of RethugliKKKans... What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"? In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?

the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.

This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.

What leads you to these conclusions and can you substantiate them?

Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud — and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice. My demonstration would solidly support JDAustin's comment while planing the "insightful" AC, who tried to muddle the waters with a (false) tu quoque...

Stick to the physics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

If you have a specific concern, tell us.
Otherwise I think the radio stations that have been pumping out megawatts for over a century kinda trump a couple of milliwatts over less than half a meter.

I take apart logical fallacies, not make them.

O rly, because here is
yours.

If smokers should be charged more, then so should others who voluntarily engage in risky behaviors, such as engaging in promiscuous unprotected sex. No one *has* to do that, it's a lifestyle choice in the same way smoking is.

Your special pleading does not establish a consistent rationale why tobacco users should be singled out vs other risk modifiers.

And a non sequitar to boot.

I take apart logical fallacies, not make them. The point about helmets and planes is a direct response to the "we're all gonna die anyway" non-response to the impact of smoking on health.

There is no need for the digital situation this argument always turns into, between attempts to prolong life as long as possible, by seeking out and elminating all risk, and acting completely recklessly.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you have both a Straw Man and a Slippery Slope in there. No one is proposing to "eliminate all risk", and efforts to reduce smoking will no more lead to the state micro-managing your bacon consumption than seat belt laws did.

And a non sequitar to boot.

I take apart logical fallacies, not make them. The point about helmets and planes is a direct response to the "we're all gonna die anyway" non-response to the impact of smoking on health.

There is no need for the digital situation this argument always turns into, between attempts to prolong life as long as possible, by seeking out and elminating all risk, and acting completely recklessly.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you have both a Straw Man and a Slippery Slope in there. No one is proposing to "eliminate all risk", and efforts to reduce smoking will no more lead to the state micro-managing your bacon consumption than seat belt laws did.

Your point is what is weak.

You wish. Note the example they chose to use.

I fugure we've taken this about as far as it can go, eh?

It never went anywhere. Argument-by-anecdote is a non-starter.

Nellie is an elephant. Nellie is pink. Therefore, elephants are pink.

Obama is black. Obama is president. Therefore all presidents are black.

John Smith is a Catholic priest. John Smith was a pedophile who molested kids. Therefore, all priests are pedophiles.

Aunt Nellie smoked. Aunt Nellie lived to 80. Therefore, smokers live to 80.

Uncle Jack never smoked. Uncle Jack died from an heart attack at age 52. Therefore, not smoking causes heart attacks.

Or are anecdotes....just anecdotes?

Lacking a remedial understanding of logical fallacies, are you? Their choice of anecdote to lampoon is an added bonus.

Its starts with terror and kidding porn, next comes online casinos that don't have a license from the french government, follow by online BitCoin & alternate currencies web sites the government will claim are being used to avoid paying taxes

I always find it interesting to see how the geek frames his "slippery slope" arguments.

"Kidding porn" is a new one to me.

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

slippery slope

Sorry, but no. It's not a fallacy if I'm not using fact of your hypocrisy as an argument. Which I wasn't. And you know it.

Your decision to imply that I was, on the other hand...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

So we should kill 6+ billion people? Are you fucking insane?

That's a strawman argument.

Killing people was not suggested. Are you insane?

The easiest way to reduce population "in few hundred years" is to reduce the birth rate slightly.

I use this logical fallacy poster all the time, it has "black or white" listed as "presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist." I really enjoy using it on Fox "News" supporters, quickly pointing out the light of fallacies after every Bill O'reilly show. That man is the MASTER of logical fallacies.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

That's because you also don't know what "begging the question" means.

I can see from your posts that you're a big Obama fan. Too bad you can't back him up with anything other than ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you should take that as a clue that you might be wrong...

It's old fashioned ad-hominem as used by big business since capitalism and PR began. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... It isn't effective at countering the critical journalism per se but it gives the pro-corporate, pro-silicon valley media something to distract us from the real issues.

Just for you, since you're not interested in an actual education:

Why I roll my eyes when I read your replies

Now go and sin no more!

Cn anyone reasonably argue that having a system highly secure for non-technical users with easy workarounds for actually technical users is a bad compromise? The people who are not technical need all the help they can get.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Also - couldn't you actually just sign the drivers that are needed for trim? What prevents that?

The problem seems to be that Apple's driver takes over handling of these drives while at the same time refusing to TRIM them. If a third party could circumvent it, it would only mean that Apple's driver signing is useless.

Irrelevant. Public sector workers are subject to abuse, just as private sector workers are. They both need and deserve union representation and collective bargaining.

Public sector workers have protections that workers in private industry don't, such as the many protections in civil service.

Historically workers in the public sector have had more stable jobs with fairly good benefits (such as generous vacation) even if they had slightly lower pay. Now public sector unions have inflated wages and benefits for the public sector so that they increasingly have greater stability, better benefits, and equal or higher wages than similar jobs in the private sector.

Public sector unions have long had a powerful influence in politics, influencing both the taxes that pay their wages and policy.