Which is, again, why we'll probably just keep someone awake for 3 days while we scream at them and hit them under the arms with a phonebook until they talk.
So if it's the government doing it then it's proof government is evil. If it's not the government doing it... then it's still the government doing it and it's proof government is evil.
#2 is the classic loaded question, just like asking "Is it true you no longer beat your wife" and trying to force a yes or no: there's no safe answer. No matter which you pick you're sticking your foot into a significant implication, the only safe answer is to subvert the entire question by directly addressing the fallacy itself: "That's a trick question, I have NEVER beaten my wife".
That's JUST the federal income tax, doesn't count how much they got back, ignores all other taxes, and ignores the more important comparison of that tax burden (including how much is returned or hidden) as compared to their level of income.
The top 1% pays a maximum of 35% federal income tax, control very nearly 50% of all wealth in the country, and the highest tax bracket has been steadily decreasing for quite a while. In 1944 it was 64% for those making $1M in income.
And that's how you can tell that most of the arguments where people trot out that tired old statement are bullshit. The only group of people that have consistently paid barely any taxes and consistently voted themselves better treatment from the government are the filthy rich.
Oh how cute, you actually still think the Big Bad Gubmint wolf is trying to huff and puff and blow down the free market rather than the filthy rich corporations colluding with each other to ensure there's only the illusion of one despite the government's best efforts to actually protect the free market.
Go take a look at europe's cell market, that's what you get when your government actually protects the free market from the inherently destructive force of corporations with so much money they can afford to break the law.
The "Free Market" is just as much a logical fallacy as the "Worker's Paradise", and for the exact same reason: They both inherently require perfect people that behave perfectly.
And historically "let" has been used to mean hindering, and is still used that way in a specific subset of academia.
You're trying to argue that it's "wrong" in some way to use the phrase "begs the question" to mean what it says on it's face just because it's also the nickname for something else based on an approximate latin translation. That doesn't work, if that logic held true then it would be virtually impossible to say ANYTHING because, as with my example based on the word "let", just about everything has meant something else at some point to at least some group or another.
And if YOU want to be right you need to actually present an argument to begin with instead of just saying "Well I'm right because I say I'm right, and therefore nobody else's arguments are relevant because I can't be wrong". That's not only a logical fallacy, it's also arrogance bordering on being a living example of the downsides of solipsism.
So again I say: For someone who seems so obsessed with this particular logical fallacy's name I would expect you to be able to actually make an argument rather than apparently going down wikipedia's list of fallacies and trying out anything that sounds like it might work.
First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.
Both require the assumption that the non-standard definition of a word is the only possible correct definition. One is an archaic definition from previous versions of a language, the other is non-standard jargon that probably isn't even the most accurate translation of the original latin (see also: split infinitives in a language where infinitives are not a single word like in latin).
Actually it's even simpler than that. The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.
If that assertion is accepted then my assertion that "letting" means hindering rather than permitting must also be accepted.
Both rely on non-dictionary uses of a given word. Saying that something "begs the question" to mean that something "desperately asks the question" is no less grammatically correct than saying that someone "lets him get away with murder" and meaning that they permitted behavior rather than hindered it.
It's not any more ethically wrong than anything else. The REAL problem are those "YOU HAVE A VIRUS CLICK HERE" fake-windows webpages. Even if you know better sometimes finding a way out can be tricky because the fuckers have started opening "OK" boxes over where you'd normally click to close the window.
Yes, we did, in fact we had an UTTERLY free market. The government did just about fuck all back then except enforce...
A) The gold standard, used for a good while but truly made universal with the Gold Standard act of 1900, jright around when most of the worst of what I listed occurred. By the way how would you plan to solve the problem of gold scarcity? Do you plan on enforcing some kind of population limit? We went off the gold standard partially because there just wasn't enough gold. Also not as an argument but just a note: the term you are looking for is Fiat money, paper money originally was just a reciept for gold and you can have fiat coinage as well.
B) White males had this, and except for the usual exception of the top few percentage points most of them had the same problems. In fact the only reason the Triange Shirtwaist factory fire even made the news was because it was women and the cultural image of women back then.
C) This is a joke right? Saying this is like saying you'd like it if we just had world peace, magically, without doing anything, and then you expect someone to actually list in detail every reason why that won't happen...
D) So in other words you want exactly what you're arguing against? When the government says no to monopolies they say no to fraud and force, a monopoly destroys the free market by destroying the ability to choose and thus being able to perpetrate of force or fraud it wants due to a lack of alternatives, especially if it's either a necessary monopoly or one so wide-reaching you can't even tell where it begins and ends.
"Of course there are consequences"
You dream. In your fantasy free market there's nothing to stop your boss from holding you under wage slavery to begin with, or finding some other way of harming you to prevent you from leaving or out of spite afterwards. Unless of course you hypocritically want the government to get involved.
"Standard Oil needed to keep prices low to keep up its near monopoly..."
No, only long enough to destroy the local competition and then it jacked prices up to far higher than they were before. If anyone tried to start up competition then they would be crushed any number of ways, which is why your arguments in favor of Standard Oil are hypocritical and openly contradict point "D". one of the primary means of running a monopoly IS fraud and force, Standard oil used everything from bribery and blackmail to open force against opponents.
On top of this your argument about any beneficial effects are, like most of the rest of your arguments, driven by an utter lack of factual knowledge: The Automotive Revolution began AFTER the breakup of Standard Oil with the development of the assembly line.
... I can't even begin to argue with that post... because it is a decimal place away from being in it's entirety a work of fiction. There's no one thing that I can start with when your WHOLE POST is just factually wrong in nearly every possible way.
The only two thing that you don't have factually wrong are the 19th amendment and that the national guard was involved, but even then you've somehow managed to twist that into sounding like support for your argument that if everyone can do anything everything will magically be perfect.
Don't you get it, we had exactly that for several hundred years and those were the results. you can't just say "Well they did it wrong" and claim it will work if we try it again, that's no different than claiming communism didn't work because "Well they did it wrong".
Go read a history textbook and come back when you actually have any sort of clue about what you're talking about, especially when you spout utterly made up nonsense like people just magically leaving their jobs with no consequences or standard oil "[keeping] the price of oil down" being a "very good thing because it helped the other businesses".
Unless of course you think the vast majority of history textbooks are part of some kind of conspiracy in which case enjoy your tinfoil hat and have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Do you also bitch about boxing not being called "Punchface" and Lacrosse not being referred to as something similar to "Net-stick-ball"?
Which is, again, why we'll probably just keep someone awake for 3 days while we scream at them and hit them under the arms with a phonebook until they talk.
Simple nationalism?
Well maybe if you didn't beat her she wouldn't have left you, you insensitive clod!
No, you're claiming that.
So if it's the government doing it then it's proof government is evil. If it's not the government doing it... then it's still the government doing it and it's proof government is evil.
I think I've seen this kind of argument before.
#2 is the classic loaded question, just like asking "Is it true you no longer beat your wife" and trying to force a yes or no: there's no safe answer. No matter which you pick you're sticking your foot into a significant implication, the only safe answer is to subvert the entire question by directly addressing the fallacy itself: "That's a trick question, I have NEVER beaten my wife".
I can play that game too: ya rly.
That's JUST the federal income tax, doesn't count how much they got back, ignores all other taxes, and ignores the more important comparison of that tax burden (including how much is returned or hidden) as compared to their level of income.
The top 1% pays a maximum of 35% federal income tax, control very nearly 50% of all wealth in the country, and the highest tax bracket has been steadily decreasing for quite a while. In 1944 it was 64% for those making $1M in income.
Ironic post considering that American Third Position is a White Nationalist party.
And that's how you can tell that most of the arguments where people trot out that tired old statement are bullshit. The only group of people that have consistently paid barely any taxes and consistently voted themselves better treatment from the government are the filthy rich.
Oh how cute, you actually still think the Big Bad Gubmint wolf is trying to huff and puff and blow down the free market rather than the filthy rich corporations colluding with each other to ensure there's only the illusion of one despite the government's best efforts to actually protect the free market.
Go take a look at europe's cell market, that's what you get when your government actually protects the free market from the inherently destructive force of corporations with so much money they can afford to break the law.
The "Free Market" is just as much a logical fallacy as the "Worker's Paradise", and for the exact same reason: They both inherently require perfect people that behave perfectly.
"Where markets are competitive"
You do realise we're talking about America, right?
And historically "let" has been used to mean hindering, and is still used that way in a specific subset of academia.
You're trying to argue that it's "wrong" in some way to use the phrase "begs the question" to mean what it says on it's face just because it's also the nickname for something else based on an approximate latin translation. That doesn't work, if that logic held true then it would be virtually impossible to say ANYTHING because, as with my example based on the word "let", just about everything has meant something else at some point to at least some group or another.
And if YOU want to be right you need to actually present an argument to begin with instead of just saying "Well I'm right because I say I'm right, and therefore nobody else's arguments are relevant because I can't be wrong". That's not only a logical fallacy, it's also arrogance bordering on being a living example of the downsides of solipsism.
So again I say: For someone who seems so obsessed with this particular logical fallacy's name I would expect you to be able to actually make an argument rather than apparently going down wikipedia's list of fallacies and trying out anything that sounds like it might work.
So in other words not only are you right because you say so, but there can't even be any argument... also because you say so?
For someone so obsessed with a logical fallacy you seem to have difficulty in not using them yourself.
First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.
Both require the assumption that the non-standard definition of a word is the only possible correct definition. One is an archaic definition from previous versions of a language, the other is non-standard jargon that probably isn't even the most accurate translation of the original latin (see also: split infinitives in a language where infinitives are not a single word like in latin).
I think it would be more effective at blinding everyone nearby and possibly starting a fire when it hits a reflective surface.
Actually it's even simpler than that. The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.
If that assertion is accepted then my assertion that "letting" means hindering rather than permitting must also be accepted.
Both rely on non-dictionary uses of a given word. Saying that something "begs the question" to mean that something "desperately asks the question" is no less grammatically correct than saying that someone "lets him get away with murder" and meaning that they permitted behavior rather than hindered it.
Get some old Model M's, there's a reasonable chance they'll survive.
It's not any more ethically wrong than anything else. The REAL problem are those "YOU HAVE A VIRUS CLICK HERE" fake-windows webpages. Even if you know better sometimes finding a way out can be tricky because the fuckers have started opening "OK" boxes over where you'd normally click to close the window.
That depends. If we were limited to choosing domestic automobiles then Italy's exchange rate would fuck us.
Yeah that ~90% market share isn't really a monopoly...
Which is what I started out with addressing. A "Free Market" and a "Worker's Paradise" both require the same thing: Perfect People.
A "Free Market" requires that everyone behave perfectly, and a "Worker's Paradise" requires everyone legislate AND behave perfectly.
They're both the same logical fallacy taken in a different direction.
Yes, we did, in fact we had an UTTERLY free market. The government did just about fuck all back then except enforce...
A) The gold standard, used for a good while but truly made universal with the Gold Standard act of 1900, jright around when most of the worst of what I listed occurred. By the way how would you plan to solve the problem of gold scarcity? Do you plan on enforcing some kind of population limit? We went off the gold standard partially because there just wasn't enough gold. Also not as an argument but just a note: the term you are looking for is Fiat money, paper money originally was just a reciept for gold and you can have fiat coinage as well.
B) White males had this, and except for the usual exception of the top few percentage points most of them had the same problems. In fact the only reason the Triange Shirtwaist factory fire even made the news was because it was women and the cultural image of women back then.
C) This is a joke right? Saying this is like saying you'd like it if we just had world peace, magically, without doing anything, and then you expect someone to actually list in detail every reason why that won't happen...
D) So in other words you want exactly what you're arguing against? When the government says no to monopolies they say no to fraud and force, a monopoly destroys the free market by destroying the ability to choose and thus being able to perpetrate of force or fraud it wants due to a lack of alternatives, especially if it's either a necessary monopoly or one so wide-reaching you can't even tell where it begins and ends.
"Of course there are consequences"
You dream. In your fantasy free market there's nothing to stop your boss from holding you under wage slavery to begin with, or finding some other way of harming you to prevent you from leaving or out of spite afterwards. Unless of course you hypocritically want the government to get involved.
"Standard Oil needed to keep prices low to keep up its near monopoly..."
No, only long enough to destroy the local competition and then it jacked prices up to far higher than they were before. If anyone tried to start up competition then they would be crushed any number of ways, which is why your arguments in favor of Standard Oil are hypocritical and openly contradict point "D". one of the primary means of running a monopoly IS fraud and force, Standard oil used everything from bribery and blackmail to open force against opponents.
On top of this your argument about any beneficial effects are, like most of the rest of your arguments, driven by an utter lack of factual knowledge: The Automotive Revolution began AFTER the breakup of Standard Oil with the development of the assembly line.
... I can't even begin to argue with that post... because it is a decimal place away from being in it's entirety a work of fiction. There's no one thing that I can start with when your WHOLE POST is just factually wrong in nearly every possible way.
The only two thing that you don't have factually wrong are the 19th amendment and that the national guard was involved, but even then you've somehow managed to twist that into sounding like support for your argument that if everyone can do anything everything will magically be perfect.
Don't you get it, we had exactly that for several hundred years and those were the results. you can't just say "Well they did it wrong" and claim it will work if we try it again, that's no different than claiming communism didn't work because "Well they did it wrong".
Go read a history textbook and come back when you actually have any sort of clue about what you're talking about, especially when you spout utterly made up nonsense like people just magically leaving their jobs with no consequences or standard oil "[keeping] the price of oil down" being a "very good thing because it helped the other businesses".
Unless of course you think the vast majority of history textbooks are part of some kind of conspiracy in which case enjoy your tinfoil hat and have a nice day.