Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 17:22:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2019 20:15:27 GMT -5
LOL! At the end, the narrator says "If you want to fight Fascism, move left."
You mean like the Soviets did? They found a fast way to make people "equal." They murdered all of the rich.
Of course, EQUALITY was very important to the Soviets. I' sure all those stories about Communist Party members getting special treatment were just viscous rumors spread by mean Capitalists.
So much for "Equality."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 14:17:34 GMT -5
Do you have anything to say about the other 21 minutes of the video?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 7, 2019 23:04:01 GMT -5
Do you have anything to say about the other 21 minutes of the video?
Yes. The video comes to a totally wrong conclusion. Therefore the other 21 minutes gives a faulty argument.
Oh the video's creator says some true things. But then he sprinkles in clear mistakes. Capitalis is like a pyramid where most people are on the lower levels? Well Whoopie Do! So is every other system.
What the narrator fails to mention is that in a free market system, people aren't restricted to being in one level all their lives.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 3:36:29 GMT -5
Do you have anything to say about the other 21 minutes of the video?
Yes. The video comes to a totally wrong conclusion. Therefore the other 21 minutes gives a faulty argument. Non sequitur. A wrong conclusion does not mean that the argument was faulty. Also, you haven't shown that the conclusion was wrong in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 20:44:10 GMT -5
Yes. The video comes to a totally wrong conclusion. Therefore the other 21 minutes gives a faulty argument. Non sequitur. A wrong conclusion does not mean that the argument was faulty. Also, you haven't shown that the conclusion was wrong in the first place.
Then it means his premises are faulty.
And what do you mean that his conclusion wasn't wrong? Going left leads to Communism and we all know how that turned out.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 20:58:10 GMT -5
Non sequitur. A wrong conclusion does not mean that the argument was faulty. Also, you haven't shown that the conclusion was wrong in the first place. Then it means his premises are faulty. And what do you mean that his conclusion wasn't wrong? Going left leads to Communism and we all know how that turned out. Bob
That's an unsupported assertion on your part, not his conclusion. Also, how come that you still haven't said anything about the other 99% of the video? Did you even watch the video? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 22:23:31 GMT -5
Then it means his premises are faulty.
And what do you mean that his conclusion wasn't wrong? Going left leads to Communism and we all know how that turned out.
Bob
That's an unsupported assertion on your part, not his conclusion. LOL! Of course it wasn't his conclusion that going to the left can lead to Communism (aka Red Fascism). But it is still true. I've been busy with all of your other posts. What your author does is start out with a story that sounds perfectly normal and logical and then he slips in some claims that are not quite accurate (such as his claims on stratification). Eventually thes little errors add up and make his final conclusion false. I will have more time to see the video later in the week and give further details.
Interesting side note: Did you happen to notice which studio made the video? It was Patreon.
It's a private company working in the Free Market.  Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 0:28:34 GMT -5
I will have more time to see the video later in the week and give further details. Please do so. I'm in no rush, and I prefer longer well thought out discussions to rapid fire back and forths with no substance. Patreon.com is a crowdfunding website, not a studio. The author is making these videos with funds that fans are donating. This is a fairly common way to produce videos on Youtube (and other stuff on the internet) these days. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 9, 2019 16:23:40 GMT -5
Patreon.com is a crowdfunding website, not a studio. The author is making these videos with funds that fans are donating. This is a fairly common way to produce videos on Youtube (and other stuff on the internet) these days. Yep. The good old Free Market strikes again with no government involvement. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 3:40:25 GMT -5
So, in his characterization of conservative market-based ideology, is there anything he got particularly wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 12:50:49 GMT -5
So, in his characterization of conservative market-based ideology, is there anything he got particularly wrong?
Plenty.
"The general tendency of Capitalism" is towards "concentration."
What the author fails to note is that the companies that go to the top don't stay there permanently. For example, General Motors used to make 2 out of every 3 cars produced in the USA. Now they are an also-ran.
Sears used to dominate retail. They are now on the verge of bankruptcy.
Kodak used to dominate film manufacture and Xerox photocopy machines. Where are they now? Not anywhere near the top, that's for sure.
"Anyone can get to the top, but not everyone can."
That assumes that everyone has to be at the top to be happy. Not so. That's why Karl Marx was wrong. Yes, the rich did get richer. But so did the poor!
"You beat someone else to it."
Oh gee! Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos beat me to becoming a billionaire! I'm so sad...NOT. Personally, I'm lazy. As long as I have enough for rent, food, and a little extra left over, I'm fine.
"Power has to be earned."
So? Would he rather that power be unearned?
"Honor in being in you own place."
That's Feudalism. Apparently the author never heard of social mobility.
"Most conservatives are white."
Yes, he finally placed the race card. Since most conservatives are white, why this can only mean that they are racists who are afraid of black people "taking over." Then how does he explain Black conservatives?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 18:48:09 GMT -5
So, in his characterization of conservative market-based ideology, is there anything he got particularly wrong? Plenty. "The general tendency of Capitalism" is towards "concentration." What the author fails to note is that the companies that go to the top don't stay there permanently. For example, General Motors used to make 2 out of every 3 cars produced in the USA. Now they are an also-ran. Where do you have that information from? According to their Wikipedia entry: "As of 2018, General Motors is ranked #10 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue." That's a Red Herring. This isn't about the quest for eternal bliss, but about how wealth is being distributed. It's interesting that you do think that not everyone can be rich, therefore agreeing with his premise, but nevertheless try to make it look as if you disagreed with it in any way. Yes, that's exactly his point: In conservative thought, some are meant to be "sharks", and some are meant to be "minnows", and the minnows are supposed to be happy in their place. Congratulations on being a happy minnow, you were never meant to be a shark.  The implication being, of course, that whoever is currently in power has earned it (as long as they are of the "correct" political ideology and tax bracket, of course) "Social mobility" implies that you want your life to be better than it currently is, which you have already refuted with your speech about not caring about your lot in life as long as you get food and shelter. That's not the attitude of a man who wanted to advance his social standing in this life. Interestingly enough, America has worse social mobility than most European countries (with the exception of Italy and the UK).How does the existence of black conservatives refute that most conservatives are white? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 21:15:25 GMT -5
Plenty. "The general tendency of Capitalism" is towards "concentration." What the author fails to note is that the companies that go to the top don't stay there permanently. For example, General Motors used to make 2 out of every 3 cars produced in the USA. Now they are an also-ran. Where do you have that information from? According to their Wikipedia entry: "As of 2018, General Motors is ranked #10 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue." LOL! You have a short memory. General Motors was ready to file for Bankruptcy in 2008. The United Auto Workers Union used their political pull to have the government intervene to save the company (and the jobs of their members). And the proper measure of a company's success is its market share. Here is the market share of GM: "The year 2000 marked a turning point in the US auto industry: it was the last year that General Motors and Ford Motor Company combined made up at least 50 percent of the US market share. GM’s share of the US market has decreased almost 3 times since its peak of 50.7 percent in 1962, falling to 17 percent in 2016. Ford Motor Company’s market share has likewise fallen but relatively less, from a high of 29.3 percent in 1961 to 14.6 percent in 2016. Asian auto manufacturing giants Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been behind most of the market erosion of traditional US manufacturers. Toyota was an early mover, capturing American hearts with Lexus, its luxury business model. In 1980, Toyota’s market share was a mere 6.6 percent; by 2009, it reached 16.7 percent. Then, entered Infiniti Nissan, which nearly tripled its market share from 2.8 in 1978 to 8.8 in 2016, somewhat at the expense of Toyota. It is interesting to note the stability of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), which unlike the other American classics, has for 55 years maintained a market position in the range of 10.5 to 13.5 percent." knoema.com/floslle/top-vehicle-manufacturers-in-the-us-market-1961-2016That's a Red Herring. This isn't about the quest for eternal bliss, but about how wealth is being distributed.[/quote] Yes. It's being distributed to those who earn it. Wrong. Not everyone really wants to be rich. It takes a lot of effort you know. "Sharks?" "Minnows?" The author is using Loaded Language. He doesn't want you to like rich people, so he calls them "sharks" because sharks are ruthless. Everyone else is a minnow because they are so tiny and cute. The joke is on him though because minnows can also be ruthless. Did you know that there is a minnow group called "Killfish?" In other words, the author is not being honest here. If he were, he wouldn't use such loaded terms. Nope. I never said that. Plenty of idiots get political power. But this is true of ANY system. It's as true in your Social Democracies as it is in the USA. Yes. And that's my personal choice. But because of social mobility, people who want to change their situation can change. Apparently you didn't do enough research. I found a different study also in Wikipedia: "A large academic study released in 2014 found US mobility overall has not changed appreciably in the last 25 years (for children born between 1971 and 1996), but a variety of up and down mobility changes were found in several different parts of the country. On average, American children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s."[11][12]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_StatesActually, there are over 3 times as many white people as black people en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#RaceTherefore you would expect there to be more white people in most groups. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 22:52:48 GMT -5
Where do you have that information from? According to their Wikipedia entry: "As of 2018, General Motors is ranked #10 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue." LOL! You have a short memory. General Motors was ready to file for Bankruptcy in 2008. The United Auto Workers Union used their political pull to have the government intervene to save the company (and the jobs of their members). And the proper measure of a company's success is its market share. Asian auto manufacturing giants Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been behind most of the market erosion of traditional US manufacturers. [...] So what we have here is GM's share of the global market being absorbed by manufacturing giants i.e. large companies are eating one another's market shares, rather than big companies collapsing to leave the market to smaller ones as you claimed; in other words, a concentration of global market shares. That's a tautology. Of course earning money means gaining money. Not for everyone. For example, Donald Trump only needed to be born in order to become rich. You are argueing about the tone of the argument, rather than adressing the argument itself. This is what you said: Yes, "plenty of idiots"; not the correct people from the correct backgrounds with the correct beliefs, i.e. wealthy conservatives who think the market sorts people correctly, and democracy sorts people incorrectly. But of course, not everyone can change just because they want to. The market decides whether you've got the right stuff to change your social status. You were too stupid and too lazy to change, so you have to be content with a little bit of food on your plate and a roof above your head. You are lucky to have that, as a minnow. If you had wanted more, you would've had to be a shark. .... which doesn't refute anything I wrote. And therefore conservatives can't be racist? What is this supposed to prove? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 19, 2019 0:32:19 GMT -5
LOL! You have a short memory. General Motors was ready to file for Bankruptcy in 2008. The United Auto Workers Union used their political pull to have the government intervene to save the company (and the jobs of their members). And the proper measure of a company's success is its market share. Asian auto manufacturing giants Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been behind most of the market erosion of traditional US manufacturers. [...] So what we have here is GM's share of the global market being absorbed by manufacturing giants i.e. large companies are eating one another's market shares, rather than big companies collapsing to leave the market to smaller ones as you claimed; in other words, a concentration of global market shares. Those "Big Companies" weren't always big. For example, Honda started out by putting motors on bicycles and selling them as motor-bikes. Over the years, Honda's market share kept rising while GM's kept falling Red Herring. We are talking about distribution here. In a Free Market more money is distributed to those who earn it. There are plenty of people who were born rich and managed to loose it all. Huntington Hartford managed to blow over 30 million dollars. He wasted his whole fortune. Only one last trust fund kept him from poverty. There used to be a saying: "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations." The first generation makes money. Their children squander their inheritance. The grandchildren have to go back to work again. Can you picture how prevalent this had to be for it to become a popular saying? Wrong. That's not a tone. The author is calling the people he doesn't like bad names to prejudice the reader. And that IS his argument here. Wait a minute. Exactly how does "democracy" sort people correctly? Exactly what sort of "democratic" programs are doing the sorting? Not stupid. Just lazy. I have more than a little bit of food on my plate. I don't have to force myself to be content with what I have. I have the kind of life I want. And I am content. But this isn't about just me. It's about which system is best. No, but it raises a question as to its accuracy. Here is a report that has different data. Which one is correct? It demonstrates that your author didn't correct for the different sizes of the groups he was talking about. Therefore his conclusions here are suspect. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:53:43 GMT -5
So what we have here is GM's share of the global market being absorbed by manufacturing giants i.e. large companies are eating one another's market shares, rather than big companies collapsing to leave the market to smaller ones as you claimed; in other words, a concentration of global market shares. Those "Big Companies" weren't always big. And neither was GM, back when automobiles were an emergent market. That was almost a century ago, however. This doesn't change the fact that in the current automobile market, big companies are only getting smaller when they are eaten by other big companies. Yes, in the 1930s, when motorbikes were an emerging market. By 1959, they were already the world's largest producer of motorbikes. And as I said, that's a tautology. Which is completely irrelevant to your argument that becoming rich is hard, which it isn't if you're already born rich. Yes, that is literally a tone argument. You are complaining that he is using mean words, rather than adressing the content of his argument. It doesn't, according to conservative thinking. As the video explains, according to that belief system, only the market puts the correct people at the top and the bottom respectively. Democracy is largely a tool to shield markets from leftist policy. If you say so. No, it really isn't. It's about explaining the mindset of conservatives and their approach to social problems as fundamentally distinct from the mindset of leftists. So far, you haven't been argueing that he was wrong in this, only that you feel insulted by his choice of metaphor and his insinuation that your belief system turns you into a heartless racist. Which is understandable and valid, but not a proper argument against his claims. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 0:56:07 GMT -5
Those "Big Companies" weren't always big. And neither was GM, back when automobiles were an emergent market. That was almost a century ago, however. This doesn't change the fact that in the current automobile market, big companies are only getting smaller when they are eaten by other big companies. Actually, there are 10 new automobile companies that have been started in the last few years. www.nbcnews.com/id/40887273/ns/business-autos/t/new-car-companies-aiming-big-leagues/#.XLquI6R7m1sWrong. Honda was started in 1949. www.honda.com/history No. That's simply a description of how the Free Market works. How can a description of how something works be a tautology? But I wasn't talking about that here. I was giving this as an example of how social mobility can be reversed if you don't work to maintain your wealth. Mean Words ARE the content of the author's argument. His claim here is nothing more than an Ad Hominem. Red Herring. I didn't ask about Conservative thinking. I asked about "Democratic" thinking. Your author makes the claim that "democracy" can sort rewards more fairly. But he doesn't explain how and he doesn't explain why this alleged "democratic" system can do a better job. Yep. You can have a nice life being lazy if you take a little time to set it up correctly. You start by finding work that you love and that you can do by yourself. No bosses. Straw Man. Actually I haven't been arguing that at all. My argument is that the author's main "argument" is nothing more than subtle Ad Hominems. And you are right. His claims are nothing more than an unsupported "insinuation." Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 11:16:07 GMT -5
Bob, the presence of insulting language or insinuations does not make an argument an ad hominem argument.
Ad hominems are fallacious reasoning along the lines of "you are a bad person, therefore your arguments are wrong". This is fallacious because rests on the unspoken premise that morally bad people always have incorrect opinions, which is wrong.
But that is not what the author of the video is doing. He does not even make that kind of moral judgement.
Sharks and minnows are fish, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the existence of sharks in an ocean.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 12:55:38 GMT -5
Bob, the presence of insulting language or insinuations does not make an argument an ad hominem argument.
Ad hominems are fallacious reasoning along the lines of "you are a bad person, therefore your arguments are wrong". This is fallacious because rests on the unspoken premise that morally bad people always have incorrect opinions, which is wrong.
But that is not what the author of the video is doing. He does not even make that kind of moral judgement.
Sharks and minnows are fish, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the existence of sharks in an ocean.
McAnswer, when you put a pejorative label on someone during a discussion, you are making an Ad Hominem Fallacy.
Calling someone a "shark" implies that they are a ruthless killer. Calling someone a "minnow" implies that they are like a cute, defenseless little fish.
Your author is not talking about fish in the ocean. He is talking about human beings and he is slandering some people as "sharks." He is also trying to claim that poor people are no more than helpless little minnows. He is trying to make his point by name-calling, not by giving a factual argument.
The fact that he is doing this in a subtle way does not make his claims any less of an Ad Hominem.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:20:53 GMT -5
Bob, the presence of insulting language or insinuations does not make an argument an ad hominem argument.
Ad hominems are fallacious reasoning along the lines of "you are a bad person, therefore your arguments are wrong". This is fallacious because rests on the unspoken premise that morally bad people always have incorrect opinions, which is wrong.
But that is not what the author of the video is doing. He does not even make that kind of moral judgement. Sharks and minnows are fish, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the existence of sharks in an ocean.
McAnswer, when you put a pejorative label on someone during a discussion, you are making an Ad Hominem Fallacy. No you don't. Read up on the definition of the Ad Hominem Fallacy: aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdfBeing offensive is not a logical fallacy, no matter how much you're feeling offended. Actually, sharks are anything but ruthless killers. Contrary to popular belief, most sharks aren't aggressive and won't attack humans. Correct. Since he is not making ad hominem arguments in the first place, it is irrelevant how subtle he is about it. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 14:59:26 GMT -5
McAnswer, when you put a pejorative label on someone during a discussion, you are making an Ad Hominem Fallacy. No you don't. Read up on the definition of the Ad Hominem Fallacy: aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdfBeing offensive is not a logical fallacy, no matter how much you're feeling offended. But attacking either the person making the argument or the subject of the argument is a logical fallacy. "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemRed Herring. The author is not discussing actual sharks. He is using "shark" as a metaphor. images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrE1xVfd7tckZIAdAhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyY3VucDBuBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4MjFfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=shark+metaphors+examples&fr=yfp-t-sAlso, by that logic, when the Nazis called the Jews "rats" they weren't making an Ad Hominem either, right? After all, "being offended is not a logical fallacy, no matter how much you're feeling offended." Therefore when the Nazis called the Jews "rats", they weren't making an Ad Hominem either. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 15:33:18 GMT -5
But attacking either the person making the argument or the subject of the argument is a logical fallacy. "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemSo please demonstrate how the author was avoiding "genuine discussion of the topic at hand by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Because so far, it appears to be you who is "avoiding genuine discussion" by attacking the author's character and motive. Red Herring. Nobody is calling conservatives "rats" or using their alleged vermin-like behavior as excuse to build to a genocide, which is what the Nazis did. You, on the other hand, are consistently avoiding to engage with the author's argument by complaining about the mean words he uses. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2019 18:15:23 GMT -5
But attacking either the person making the argument or the subject of the argument is a logical fallacy. "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemSo please demonstrate how the author was avoiding "genuine discussion of the topic at hand by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Because so far, it appears to be you who is "avoiding genuine discussion" by attacking the author's character and motive. I posted that Wikipedia excerpt because I thought you would read it. Apparently you didn't. It clearly includeds persons associated with the argument in the definition of Ad Hominem. Rich people are part of the author's argument. He calls them "sharks" to make it appear that simply being rich automatically makes you a vicious predator. Oh BTW, I was not attacking the author's character and motive. What I was attacking were his false and illogical methods. Not a Red Herring at all. Of course he doesn't call rich people "rats." That would be too obvious. Instead he calls them "sharks" likening them to predators. Your author used a loaded term and not a neutral one. Mean words ARE his "argument." Bob |
|
