Shopsmith Forums

BuckeyeDennis wrote:See "poisoning the well", an informal logical fallacy. Unfortunately, often an effective strategy for unduly influencing people who don't recognize it for what it is. Usage reaches epidemic proportions amongst politicians and "talking heads" on TV.

Remember the old Point/Counterpoint spoof on Saturday Night Live? Dan Aykroyd would regularly begin his response to Jane Curtin with a resounding "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

I find it interesting(enlightening?) that the rules of logic are so often mangled in the courtroom by lawyers(who else?) with 'how often do you beat your wife?" questions etc..

That and implied conclusions that are contrary to given premises
(evidence).



I think logic should be taught in pre school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D




BTW, the olympic circles are not a Venn diagram!:rolleyes:

steve4447 wrote:I'm guessing you don't like Cops very much... "a goon with a badge.".But this is a free country and you can hate anyone that you want to...

I will be convinced of your sincerity when you chose to not call the.."goon with a badge"..When the bad guys are intruding on you ...You know like in that part of town ..The one you never go because the bad guys control it...

You're not winning any points with your ad-hominem attack.

As for helping people, I'll give the microphone to Penn Jillette:

That's nice Heath. We need more folks who think like you here in New York.

Eddie

Well, I'm sorry I started this thread. Some observations were valid but things seem to have gone south (downhill). So, I apologize abjectly to all members of this forum. I shouldn't have done it. I knew better but did it anyway. With all the lying, double-dealing and perfidiousness going on in our govornment (Federal, State and Local) and the scam artists out there I just lost it for more than a moment - at least long enough to make an observation generalizing members on this site with all the rest.

Experience tells me that dedicated user groups, particularly one using esoteric technology, have a different focus from some others. and generally a different moral compas.

While online spiffs are amusing they should exclude family members.

Just as much as some may object on moral grounds to being forced to pay taxes to fund welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or the ACA, others may legitimately object to being forced to pay taxes for things as diverse as professional fire departments (after all, there's much joy in a volunteering to help put out the fire in your neighbor's house; but where's the joy in being forced at gun point to pay professionals to do it?), public libraries, public schools (maybe you have no kids; why should you be forced at the point of a gun to pay to educate someone else's?), or government funding to build professional sports stadiums (this is one I personally am opposed to even though I'm a sports fan). If you are a pacifist, maybe you object to all defense spending altogether.

The shared trait in the above list is that, at some point, a majority of our duly elected representatives (be they local, state or federal) saw fit to vote for all of the above programs/taxes and all have been upheld as constitutional.

So unless someone can explain to me how it can be legitimate to use "goons with guns" to make sure taxes are collected for some of these things but illegitimate to use "goons with guns" to collect taxes to pay for others, Mr. Jillette's argument admits of no logical stopping point and is simply an invitation to anarchy.

[quote="algale"]Just as much as some may object on moral grounds to being forced to pay taxes to fund welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or the ACA, others may legitimately object to being forced to pay taxes for things as diverse as professional fire departments (after all, there's much joy in a volunteering to help put out the fire in your neighbor's house]

Now, now.

You did really well with the first paragraph.

The second paragraph is pure "appeal to authority" -- another logical fallacy. That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't prove anything either.

You lost me with the third paragraph. Mr. Jillette did not use the "goons with guns" phrase (although he came pretty close). But more importantly, the slippery-slope argument cuts both ways. One can just as easily argue that government funding of a "security net" will lead inevitably to pure socialism and the reign of Big Brother. Which, of course, many do.

In my humble opinion, public debate about such things is good. It helps us find a workable and hopefully reasonable middle ground, especially if the debate is civil.

That said, there are certain things which to me are clearly appropriate responsibilities for the national government, as they are within neither the capabilities nor the self-interest of smaller divisions of society. National defense is the most obvious example.

algale wrote:Just as much as some may object on moral grounds to being forced to pay taxes to fund welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or the ACA, others may legitimately object to being forced to pay taxes for things as diverse as professional fire departments (after all, there's much joy in a volunteering to help put out the fire in your neighbor's house]

How about all of the above?

algale wrote:The shared trait in the above list is that, at some point, a majority of our duly elected representatives (be they local, state or federal) saw fit to vote for all of the above programs/taxes and all have been upheld as constitutional.

True. Doesn't mean some of us can't make our case against it. ]So unless someone can explain to me how it can be legitimate to use "goons with guns" to make sure taxes are collected for some of these things but illegitimate to use "goons with guns" to collect taxes to pay for others, Mr. Jillette's argument admits of no logical stopping point and is simply an invitation to anarchy.

That's the dream!

I say there is NO legitimate use of "goons with guns" to take anything from anybody for any reason other than recovering stolen property.

I'm more of a minarchist than an anarchist. SOME amount of government is necessary for defense (NOT offense), protection of civil rights and property rights, and enforcement of contracts, and arbitration of disputes (judicial system). That's about it. And that can be done without collecting taxes.

Buckeye, I appreciate your respectful response. I'll just put my thoughts down in red below.

BuckeyeDennis wrote:Now, now.

You did really well with the first paragraph. Gee, thanks. Why do I get the feeling I did really bad in the others?

The second paragraph is pure "appeal to authority" -- another logical fallacy. Nope it wasn't an appeal to authority at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority I never said the fact that officials passed something makes it right and to the contrary I said in the first paragraph (which I thought you liked ) that I don't agree with everything our duly elected officials have decided is in our best interests. That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't prove anything either. Wasn't intended to prove a thing. It just explains that all are equally procedurally legitimate from a legal standpoint, which sets up the third paragraph which makes the point if it isn't okay to use force to enforce (using force to enforce is redundant) laws that are all procedurally legit, who's going to decide which ones if any may be enforced?

You lost me with the third paragraph. Mr. Jillette did not use the "goons with guns" phrase (although he came pretty close). Actually, I used the phrase in my first paragraph too (which you liked ). That first paragraph doesn't mention Mr. Jillette. I used the phrase because someone used it earlier in the thread and I just think it is a pithy phrase and a great shorthand. But to be clear I was not attributing it to Mr. Jilllette. His argument (if I may paraphrase) is that it is morally wrong to force people by any means to pay to do good works collectively even if we might individually choose to do those things voluntarily). But more importantly, the slippery-slope argument cuts both ways. One can just as easily argue that government funding of a "security net" will lead inevitably to pure socialism (well then we've had pure socialism since the 1930s or, at latest, the 1960s.) and the reign of Big Brother. Which, of course, many do. Ironically, some of the people making those arguments are doing so having accepted socialized payments from the security net far in excess of anything they ever put in (even accounting for potential interest earned) and would be out of their homes (or never could have afforded them in the first instance) because without that assistance they'd have gone bankrupt paying for mom and dad's medical bills, etc). But I digress....

In my humble opinion, public debate about such things is good. Agree! It helps us find a workable and hopefully reasonable middle ground, especially if the debate is civil. Totally agree! But seems like a majority of our politically active fellow citizens don't want a middle ground which they think is just for sissies. Only total victory will do! In reality, finding and agreeing on that middle ground can be very hard and is not for sissies. It is much easier to just accuse someone else's idea of where the line should be drawn of being "socialist" or some other kind of "ist".

That said, there are certain things which to me are clearly appropriate responsibilities for the national government, as they are within neither the capabilities nor the self-interest of smaller divisions of society. National defense is the most obvious example. I agree again. But again not everyone agrees with us and I'll bet we don't agree on exactly where that line should be drawn, which is the hard part. To get back to the point of my original post, how can we possibly justify sending the goons with guns in when there isn't universal agreement on where the line should have been drawn? I know, let's set up a constitutional, representative democracy and agree that whatever a majority of our elected representatives enact in a procedurally lawful way will have to be abided by everyone (not because it is right but just because it is at least a procedurally legit law) and if necessary the law will be enforced by goons with guns until either (1) we can overturn it in the courts as unconstitutional or (2) convince enough of our fellow citizens that it is wrongheaded and elect a majority of representatives who will vote to overturn it. Oh, wait a minute. I think some guys already came up with that solution a couple hundred years ago. I guess I think they were smarter than Mr. Jillette.

algale wrote:Buckeye, I appreciate your respectful response. I'll just put my thoughts down in red below.

By golly, I do believe that I have just crossed pens with a lawyer, had fun doing it, and didn't even get beaten up too badly! . Which probably means that I should get back to engineering while I'm still ahead.

But algale, after reading your well-crafted and generally persuasive commentary, I went back and reread Mr. Jillette's (purported) opinion. And I must believe that his intent was to influence votes, not to foment civil disobedience. Which is precisely an attempt to "convince enough of our fellow citizens that it is wrongheaded...". In other words, representative democracy in action.