Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: It's by no means exhaustive 153

Journal by smittyoneeach
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
One great missing one is:

"The Man is Hiding the Stash" Fallacy
At Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez says of the Marxist Piven's philosophy:

The problem with Piven's theory is that events in Europe have shown those"âoemajor economic reform" to be unsustainable, if not actually ruinous. However, she appears to believe that the European crisis is only apparent, being the result of the Man hiding the Stash. Find that stash and things become sustainable again.

I think this fallacy deserves its own name because I think this is the central economic fallacy of leftists in general. Whether we are talking about unions, public workers, redistributionists, etc., there is always the implicit idea that somewhere there is this big pile of money that the rich business people are hoarding away like a squirrel with its winter store of nuts. Leftists tell everyone that all problems can be solved if we just use the force of the state to threaten the squirrels to give up their nuts.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It's by no means exhaustive More

It's by no means exhaustive

Comments Filter:
  • You seem to have missed the fact that the "your logical fallacy is" site is not partisan. It does not exist explicitly for people of one political persuasion to pick on members of another. The "fallacy" you propose is a deliberate attack on people of a particular political persuasion that you don't agree with. If you don't agree with me, then kindly provide a way that it could be used in response to a claim from a member of the GOP, Tea Party, or a Ron Paullower.

    But go ahead, I won't stop you from tr
    • This is some ironic strawman deployment, right? I mean, shouldn't the very concept of "logical" fallacy render the information completely non-partisan to begin with? But then, I'm tempted to venture that your love affair with the strawman borders on the homoerotic, anyway.
      • You are proposing a new "fallacy" that is specifically an attack on people of only a specific political persuasion. It cannot be non-partisan when it is drawn up to be specifically partisan. That is no different from you pretending to be a non-partisan observer when you call President Lawnchair a Communist.

        You actually committed a fallacy (arguably more than one) yourself in setting up this silly new fallacy. I'll let you read the web site to see if you can find it.
          • And back to your Perez Hilton impression you go? Cute.
            • Really wasn't funny the first time; hasn't improved with age.

              • Really wasn't funny the first time; hasn't improved with age.

                That's more or less the point of the comparison. Perhaps by accident you got it this time?

                • That you fetish repetitious non-humor? I just want you to know that I love you and accept you as you are.
                  • Swing ... and a miss. Weren't you trying to say something about logic before?
                    • Since when has logic applied to any conversation with you?
                    • That is impossible to answer without knowing what the word "logic" means to you this week.
                    • One should think "subjective logic" an oxymoron.
                    • Why would you be bothered by that when you freely redefine so many other words on a whim?
                    • I'm actually pointing to a list of externally defined terms with this very JE. You and fustakrakich are in rare diaper-overflow form today, it seems.
                    • Again, let's stipulate that I'm in denial long enough for you to produce some inarguable existential truth from first principles. A simple URL will do. Where? I'd be happy to move from my (purportedly) false state into one of enlightenment. Stand and deliver, please.
                    • You call me a bigot, and then I'm "telling us we're all sinners".
                      Again, stipulating you're correct and I'm just all "charades", what is your alternative?
                      Or, are you going to claim that I'm asking, but I'm not "asking" asking?
                      Sometimes it's hard to remember that I'm the bad guy in all this.
                    • Why is asking you to pony up turned into a charade? All you have to do is stand and deliver, man. Your extended bluster dance is kinda funny, though. Hence my continued responses.
                    • So: evasion, bigotry, projection, "already told you".
                    • I'm giving your shtick every bit of the sobriety it merits, sir.
                    • And my admiration of you for NOT *Playin' the game* is unabated, sir. You and Deez Nuts just keep it real, bruh.

                    • I'm actually pointing to a list of externally defined terms with this very JE.

                      I just looked back through this very JE - and every comment upstream of this one in this discussion - and found not such list. Care to show me where you provided such a list?

                    • http://slashdot.org/~smitty_one_each/journal/2438925 [slashdot.org], right where it says https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
                      I. Hope. That. Helps.
                    • Actually, it does not help at all. The purpose of your JE - as I mentioned in my first comment here - was to propose a new "fallacy" that was far too deeply partisan to be considered by that site. Of course, your partisan witch-hunting is nothing new.

                      More to the point of my most recent comment, though, that site does not provide the definitions required to understand what you are otherwise talking about. You use none of their fallacies in your discussion here and are instead - as usual - continually mo
                    • It's as partisan as you make it.

                    • It's as partisan as you make it.

                      Did you read your own JE? As you quoted:

                      I think this fallacy deserves its own name because I think this is the central economic fallacy of leftists in general. Whether we are talking about unions, public workers, redistributionists, etc., there is always the implicit idea that somewhere there is this big pile of money that the rich business people are hoarding away like a squirrel with its winter store of nuts. Leftists tell everyone that all problems can be solved if we just use the force of the state to threaten the squirrels to give up their nuts.

                      That "fallacy" is inherently partisan. It is inherently directed at specific people who you do not like. It is quite impossible for it to not be partisan.

                      By contrast, yourlogicalfallacyis.com is not a partisan site. There is no fallacy on there that can only be committed by a person of a particular political stance, or that is impossible for someone of a different political stance to commit. The people who put the site together - whose identity is not known

                    • "Leftists in general" is not the same as any one party you can name.
                      But you're unencumbered by facts, in your typical style.

                    • "Leftists in general" is not the same as any one party you can name.

                      It doesn't matter if it is one party, 12 parties, or an infinite number of parties. The statement "leftists" automatically includes some people and excludes some other people. You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus. You are asking a site that has tried hard to be non-partisan to take in your strictly partisan new "fallacy".

                      If you want to celebrate it on your own blog, go ahead. I h

                    • You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus.

                      I am? Help me understand in what way you think that this is actually occurring.

                    • You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus.

                      I am? Help me understand in what way you think that this is actually occurring.

                      It is in the very quote you used in your JE. You said yourself that it is all about redistribution, which you claim to be a central tenet of "leftism".

                    • It's not?

                    • It's not?

                      It is less than racism and oppression of the working class are fundamental tenets to the conservative movements.

                      However your belief that it is automatically makes your "fallacy" exclusive to those of particular political persuasions. Hence even if it were a valid "fallacy" - and it very much is not - it would not belong with the others as none of the others are exclusive to any particular group of people.

                    • How would you argue that "the man is hiding the stash" is *not* just a blend of a strawman with an economic component?
                    • If it is a strawman argument, then it is a strawman argument and does not need recognition as a separate "fallacy".

                      However, the wording you gave for your new "fallacy" specifically states that it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy". In fact by proposing it you almost fall victim to some sort of weird reverse no-true-scotsman fallacy.

                      Now, if you are hoping that the guys who run that website are actually of deeply conservative pers

                    • it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy".

                      If there were a "leftist" party, then what you say would be true.

                      if you are hoping that the guys who run that website are actually of deeply conservative persuasion

                      In the sense of "conserving rationality in the face of the current godless Commie sodomite infestation", sure. But that wouldn't necessarily be distinct from the GOP, which seems strangely comfortable with preserving Obama's lousy ideas.
                      Your desperate need to reject "The Man is Hiding the Stash" fallacy has completely justified its inclusion in the JE, though.

                    • it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy".

                      If there were a "leftist" party, then what you say would be true.

                      You don't need one single party for it to be partisan. You have shown that you view everyone who is not part of your party as being "leftist", which makes the allegation partisan as you make it impossible for this "fallacy" to apply to anyone who is of your party.

                      in the face of the current godless Commie sodomite infestation

                      The pride you take in your ignorance is staggering.

                      But that wouldn't necessarily be distinct from the GOP, which seems strangely comfortable with preserving Obama's lousy ideas.

                      If you are referring to HIIBA 2010 - and the fact that the GOP candidates all want to "repeal" it and then "replace" it with the same crappy bill with a different last name affiliated with it -

                    • You don't need one single party for it to be partisan.

                      Aw, c'mon. That's akin to saying "All Democrats are godless Commies", which I don't begin to think true.

                      You claim to be in favor of reading books, right?

                      I'm currently enjoying http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Critical-Subversion/dp/159403768X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440939206&sr=1-1&keywords=the+devil's+pleasure+palace [amazon.com] which I'll have to bump up when I finish. A fine exposition of a truly sad tale of a godless Commie sodomite infestation.

                    • You don't need one single party for it to be partisan.

                      Aw, c'mon. That's akin to saying "All Democrats are godless Commies", which I don't begin to think true.

                      Why not? You insist on not understanding Communism, which apparently gives you free reign to apply your lack of understanding of it to whatever you want.

                      Or do you mean that to you some of them are theological Commies? Perhaps extra-scary Muslim Commies?

                      Interestingly enough I recently came across legitimate communists [wikipedia.org] in my travels. Not that you would be able to understand their ways...

                    • An interesting link, indeed.

                      Not that you would be able to understand their ways.

                      Speaking of not understanding their ways, I'm off to church. Because, modulo the pacifism thing (to which I don't object when consistently practiced in their fashion) I daresay I'd have a 95+% overlap with their thinking. Because I'm substantially from the Anabaptist tradition myself. All of which makes your assertion funnier than the bulk of your twaddle.

                    • Not that you would be able to understand their ways.

                      I daresay I'd have a 95+% overlap with their thinking. Because I'm substantially from the Anabaptist tradition myself. All of which makes your assertion funnier than the bulk of your twaddle.

                      It would appear that similarly to how you have on other documents claimed understanding without reading, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the Hutterites are actually about. Perhaps if you think they are kindred souls, though, you might accidentally learn something about Communism by reading about them.

                      For example notice that while absolute pacifism is a big part of their lives, so is shared ownership of basically everything. They show the benefits of Communism when it is applied to small commun

                    • you might accidentally learn something about Communism by reading about them.

                      Oh, please: emulating the early church in the Book of Acts (as explicitly noted in the article) is not the "kingdom of God, hold the God" notion that is Communism. You're doing noble people grave harm by juxtaposing them with Joseph Stalin, who is a proper existential example of what Communism inevitably becomes, once the godless sodomite infestation settles in.
                      Keep pluckin' that chicken.

                    • You're doing noble people grave harm by juxtaposing them with Joseph Stalin,

                      I have never in my life encountered someone who hold their ignorance to be a flag to be flown proudly in the way that you do. Stalin was not a Communist, period. He was a cunning politician, but his interest was in power and not in the furthering of Communism. Even his predecessors - who were marginal Communists - warned against allowing his rise to power.

                      If you knew anything about Communism you would know that.

                      who is a proper existential example of what Communism inevitably becomes

                      That is nothing short of an outright lie. There is nothing inherent to Communism that bri

                    • Your denial of the historical truths as laid out in The Black Book of Communism [wikipedia.org] are as lousy as the doctrine itself. If you're going to embrace Hell's politics, Communism, I guess I shouldn't expect any sort of honesty about it.

                    • Your denial of the historical truths as laid out in The Black Book of Communism are as lousy as the doctrine itself.

                      I do not deny that the deaths and other bad things happened. I merely point out that they did not happen because of Communism itself, they happened because of the leaders that rose to the top of those Communist-in-name-only republics. Communism did not cause those things to happen any more so than a corporate republic such as ours could have prevented them; indeed look at how many people we have killed in the name of profit in recent times.

                      If you're going to embrace Hell's politics, Communism, I guess I shouldn't expect any sort of honesty about it.

                      So Satan wants equality, and The Lord wants disparity? I never

                    • I would suppose Satan wants all as damned as he is; The Lord would that all be saved. But you know all that.
                    • So which Lord then wants people to suffer and be oppressed merely as a result of which vagina they crawled out of? I don't recall that book; perhaps my New Testament is missing some of the fire, brimstone, and arbitrary damnation chapters that are in yours.
                    • I really can't comment on your imaginative capacity.
                    • This has nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with what lengths you are willing to go to in order to justify the economically oppressive state that you treasure so much. It is no surprise that you are willing to freely twist mythology for that end.

                    • economically oppressive state that you treasure so much

                      Well, you've correctly diagnosed the problem, if not the source.

                    • economically oppressive state that you treasure so much

                      Well, you've correctly diagnosed the problem, if not the source.

                      Regressive taxation has never solved the problem at any earlier attempt, and never will in any future attempt either. The best growth - in terms of people and income - of the middle class that our country ever saw was when the taxes were progressive. There is simply no way around those simple facts.

                    • The best growth - in terms of people and income - of the middle class that our country ever saw was when the taxes were progressive. There is simply no way around those simple facts.

                      I'm ready to scuttle the Lovecraftian monstrosity that is the tax code and go with something simple. "Simple" tends to disperse power, though. So watch the Demmicans and the Republocrats get all strangely reluctant to, you know, reform stuff. Downright zany.

                    • The best growth - in terms of people and income - of the middle class that our country ever saw was when the taxes were progressive. There is simply no way around those simple facts.

                      I'm ready to scuttle the Lovecraftian monstrosity that is the tax code and go with something simple.

                      It is notable that what you said did not counter my point in any way, shape, or form. You highlighted it with your new subject line but did not respond to it.

                      "Simple" tends to disperse power, though.

                      A simple - if by simple you mean something like a flat tax - would vastly increase the annual tax liability of the wealthy and of industry. They would never stand for that, and they own too much of the government for it to ever gain traction. Some of the guys from your team will try to sell the idea but they know it will never go anywhere. They j

                    • I've never been averse to giving credit where due. Even a rudderless boat occasionally swings through a useful course.
                    • It is not clear that any of those words mean what you think them to. Could we try talking about the topic of your JE again, or do you just want to keep talking about (your thoughts about) me?

                    • It is not clear that any of those words mean what you think them to.

                      I had 4.5 years of sea time in the Navy, not that I'm necessarily pushing a "appeal to authority". But let's just say after 3 WESPACs and a Persian Excursion, I'm semi-decent with nautical allusions.

                      or do you just want to keep talking about (your thoughts about) me?

                      We can continue exploring your resemblance to a wretched crapflooder, if you like. Or not.

                    • or do you just want to keep talking about (your thoughts about) me?

                      We can continue exploring your resemblance to a wretched crapflooder, if you like. Or not.

                      Is it even possible to bring the discussion back to the matter of the JE itself, or are you determined to not return to the topic? I've certainly seen you go to great lengths to avoid discussing topics that expose the lack of depth of your knowledge on a topic, but that won't stop me from trying to have a discussion with you.

                    • Getting back on topic would be as simple as you delivering the next installment of The Communist Manifesto like you said you would. And as likely.

                    • Getting back on topic would be as simple as you delivering the next installment of The Communist Manifesto like you said you would.

                      First of all, that is still not on the topic of the discussion here.

                      Second, you never made a genuine attempt to read the Manifesto. You continue to take great pride in your intentional ignorance on the matter and your resolve to never learn anything of it.

                      And as likely.

                      Why do I owe you a discussion when you made the deliberate choice not to participate in it?

                    • Oh, I've learned much, both from TCM and its sad little defenders.

                    • Oh, I've learned much, both from TCM

                      And how on earth is it possible to learn from a document that you refuse to read? I would compare it to my difficulties with undergrad Latin, but that textbook was something that I wanted to read and found myself unable to comprehend in a timely fashion. With you and the Communist Manifesto, you have deliberately chosen not to read the document and have taken great pride in that choice.

                      and its sad little defenders.

                      How can you possibly claim to know when someone is defending it, when you have not the slightest clue what is in it? R

                    • yes, Yes, YES!
                    • I guess I'll have to fine a useful teacher.
                    • Don't kid yourself. A teacher is not what you are seeking, as a teacher would challenge you to learn. You are looking for someone who will unquestioningly endorse your worldview.

                    • You are looking for someone who will unquestioningly endorse your worldview.

                      I'm actively seeking alternative worldviews. I'll even take a URL to one. Or you can just pick up your end of, for example, The Communist Manifesto. Or an alternative text of your choice. Bring it. Step up to the plate. Show me something that does a better job of explaining what the meaning of "is" is than, say, the Gospel of John. I dare ya. If you like, we can take a leisurely pass through the Gospel of John itself.

                    • Or you can just pick up your end of, for example, The Communist Manifesto.

                      Don't blame your unwillingness to learn on me. You demonstrated plainly that you were not reading the manuscript and had no intention of reading it.

                      Show me something that does a better job of explaining what the meaning of "is" is than, say, the Gospel of John

                      Those are two very different requests. The Communist Manifesto does not attempt to explain the meaning of life.

                      More so, your claim of

                      I'm actively seeking alternative worldviews.

                      Is very thoroughly rebutted by quite nearly everything you have ever posted here on slashdot.

                    • Oh, I'm perfectly willing to learn. In fact, I enjoy it. It's foolishness that I can't do more than laugh at.

                      The Communist Manifesto does not attempt to explain the meaning of life.

                      I'll take "what is class struggle" for $50, Alex. Now, in your defense, Karl is proffering an anti-meaning. That is, the same way you beat a fish on a rock to end its life, Karl's "Kingdom of God, hold the God" argument is actually just a stroking of the hormones, an appeal to flesh. TCM has been used to pile up more bodies than pretty much any other lousy dogma in human history.

                    • Oh, I'm perfectly willing to learn. In fact, I enjoy it.

                      Your comments and JEs suggest you haven't learned anything in a very, very, long time. You refer only to texts that support your worldview. You quickly dismiss any texts that challenge your worldview; how can you possibly learn anything that way?

                    • I disagree with your characterization.

                    • Your comments and JEs suggest you haven't learned anything in a very, very, long time. You refer only to texts that support your worldview. You quickly dismiss any texts that challenge your worldview; how can you possibly learn anything that way?

                      I disagree with your characterization.

                      Your own comments and JEs are the basis for both the former and latter halves of that characterization. You have not provided any evidence to refute the former half - and indeed a great deal to support it - so are you trying to refute the latter? You can try to claim that it is possible somehow for you to learn when you own listen to people who share your views, but that is not an easy claim to support.

                    • How may I help you?

                    • Your own comments and JEs are the basis for both the former and latter halves of that characterization.

                      I disagree with your characterization.

                    • Your own comments and JEs are the basis for both the former and latter halves of that characterization.

                      I disagree with your characterization.

                      If you want to discredit the characterization, then show us where you learned something from someone who you disagreed with. I have never seen you cite someone in a JE or comment who was not agreeing with or supporting your existing worldview.

  • the stash exists first, the state is created to get the bad actor to give up his stash in the form of campaign contributions for favors to allow even larger stash accumulations. The State is intimately involved with and profiting from The Stash.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close