fayfreethinkers.com

Darrel wrote:

Do you post anything that's not a strawman? This forum is a trip.

ghost wrote:Do you post anything that's not a strawman? This forum is a trip.

It's a political cartoon, not an argument. But go ahead and edify us with an argumentative dissection of this drawing. Explain how it is a strawman, particularly in light of the simplification and symbolism typical of editorial cartoons; the exercise will help you to avoid them yourself in the future. Maybe.

We need more intrepid anonymous commenters who, like yourself, have the strength of character and intellectual authority to keep the rest of us in line with their incisive drive-by potshots.

I'm so abashed and chastened.

Maybe not.

David Franks wrote:

ghost wrote:Do you post anything that's not a strawman? This forum is a trip.

It's a political cartoon, not an argument. But go ahead and edify us with an argumentative dissection of this drawing. Explain how it is a strawman, particularly in light of the simplification and symbolism typical of editorial cartoons; the exercise will help you to avoid them yourself in the future. Maybe.

We need more intrepid anonymous commenters who, like yourself, have the strength of character and intellectual authority to keep the rest of us in line with their incisive drive-by potshots.

I'm so abashed and chastened.

Maybe not.

I guess it's time for you to go to school.

Strawman: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

This clearly pro-Obama cartoon does exactly what is described above: it misrepresents the position of Republicans by implying that republicans are only against Obama's decisions. While that's often the case, since politics are politics, they picked the WORST possible example to use. The pipeline is superficially similar yet unequivalent. I know you'll disagree, so I'll explain that part too.

Stimulus: It's government spending, so in order to "create jobs" with that money, it must first be taken out of the economy, which kills jobs, or in our case, borrowed and subject to interest, so that it takes the jobs of some future generation that's stuck with the bill.

High Speed Rail: Similar to above, except that it gets to suck down tax dollars in perpetuity because the rider fees won't come anywhere close to covering the operating costs, so it has to be heavily subsidized.

"Jobs" Bill: Same as stimulus.

Keystone Pipeline: A FOREIGN company wants to build a large infrastructure project here, using their OWN money, and dumping it into our economy. THAT is how jobs get created.

See the difference? The cartoonist could have picked a thousand other things to show Republicans displaying their hypocrisy with Democrats and succeeded. This time, not so much.

As far as remaining anonymous, that's on purpose. Giving out too much info, especially in heated political discussions, is not a great idea, lest the people you deal with want to use it against you. Darrel has so much information out there that anyone can determine where he lives, what kind car he drives, and all sorts of stuff. All available on the web, and searchable in less time than it took me to write this.

ghost wrote:I guess it's time for you to go to school.
Strawman: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy...

I am so glad you went after this cartoon Ghost, because it so perfectly illustrates what anyone who has been reading your posts already knows. You don't know your bum from a hole in the ground with regard to fallacies, but, like so many right-wing libertarian windbags, you like to sprinkle claims about fallacies in your posts like they are a condiment. You think it makes you sound smart. You consistently forget that you have a burden to support your claim that a fallacy has been committed and you need to show that you have done something beyond randomly picking one out of a list you saw on wikipedia (which is clearly what you have done here). And your mistake here is so glaring, and your misuse of this most rudimentary fallacy really reveals what a novice you are. There is no straw here.

First off, it's a cartoon, not a syllogism attempting to make a formal argument. The motive, purpose, intent of a cartoon is to produce humor. Often they use hyperbole and even, get this... caricature. And that's what this cartoon does, admittedly at the expense of your right wing sensibilities. So you reach into your fallacy grab bag and go for a nice popular generic one.

Setting aside the fact that it's a cartoon, where is the straw? Each frame of this concise four part cartoon is exactly correct. How does it misrepresent your rightwing position? Make your case.

based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1]

Yes dumb dumb, everyone knows what this fallacy is (except you it seems). How has this cartoon, specifically, misrepresented it's opponents position? Make your case.

This clearly pro-Obama cartoon...

Oh my god! A cartoon that is for a particular political side? There must be fallacy involved. We'll just have to figure out which one it is. It isn't a strawman.

does exactly what is described above: it misrepresents the position of Republicans by implying that republicans are only against Obama's decisions.

How is it a strawman to refer to refer to specific instances of republicans being against Obama's initiatives? You really don't know how to begin do you Mr. Ghost? There is no straw here.

While that's often the case, since politics are politics, they picked the WORST possible example to use.

Really. Please show, as you must to make you case, that these examples are in any way inappropriate. In fact, each one is well known, exactly correct and perfectly accurate. If you deny this I can easily bury you in specific referenced examples backing up the claim in each frame. That it is only limited to four examples (being a cartoon) does not in any way mean the examples provided are inappropriate, incorrect and thus "straw" examples.

The pipeline is superficially similar yet unequivalent.

Really. How, why?

Stimulus: It's government spending, so in order to "create jobs" with that money, it must first be taken out of the economy, which kills jobs, or in our case, borrowed and subject to interest, so that it takes the jobs of some future generation that's stuck with the bill.

Rightwing nonsense. First off, surely there is government oversight and some spending on this, so this example fits quite nicely. But it hardly matters if there isn't. Besides that, it's not true that stimulus must come out of the economy. You're just regurgitating talking points. Stimulus can be quickly paid back, with interest (as it has been in instances) and a thus be a net boon for government, the debt, and the economy. Also, as I have shown, we have recently been selling government debt at negative interest, so it does not follow that it is true that a future generation gets stuck with interest on money borrowed for stimulus. Your example fails because the pipeline example actually fits quite nicely with the other three examples. Obama putting forward three things that would create jobs, republicans object. Obama shuts down this project, probably for environmental reasons, and republicans object, overwhelming with the scream that this action doesn't create jobs. That's why the cartoon works so well, and why it bugs you. It's also why your objections and bogus appeal to the strawman fallacy fall so flat.

High Speed Rail: Similar to above, except that it gets to suck down tax dollars in perpetuity because the rider fees won't come anywhere close to covering the operating costs, so it has to be heavily subsidized.

Actually, I think high speed rail is an excellent analogy with the pipeline. So again, no straw here. If it turns out to be heavily subsidized (your conjecture) then raise the rates. You also fail to consider the benefits mass transit provides to the populace and society via overall energy usage (how much does a war cost to get our cheap gas Mr. Ghost?). This is why it is used so effectively in every high functioning society. Overall, it pays positive dividends in the big picture, in spades.

"Jobs" Bill: Same as stimulus.

And fits quite nicely with what republicans specifically are selling the pipeline as: a jobs bill. No straw here, and you reveal again you have fallacy tourettes, but lack even a rudimentary understanding of how to get one off the ground (never mind the fact that it's a bloody cartoon, not a syllogism!).

Keystone Pipeline: A FOREIGN company wants to build a large infrastructure project here, using their OWN money, and dumping it into our economy. THAT is how jobs get created.

Hey, Mr. Ghost, you know some other ways that jobs get created? Stimulus (often in the form of tax cuts btw), high speed rail infrastructure, and (the clue is in the title with this one), "Jobs Bill." The cartoon nails it and is precisely accurate here. You need straw to land your fallacy charge, and you have no straw.

See the difference? The cartoonist could have picked a thousand other things to show Republicans displaying their hypocrisy with Democrats and succeeded.

Actually the cartoonist could have picked many other examples of republicans blocking things that would create jobs, but being limited to four frames, they choose three very germane, well known, and precisely accurate examples. You need straw, but you have no straw here.

Giving out too much info, especially in heated political discussions, is not a great idea, lest the people you deal with want to use it against you.

Bah, I had your number on your second post. I constantly see libertarian Ron Paulists who are ashamed to be open about their beliefs. And with good reason, they are used to getting public spankings for their indefensible beliefs. Choosing to be anonymous is perfectly fine and appropriate. Attempting to hide your ideology flopped out of the gate. You dropped your pants on that one after you spent several posts with your nose up Bush's behind. Your complaints with republicans are that they aren't right-wing enough for you.

“Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. … Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, ‘It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,’ they write, ‘One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.’” LINK

If you own Sarah Palin stock, you missed the boat on selling it in time:

Gee, I hope this cartoon doesn't commit the strawman fallacy:

Rick Santorum: Left uses college for "indoctrination"

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Wednesday that "the left" uses universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of "holding and maintaining power."

After saying "we've lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry," Santorum told a Naples, Florida, audience that "we've lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago."

"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college," said the former Pennsylvania senator. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"

He continued: "If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."

Santorum went on to encourage his audience not to "give money" to colleges and universities that he said are causing harm to the country.

"I'll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology," he said. "And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it."

CBS News

I am reminded of this quote:

"...faith and knowledge are related as the two scales of a balance; when the one goes up, the other goes down." --Arthur Schopenauer

"It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible,
both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism.
The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but
they are a fundamental violation of our civilization." --Newt Gingrich. LINK

Rick Santorum: Left uses college for "indoctrination"

Alert: They're gonna protect those kids even more:

Republicans vow to protect kids' right to drop out of high school:

(can't make this shit up)

"WASHINGTON -- High school dropouts, do not fear. The Republican Party will protect you from Barack Obama's efforts to keep you at your desk.

At his third State of the Union Address Tuesday night, the president challenged all states to ban children from dropping out of high school before they turn 18. "Tonight," Obama bellowed, "I am proposing that every state--every state--requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18."
............
"That's none of his business!" said Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee while speaking to reporters after the speech. "He's not a principal! He's not a public school teacher! He's not a governor, he's not a mayor.
....
Twenty states currently meet Obama's standards by restricting students from dropping out before they turn 18-years-old. Some states allow students to drop out at 16 with parental permission and others require an agreement from the school to let them go. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 8.1 percent of students nationwide dropped out of high school in 2009.
........
Other Republicans in the crowded hall, fed up with Obama's calls for a more intrusive federal system, lambasted the president for even making the suggestion.

"What are you gonna do, give them the electric chair?" asked Arizona Republican Trent Franks. "It should be handled on the parental level."

Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, agreed, saying students should have the right to leave if they want to.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/repu ... 02291.html

And... Reagan on TAXING THE RICH

Nice.

Rick Santorum Pledges To Defund Contraception: ‘It’s Not Okay, It’s A License To Do Things’

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,”
the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” --Rick Santorum

"An overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent ) aged 15–44 have used at least one contraceptive method — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies. Without funding from Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.”

Think Progress

.

Rick Santorum Pledges To Defund Contraception:

They were for it before they were against it. Yes, that again.

"Reporting from Washington—

Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.
.....
Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

LA Times Story here

.

Krugman on government programs:

"...Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”

Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.

The truth, of course, is that the vast bulk of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, the disabled, and working families, so any significant cuts would have to fall largely on people who believe that they don’t use any government program." Paul Krugman

I call it "studied stupid."

The ugly delusions of the educated conservative

Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama's a Muslim. Here's why

Excerpt:

"Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And most of all, for many liberals.

Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information."

The rest at... Salon

Darrel wrote:Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama's a Muslim.

The article says:

The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

Simply astonishing. I want to move to Nunavut!

"Newt does not wear well. Two years after he was Time magazine’s Man of the Year one public-opinion poll found that only 14 percent of the voters
still liked him. Columnist Mark Shields tells of an exchange—perhaps apocryphal, like so much of Newt—between Newt and Bob Dole, who had the
sharpest tongue in town. “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?” Newt asked. The senator replied: “It saves them time.”
--Wesley Pruden is the editor emeritus of The Washington Times.