Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
What happens to an economy when you do just about everything wrong? Say you spend $830 billion on a stimulus stuffed with make-work government-jobs programs and programs to pay people to buy new cars, you borrow $6 trillion, you launch a government-run health-care system that incentivizes businesses not to hire more workers, you raise tax rates on the businesses that hire workers and on the investors that invest in the businesses that hire workers, you print $3 trillion of paper money, you shut down an entire industry (coal), and try to regulate and restrain the one industry that actually is booming (oil and gas).
We made all of these imbecilic moves, and the wonder of it all is that the U.S. economy is growing at all. It’s a tribute to the indestructible Energizer Bunny that is the entrepreneurial U.S. economy that it keeps going and going even with all the obstacles. The problem is it isn’t going very fast. That’s what the Bureau of Economic Analysis told us this week when it reported that the GDP for the first quarter of the year grew an anemic 0.1 percent on an annual basis from January to March. The more meaningful measure of growth, private-sector GDP, rose by a still-meager 0.2 percent.
:
Reagan cut tax rates, slashed regulations, trimmed excess money supply (with the help of Fed chairman Paul Volcker), and let the private businesses — the supply side — grow their operations less hindered by government interference.Obama did, well, pretty much the opposite. At the time of the mighty economic recovery of 2003–09, liberals explained the ferocious burst of growth and employment by saying it was a “classic Keynesian recovery” financed by debt spending. Except if that was the case, why is it that after Obama borrowed twice as much money, this Keynesian recovery has proceeded at half that pace? I’ve never heard an answer to that one. Never.
It’s always awkward when Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy works out to the benefit of liberals; awkward for them, that is. Being adamantly opposed to definitions in pretty much anything, but always ready to “win” an argument, they put one up that takes the form of: Look, something that can be plausibly likened to our ideas, preceded something that can be plausibly likened to success. Who could possibly take issue with such an unanswerable manifesto? What more could be said?
And then along comes some wise-ass — or, perhaps, merely someone who is interested in things going well, outcome versus process and all that stuff — to ask: Okay, what did Bill Clinton do to bring about this wonderful Clinton Economy? And they have nothing to offer here. It’s like the dog catching the car. They don’t know what to do.
And that’s important. On the Internet, it really doesn’t matter who wins what argument, or how surely. That doesn’t help anyone, on the Internet or off. But a crappy economy, and disastrous results needlessly dragged out by bad policy, New-Deal-style, hurts a lot of people. Just about everyone, really.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg: Okay, what did Bill Clinton do to bring about this wonderful Clinton Economy?
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, North American Free Trade Agreement, not to mention laying the regulatory groundwork for the Internet.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 12:42So in order to credit Clinton with his own economy, we have to give him credit for the Republican’s ideas he had to steal in order to prevent being ousted by Bob Dole, and we have to once again confuse regulators with producers.
That’s a lot of willful confusion. The Internet helps our economy by making things happen; regulation is something that stops things from happening. As far as liberal democrats working with the Internet, we just got a front-row seat watching what that looks like with the healthcare.gov launch.
Thanks, once again, for illustrating the kind of thinking that precedes such a calamity.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 15:16mkfreeberg: So in order to credit Clinton with his own economy, we have to give him credit for the Republican’s ideas he had to steal in order to prevent being ousted by Bob Dole, and we have to once again confuse regulators with producers.
Um, the Clinton economic plan was implemented before the 1996 Clinton-Dole campaign. Clinton ran on reducing the scope of government in 1992.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 17:51Um, the Clinton economic plan was implemented before the 1996 Clinton-Dole campaign.
Um, yeah. Clinton was embarrassed well before the 1996 campaign. And thoroughly. He had to do some major backtracking to win his second term.
Clinton ran on reducing the scope of government in 1992.
He ran on that all the way through both his terms. But what a democrat says is different from what a democrat does. They’re shameless.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 18:06mkfreeberg: He had to do some major backtracking to win his second term.
So? That’s what politicians do, especially one explicitly triangulating.
mkfreeberg: He ran on that all the way through both his terms.
Yes, and Clinton’s policies resulted in a dramatic drop in welfare rolls, structural cash surpluses, and the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 19:25So? That’s what politicians do, especially one explicitly triangulating.
Alright then, we agree. It was not a Clinton economy after all. If anything, it was a Gingrich economy.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 19:35mkfreeberg: It was not a Clinton economy after all. If anything, it was a Gingrich economy.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. Indeed, as President of the Senate, Al Gore, had to break a tie in the Senate. Republicans insisted it would drive the economy into a deep recession. Instead, it led to the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern U.S. history, and structure cash surpluses for the federal budget.
Clinton campaigned on welfare reform, and while Republicans can be credited with keeping the pressure on the Clinton Administration, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.
Al Gore’s work in Congress had laid the regulatory groundwork for the modern Internet.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 05:15Instead, it led to the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern U.S. history, and structure cash surpluses for the federal budget.
Post hoc fallacy. The Omnibus spending bill was passed in the middle of an extremist liberal fever during the first half of Clinton’s first term. Which he started, like Barack Obama, with his party controlling both chambers in Congress.
But the economy didn’t improve until the Republicans took over Congress.
But let’s pretend that what is demonstrably true, is not true at all, and the economy improves when liberals come along to immerse the country in debt and make it much more expensive to produce energy, transport anything, or hire anybody. How would that work?
I said: It’s awkward when post hoc fallacy works for the benefit of liberals; awkward for them. And along y’all come, to prove my point.
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2014 @ 05:21mkfreeberg: Post hoc fallacy. The Omnibus spending bill was passed in the middle of an extremist liberal fever during the first half of Clinton’s first term.
If you read what we wrote, you would know it was not post hoc. Democrat proposed the Omnibus based on economic principles and the economic situation, claiming it would trigger growth. Republicans opposed the Omnibus claiming it would crash the economy.
mkfreeberg: But let’s pretend that what is demonstrably true, is not true at all, and the economy improves when liberals come along to immerse the country in debt
The Clinton Administration reduced debt.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 05:58Z: The Clinton Administration reduced debt.
More accurately, implemented structural surpluses that were devised to reduce debt.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 06:45Yes, liberals very often conflate intentions with results. It’s true that Clinton’s years were kinder to the deficit/surplus picture than most other presidential administrations, and much more cheery than what we’re seeing now. Trouble is, these “surpluses” are delusive-argument surpluses, to be counted-up and gushed-over by left-leaning “fact checkers”; they don’t have the actual effect on our nation’s financial health that a casual and careless reader might infer.
If taxing the rich really had the effect on the treasury’s assets, or on the nation’s economy, that liberals claim then we wouldn’t have to have these arguments about deceitful accounting practices and cherry-picked statistics. It would be self-evident. People would figure out: Golly, that works great. Then we’d re-elect democrats forever and ever; which, throughout the twentieth century when Keynesian economics were the big thing, isn’t what happened. And we’d look around where democrats are governing locally, and say: Gosh, I wish the place were I lived looked all economically rosy like that.
The Obama recovery is every bit as long, drawn-out and anemic as the Roosevelt recovery, for the same reasons. As the author pointed out, this proves that whatever good fortune really did exist during the Clinton years was nothing more than Post Hoc. Consumers and capitalists succeeded not because of Clinton, but in spite of him.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 05:37mkfreeberg: liberals very often conflate intentions with results.
The Democrats claimed their policies would lead to a growing economy and a reduction in deficits. The Republicans claimed those same policies would crash the economy. The result was that the economy grew and there was a reduction in deficits. That’s not post hoc, but pre-diction.
mkfreeberg: The Obama recovery is every bit as long, drawn-out and anemic as the Roosevelt recovery, for the same reasons.
Yes, the financial markets experienced a meltdown. The difference with the Great Depression and the Hoover Administration is that today there are automatic stabilizers, and the Bush Administration took immediate action to provide liquidity to the banking sector. That meant the damage was less than during the Great Depression, but the damage to the global economy was still significant.
- Zachriel | 05/07/2014 @ 08:43Yes, the financial markets experienced a meltdown.
What the markets have been experiencing, under Obama, is opposition.
People in general would be less confused if liberals just came out and admitted the obvious: That they are opposed to free markets and any transactions that take place within a free market. But, if people were less confused, liberals would lose more elections, and win fewer. So they have no incentive to clarify their meaning.
Like John Hawkins said, the history of American politics concerns a lot of efforts by conservatives to clarify what it is they’re trying to do, and efforts from liberals to hide what they’re trying to do.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 18:10mkfreeberg: People in general would be less confused if liberals just came out and admitted the obvious: That they are opposed to free markets and any transactions that take place within a free market.
Except most liberals aren’t opposed to markets, but virtually no one wants a absolutely free market. For instance, nearly everyone supports food and drug inspections. Furthermore, the so-called free market policies of the Bush Administration devastated the global economy, so most people believe some sort of oversight is necessary.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 05:05Except most liberals aren’t opposed to markets, but virtually no one wants a absolutely free market…
Is President Obama the model of a liberal who is not opposed to markets?
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 16:35mkfreeberg: Is President Obama the model of a liberal who is not opposed to markets?
Don’t think individuals make good models. Is Obama opposed to markets?
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 17:29Wow, that was a very simple question y’all just dodged. Under Zachriel rules, I then get to assume y’all are withdrawing y’all’s previous statement. As well y’all should anyway.
- mkfreeberg | 05/09/2014 @ 04:59mkfreeberg</b: Wow, that was a very simple question y’all just dodged.
No, we answered your question. Individuals don’t generally make good models.
Did you mean is Obama an *example* of a liberal who is not opposed to markets?
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 07:09No, we answered your question. Individuals don’t generally make good models.
Looks more like a dodge. If we have a disagreement about whether it’s an answer or a dodge, and y’all are trying to present an argument that it’s an answer, I’m afraid y’all haven’t supported it very well.
Would that have been a good model of answering a question?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:15mkfreeberg: Looks more like a dodge.
Not at all. We don’t generally think individuals make good models of large groups. That means your question is loaded with a premise we reject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
We suggested what you meant to ask was whether Obama is an example of a liberal who is not opposed to markets. Is this what you meant?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:31Not at all. We don’t generally think individuals make good models of large groups. That means your question is loaded with a premise we reject.
Y’all don’t think individuals can be models? So y’all don’t believe in role-modeling?
I shall have to add a chapter on that to The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:34mkfreeberg: Y’all don’t think individuals can be models?
A model is representative of a group. A single individual can rarely represent the characteristics of a large group of people.
mkfreeberg: So y’all don’t believe in role-modeling?
A role model an aspirational member of a group.
You’re conflating two senses of the word “model”. Did you mean to ask if Obama is a role model of a liberal who is not opposed to markets? Most liberals would disagree, many saying Obama isn’t even a liberal.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:57A model is representative of a group. A single individual can rarely represent the characteristics of a large group of people.
Individuals very often are selected to represent the characteristics of large groups of people; their values, their wishes, their capabilities. This is the very foundation of a constitutional republic, as well as many scientific studies.
Looks like y’all are once again chasing after distinctions without differences. That will have to be a chapter in The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:43A single individual can rarely represent the characteristics of a large group of people.
I just called the Departments of Sociology and Psychology at my local college and shared this insight with them. They’ll be closing their doors forever tomorrow.
- Severian | 05/10/2014 @ 07:32mkfreeberg: Individuals very often are selected to represent the characteristics of large groups of people; their values, their wishes, their capabilities.
People are rarely elected because they are average. Nor was Obama elected solely by liberals.
Severian: I just called the Departments of Sociology and Psychology at my local college and shared this insight with them.
You might want to check with your local college. A sample size of one is not sufficient to be a statistically significant sample of a large group.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 12:50People are rarely elected because they are average.
Average ≠ representative.
At any rate, I accept that y’all won’t sign on to the idea that Obama is the model of “liberals [who] aren’t opposed to markets.” I would say that is the correct answer, I wouldn’t categorize Him that way either. Who, then, would be the model of these modern liberals who are not opposed to markets?
For the record, I do agree there are some; liberalism is an ideology of deception, and usually when someone deceives someone else there must be a plurality of competing interests at work, otherwise why bother to do any deceiving.
We’ve seen with the ObamaCare roll-out there have been many liberals confidently and swillogistically asserting to (and condescending to) conservatives that the new welfare-plan-disguised-as-insurance-plan is not communism, nor is it intended to be any kind of stepping stone on the way to communism. They don’t seem to have applied any higher quality thought to such an assertion, than the administration applied to the idea that the web site would work perfectly on opening day. Woe is them.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 13:08mkfreeberg: Who, then, would be the model of these modern liberals who are not opposed to markets?
As we said, individuals make poor models of large groups of people. We asked if you meant example, but you never answered.
mkfreeberg: We’ve seen with the ObamaCare roll-out there have been many liberals confidently and swillogistically asserting to (and condescending to) conservatives that the new welfare-plan-disguised-as-insurance-plan is not communism, nor is it intended to be any kind of stepping stone on the way to communism.
You think a health insurance marketplace is communism?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 13:27As we said, individuals make poor models of large groups of people. We asked if you meant example, but you never answered.
It would be nice if we could see some sort of intersection between y’all’s statement about liberals, and reality. If that’s at all possible.
Until that’s done, I’m afraid y’all are just demonstrating the kind of thinking that might have gone on before the healthcare.gov launch. “I say the web site will work great! That makes it true!”
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 15:59mkfreeberg: liberalism is an ideology of deception
Liberalism is on the political left, and is defined as an advocacy balancing liberty and equality. There’s a natural tension involved as sometimes these values can come into conflict. Some liberals will lean more towards liberty, others towards equality. This is distinct from someone who might be considered on the hard left, who advocates equality over other values.
A conservative is on the political right, and is defined as an advocacy of traditional institutions and mores. This often means supporting existing social hierarchies. This is distinct from reactionaries, who actually want to return to older institutions and mores.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 18:17Liberalism is on the political left, and is defined as an advocacy balancing liberty and equality. There’s a natural tension involved as sometimes these values can come into conflict. Some liberals will lean more towards liberty, others towards equality. This is distinct from someone who might be considered on the hard left, who advocates equality over other values.
We should then expect to see a great and high-profile conflict among liberals. But since they’re opposed to individual thinking, and individuals thinking for themselves — we don’t.
A conservative is on the political right, and is defined as an advocacy of traditional institutions and mores. This often means supporting existing social hierarchies. This is distinct from reactionaries, who actually want to return to older institutions and mores.
Passive-voice doesn’t work here, because we would need to know who is doing this defining. If it’s a liberal doing it, we should disregard the definition straight-away, since liberals don’t know anything about what motivates conservatives, at all, and don’t care to learn. They’re not credible — on most issues, but on this one in particular, they’re actually proud of how little they know, and how little effort they’ve ever expended to learn more.
So the definition doesn’t do anybody any good, until someone looks into its source, to make sure it didn’t come from a liberal. They are the exact opposite of what a respected authority figure should be, on this point in particular. As well as on most others.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 18:51While we’re at it — do y’all think the Schenck decision was a good one?
Do y’all think the Espionage Act of 1917 was a good law?
What about the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790’s?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 18:55And still you idiots address me without permission. Shame closet.
- Severian | 05/11/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: We should then expect to see a great and high-profile conflict among liberals.
And you do. In the U.S., they’re called primaries. Clinton was roundly criticized during his presidency by liberals, and Obama has also been roundly criticized by liberals during his term. That you are unaware of this is only a reflection of your existence in the right wing echo chamber, and that you see liberals as a monolith.
mkfreeberg: Passive-voice doesn’t work here …
“A conservative is” is not passive voice.
mkfreeberg: because we would need to know who is doing this defining.
The dictionary.
Merriam-Webster
conservative, believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society
conservatism, Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability.
Oxford Dictionary
conservative, Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
mkfreeberg: Do y’all think the Espionage Act of 1917 was a good law?
No, and the original bill has been restricted by the courts.
mkfreeberg: What about the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790′s?
No, and most of the Acts were allowed to expire during the Jefferson Administration.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 06:27And you do. In the U.S., they’re called primaries. Clinton was roundly criticized during his presidency by liberals, and Obama has also been roundly criticized by liberals during his term. That you are unaware of this is only a reflection of your existence in the right wing echo chamber, and that you see liberals as a monolith.
Actually, the conflict between Obama and Clinton was “my turn!” versus “my turn!” That’s what was so embarrassing to anyone watching. The policy differences were negligible. Perhaps y’all have some examples to offer, that y’all failed just now to offer.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 08:44mkfreeberg: The policy differences were negligible.
Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, while Obama opposed. But that wasn’t the point we raised. Candidates often move towards the center of gravity within their political parties during campaigns.
mkfreeberg: Perhaps y’all have some examples to offer, that y’all failed just now to offer.
Be happy to. For instance, during the Clinton presidency, he was subjected to withering attacks on his welfare reform plan. The plan was opposed by the secretary of HHS, and three assistant secretaries at HHS resigned saying it would leave the poor vulnerable. Moynihan and Rangel were major critics. And for instance, during the Obama presidency, he has been subjected to attacks by liberals over his use of drones, and the extension of the surveillance state.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 10:21Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, while Obama opposed. But that wasn’t the point we raised. Candidates often move towards the center of gravity within their political parties during campaigns.
Right. Y’all were supposed to come up with an example of “great and high-profile conflict among liberals” concerning this “tension” between “liberty” and “equality.” Assuming it is possible to find such an example, y’all missed the mark with Hillary and Obama. So I’ll take that as tentative confirmation that this “natural tension” is a work of imagination and fiction.
For instance, during the Clinton presidency, he was subjected to withering attacks on his welfare reform plan.
That was actually a reform plan he stole from the Republicans, so one should expect him to suffer some resistance to that from his base. But he had an election he needed to win, he’d used up all his political capital and then some on staunch-extremist-liberalism, the Omnibus spending bill of ’93 wasn’t having a discernible positive effect on the economy.
Bill Clinton did & does have some political wisdom; or, someone on his staff did, anyway. He knew “when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em,” as the song goes. But, that share of wisdom makes him a poor model of what modern liberalism truly champions, given that he had to slam the brakes on to keep from going over the one-term cliff. He needed to confuse the electorate, hard and fast, to have a shot at winning a second term.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 18:38mkfreeberg: Right. Y’all were supposed to come up with an example of “great and high-profile conflict among liberals” concerning this “tension” between “liberty” and “equality.”
Yes, and the fight over welfare reform certainly qualified.
mkfreeberg: He needed to confuse the electorate, hard and fast, to have a shot at winning a second term.
Welfare reform was part of Clinton’s first campaign.
mkfreeberg: That was actually a reform plan he stole from the Republicans, so one should expect him to suffer some resistance to that from his base.
That doesn’t change that there was a controversy among liberals, between those who wanted continued government support for the poor, and those who wanted to encourage independence from government assistance.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:07Yes, and the fight over welfare reform certainly qualified.
Once again, y’all fail to comprehend the very concept of doubt, and consequently fail to see it where it exists in abundance. The fight over welfare reform within the liberal faction, to whatever extent it existed, was a political conflict about how much compromising Bill Clinton needed to do to win re-election after his first-two-years extremism had hurt his brand. It doesn’t work as an example of “tension between liberty and equality” because there’s no clear and present characterization of one side in the conflict being for-liberty, or the other side in the conflict being for-equality.
I can see this book has real market potential. I’ll have to shorten the title, though to something like Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung. I’m sure the chapter on failing to comprehend uncertainty will be special; it might be the thickest one. Maybe the first chapter, maybe the last one. Probably both.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 05:52mkfreeberg: The fight over welfare reform within the liberal faction, to whatever extent it existed, was a political conflict about how much compromising Bill Clinton needed to do to win re-election after his first-two-years extremism had hurt his brand.
Yes, there was a political calculation by the Clinton Administration. (Imagine politicians making political calculations.) Regardless, there was a division within the liberal community between those who supported welfare reform and those who didn’t.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:55Yes, there was a political calculation by the Clinton Administration. (Imagine politicians making political calculations.) Regardless…
And, this defeats the value of y’all’s example. Entirely. Got another one?
I’ll have to add a chapter on “examples don’t have to actually prove anything at all, just throw any ol’ piece of junk in there” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 06:12mkfreeberg: And, this defeats the value of y’all’s example.
Of course not. There’s always a political calculation, otherwise, legislation would never get passed. There was a huge debate, including within the liberal community. Are you saying Clinton was not a centrist liberal?
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 06:19Of course not. There’s always a political calculation, otherwise, legislation would never get passed. There was a huge debate, including within the liberal community. Are you saying Clinton was not a centrist liberal?
Where was she in relation to this “tension between liberty and equality”? On the liberty side, or on the equality side? Where was Obama? There is no reasonable answer to these, and that is one of many reasons why y’all’s example fails.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 21:34mkfreeberg: Where was she in relation to this “tension between liberty and equality”?
Bill Clinton was a centrist liberal. Are you saying Bill Clinton was not a liberal?
mkfreeberg: On the liberty side, or on the equality side?
On welfare reform, Clinton was to the left of most Republicans, and to the right of some Democrats. That made him a centrist liberal.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 03:54M: Where was she in relation to this “tension between liberty and equality”? On the liberty side, or on the equality side? Where was Obama? There is no reasonable answer to these, and that is one of many reasons why y’all’s example fails.
Z: Bill Clinton was a centrist liberal. Are you saying Bill Clinton was not a liberal?
Okay, so I see that point stands. The example y’all provided with Hillary and Obama, does not substantiate the point it was supposed to. The questions are, evidently, unanswerable.
Are y’all trying to offer a different example now, with Bill Clinton stealing some of the Republicans’ ideas in the lead-up to the 1996 elections, having used up all his political capital on extreme-leftist redistribution schemes and nepotist shenanigans?
Is there some other example to be offered of liberals conflicting with each other and acting out this tension with liberty vs. equality? For the record, I do wish it were so. But, some of us have experience discussion issues with everyday, run-of-the-mill liberals, and talking with others who have done this as well. The story is pretty consistent, to the point of monotony:
Plan: Less liberty.
Conservative or anti-liberal: I don’t like the plan, because that particular liberty matters to me.
Liberal: Then we shall see to it you are eliminated from the discussion about the plan, but still subjugated to the dictates of the plan, whether you like it or not.
Even when they’re forced to sell the idea to new recruits, so their leaders can win elections in which their victory is not at all assured. The discussion still takes that form. It doesn’t matter how they’re treated beforehand.
Liberals have something to do with “liberty” the way inflammable is somehow the opposite of flammable.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: The example y’all provided with Hillary and Obama, does not substantiate the point it was supposed to.
We had been discussing the 1996 welfare reform.
mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton stealing some of the Republicans’ ideas in the lead-up to the 1996 elections
Welfare reform was a signature issue for Bill Clinton since his days as governor of Arkansas.
mkfreeberg: Is there some other example to be offered of liberals conflicting with each other and acting out this tension with liberty vs. equality?
During the Civil Rights Movement, some liberals wanted rapid change, while others wanted more gradual change. This was a criticial issue among liberals.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 10:31Welfare reform was a signature issue for Bill Clinton since his days as governor of Arkansas.
And when it came time to sign off on it, he stole the issue from Republicans, who also had been wanting to reform welfare.
What’s the liberal position on “Let’s cut welfare”? What’s the liberal position on “Let’s make it harder to qualify for welfare”? Y’all are saying the people we today call liberals are somehow conflicted about that? Send Newt Gingrich or Condoleeza Rice to their dorm rooms and moms’ basements to pitch the idea to ’em, see how that goes.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 18:14mkfreeberg: And when it came time to sign off on it, he stole the issue from Republicans, who also had been wanting to reform welfare.
Welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton before he became president, and he made it a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. We already said this, so not sure why you keep pretending otherwise.
mkfreeberg: What’s the liberal position on “Let’s cut welfare”? What’s the liberal position on “Let’s make it harder to qualify for welfare”?
Liberals supporting welfare reform recognized the problem of long-term dependency on welfare, though they didn’t want to just dump people on the streets, but provide the support necessary to move them into jobs, including job training, child care, and health care for dependent children.
mkfreeberg: Y’all are saying the people we today call liberals are somehow conflicted about that?
Obviously. That’s why Democrats split the vote on welfare reform. Some didn’t think there were strong enough provisions in the welfare reform bill to help people move into the work force.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 03:42Welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton before he became president, and he made it a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. We already said this, so not sure why you keep pretending otherwise.
Republicans also are for welfare reform, and have been for a very long time.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 05:15mkfreeberg: Republicans also are for welfare reform, and have been for a very long time.
Sure. And Clinton worked with Republicans to pass welfare reform.
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 08:12Sure. And Clinton worked with Republicans to pass welfare reform.
For sake of political expediency. The conflict within his party was not among various strains of liberalism, but between fidelity to the hardcore lib agenda, and winning the election.
He was on thin ice.
mkfreeberg: For sake of political expediency.
As we said, repeatedly, welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton before he was president, and he campaigned for president on welfare reform. Pretending this wasn’t part-and-parcel of Clinton’s political positions isn’t a tenable position. Either you have to claim he wasn’t a liberal, or that some liberals supported welfare reform.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 04:29As we said, repeatedly, welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton before he was president…
That’s weird and funny at the same time. If y’all’s explanation doesn’t fly, y’all just repeat it. Definition of insanity.
What y’all are repeating, happens to be the confusion between political maneuvering, by an incumbent president who was losing, and an expression of modern liberal philosophy. Leaving that aside, any legislation with “reform” in the title is a poor lodestar for ideological direction anyway, since if there were no need behind the legislative effort to confuse anyone then politicians wouldn’t use the word “reform.” It’s the squid-ink of the political class.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 06:43mkfreeberg: That’s weird and funny at the same time.
“During Clinton’s tenure as governor of Arkansas, he favored capital punishment. He promoted welfare reforms aimed at pushing welfare recipients into the workforce …”
http://millercenter.org/president/clinton/essays/biography/2
“Our National Economic Strategy will put people first by rewarding work, demanding responsibility and ending welfare as we know it. We will: Make welfare a second chance, not a way of life by scrapping the current system and empowering those on welfare by providing the education, training and child care they need to go to work.” — Clinton 1992 presidential campaign brochure
http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton1992brochure.htm
As we said, it was a signature issue for Clinton. Do you consider Clinton a liberal?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 08:06mkfreeberg: That’s weird and funny at the same time.
“During Clinton’s tenure as governor of Arkansas, he favored capital punishment. He promoted welfare reforms aimed at pushing welfare recipients into the workforce …”
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 09:29http://millercenter.org/president/clinton/essays/biography/2
“Our National Economic Strategy will put people first by rewarding work, demanding responsibility and ending welfare as we know it. We will: Make welfare a second chance, not a way of life by scrapping the current system and empowering those on welfare by providing the education, training and child care they need to go to work.” — Clinton 1992 presidential campaign brochure
http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton1992brochure.htm
As we said, it was a signature issue for Clinton. Do you consider Clinton a liberal?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 09:29Yes, Bill Clinton was great at fooling the moderate voter.
It’s rather silly and sad that democrats consider him to be some sort of exemplar of honesty and truth. The guy lies under oath.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 18:40mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton was great at fooling the moderate voter.
Fooling, if you mean promising welfare reform, then delivering it, even at the risk of alienating liberal voters, then yes.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 02:54We agree then. Bill Clinton was not being a liberal when he supported the legislation y’all are discussing. Modern liberalism is not interested in “scrapping the current system and empowering those on welfare by providing the education, training and child care they need to go to work.”
We could inspect Detroit to see if it’s a model of that kind of an agenda. Liberals have been in charge there for a very long time.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:36mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton was not being a liberal when he supported the legislation y’all are discussing.
So, in your view, Bill Clinton can’t be a liberal because he advocated welfare reform. The original question concerned whether there has been conflict within liberalism over policy, and if you then define liberalism as adherence is a set of specific policies, then your argument is simply a tautology by definition.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 10:14So, in your view, Bill Clinton can’t be a liberal because he advocated welfare reform.
It’s not just according to me. This is a point of agreement y’all and I have managed to achieve.
Are y’all changing y’all’s position now?
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: It’s not just according to me. This is a point of agreement y’all and I have managed to achieve.
Well, no. Most people would reasonably consider Clinton a moderate liberal. If you, however, define liberalism as adherence is a set of specific policies, then your argument is simply a tautology by definition, and you are forced to say that Clinton is not a liberal, moderate or otherwise.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 04:53Well, no. Most people would reasonably consider Clinton a moderate liberal.
Most would release Barabbas and condemn Jesus, but that doesn’t make it the right decision.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 04:59mkfreeberg: Most would release Barabbas and condemn Jesus, but that doesn’t make it the right decision.
Sure, but you’re arguing that Clinton is not a liberal, and do so because you defined liberal as someone holding to a specific set of policies with no exception. It’s an absurd position, and all you have is an argument by definition.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:10Sure, but you’re arguing that Clinton is not a liberal, and do so because you defined liberal as someone holding to a specific set of policies with no exception.
No, I’m arguing the liberal position is something different from what Clinton did when he stole a Republican idea, and he stole the Republican idea because he needed to win an election and he was on thin ice.
Y’all are manufacturing y’all’s false-reality-snowglobe again, trying to play the “it only takes one example to refute your claim” game, and doing a crappy job of it. Let’s see if I follow the “logic”: Clinton needed to win an election, he stole a Republican idea, so that means there’s no such thing as conservative or liberals. Is there any more to it, or are y’all ready for me to pass my judgment on it?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:14mkfreeberg: No, I’m arguing the liberal position is something different from what Clinton did
But that wasn’t the question. You asked for an example of a conflict among liberals. Then when pressed, you said Clinton wasn’t a liberal. Now you say he just wasn’t liberal on the one issue. Please learn to be clear about your position.
Is Clinton a liberal?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:22Is Clinton a liberal?
Of course he is.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:25Bill Clinton is a liberal. He was in conflict with other liberals over welfare reform; therefore, that is an example of conflict among liberals concerning an important issue concerning equality.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:36Bill Clinton is a liberal. He was in conflict with other liberals over welfare reform; therefore, that is an example of conflict among liberals concerning an important issue concerning equality.
No, that does not logically follow.
Politicians very often have to reverse course, or taper down their ideological zeal a bit, in order to win elections. It isn’t even an exception; it’s the rule.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:38mkfreeberg: Politicians very often have to reverse course, or taper down their ideological zeal a bit, in order to win elections.
As we pointed out, many times, many times, welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton from his days in Arkansas. He promised welfare reform during his presidential campaign. He didn’t change course. It was an intrinsic part of his political program.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:51As we pointed out, many times, many times, welfare reform was a signature issue for Clinton from his days in Arkansas. He promised welfare reform during his presidential campaign. He didn’t change course. It was an intrinsic part of his political program.
Uh huh.
So it would probably be a mistake to assess the position of an ideology on a given issue, based on the pragmatic actions of a political player like Bill Clinton.
But let’s grant that this was something near and dear to Clinton’s heart, and somehow we can explain away the vetoing it twice & then caving to the opposition party when his adviser tells him that’s the only way to win re-election. Let’s grant ALL that. Y’all are saying it’s part of the modern liberal agenda to move people off the welfare rolls?
If that were the case, we should expect to see Republicans achieving a lot of support from self-professed liberal colleagues, and voters, when they complain about too many people on welfare. Their position that able-bodied people should not be on welfare, would not be controversial — even among liberals.
That’s not what we see happening at all.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:05So your polemic proves the point. Clinton, a liberal per your estimation, was in conflict with many liberal Democrats to pass welfare reform.
mkfreeberg: Y’all are saying it’s part of the modern liberal agenda to move people off the welfare rolls?
No, we’re saying that liberals are a diverse group, each striking different balances of the imperatives of equality and liberty.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:14So your polemic proves the point. Clinton, a liberal per your estimation, was in conflict with many liberal Democrats to pass welfare reform.
It proves that democrats are opposed to this reform. Which proves what I’ve been saying.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:18mkfreeberg: It proves that democrats are opposed to this reform.
No, it proves that *some* Democrats were opposed to this reform. Others supported the bill.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:22No, it proves that *some* Democrats were opposed to this reform. Others supported the bill.
Right. They wanted the democrat President to win re-election. The conflict was between ideological purity and winning the election.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:32mkfreeberg: They wanted the democrat President to win re-election.
Clinton is a Democrat. Welfare reform was a signature issue long before he ran for president.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:40Clinton is a Democrat. Welfare reform was a signature issue long before he ran for president.
He had to cave to Republicans on this “signature issue” of his in order to win re-election. Logically, therefore, what he signed had to contradict whatever had truly been a “signature issue” to him. Were that not the case, no such compromise would have been necessary.
When he did compromise, democrats were opposed to it. The conflict did exist, but it was between ideological purity and winning the election. So once again, the example y’all have offered does not prove y’all’s point the way y’all thought it did. This would be the time to admit it. A little late, but better than never.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: He had to cave to Republicans on this “signature issue” of his in order to win re-election.
Of course he compromised. There’s no legislation without compromise. Yet he campaigned on welfare reform, then signed welfare reform.
mkfreeberg: Logically, therefore, what he signed had to contradict whatever had truly been a “signature issue” to him. Were that not the case, no such compromise would have been necessary.
There’s your black-and-white thinking acting up again. Some welfare reform is more than no welfare reform. Some protection for people moving off welfare is better than no protection for people moving off welfare. It was either accept imperfect protections and some welfare reform, or no welfare reform at all.
mkfreeberg: When he did compromise, democrats were opposed to it.
Not all Democrats, including Clinton who had promised welfare reform, and then delivered it.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:53Of course he compromised. There’s no legislation without compromise…
Where or not there is legislation without compromise, his compromise nullifies the example y’all have offered.
Got any others?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 07:03mkfreeberg: Where or not there is legislation without compromise, his compromise nullifies the example y’all have offered.
It’s an example of a conflict among liberals on an important issue. That’s what we had to show.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 07:12It’s an example of a conflict among liberals on an important issue. That’s what we had to show.
Right, and the “important issue” was “Should we throttle-back on this liberalism stuff for a little while, so Bill Clinton can win an election, since the public has temporarily figured out it isn’t good for them?”
So, no. It’s not what y’all had to show.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 12:32mkfreeberg: Right, and the “important issue” was “Should we throttle-back on this liberalism stuff for a little while, so Bill Clinton can win an election
You’ve already granted that Bill Clinton is a liberal. We have shown that he had supported welfare reform long before his election as president. Many liberals did not “throttle-back”, but rejected the reform and fought against it in Congress. Hence, we have shown there was conflict among liberals on an important issue.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 12:41You’ve already granted that Bill Clinton is a liberal. We have shown that he had supported welfare reform long before his election as president.
Yes, liberals support lots of things that aren’t liberal when they’re just about to get their butts kicked.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 14:59mkfreeberg: Yes, liberals support lots of things that aren’t liberal
You seem to not be able to keep track of simple points.
Welfare reform was a signature issue for Bill Clinton long before he ran for president, hence, it was not in response to a particular election cycle. In addition, some liberals supported the reform, while others opposed it.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 19:02You seem to not be able to keep track of simple points.
Not at all. A liberal did a non-liberal thing he didn’t want to do, in order to win an election. So y’all have seized on this as “evidence” that liberal is not-liberal.
Of course this is not a good argument — if you can “prove” something by showing a politician acting like a politician, well, you can “prove” anything & everything that way. And, of course, we had all those democrats opposing welfare reform. The conflict did exist, but it was between ideological purity and winning the election.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 04:55mkfreeberg: Of course this is not a good argument — if you can “prove” something by showing a politician acting like a politician, well, you can “prove” anything & everything that way.
So Clinton spends his career advocating for welfare reform, you admit he’s a liberal, but that doesn’t count as a liberal advocating for welfare reform.
Heh. You’re funny.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 05:30So Clinton spends his career advocating for welfare reform, you admit he’s a liberal, but…
Bill Clinton has said all sorts of things. That’s what liars do.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 05:48mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton has said all sorts of things.
He didn’t just talk, he worked for welfare reform, first in Arkansas, then in the federal government. This work extended over decades. Ignoring the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:07He didn’t just talk, he worked for welfare reform, first in Arkansas, then in the federal government. This work extended over decades. Ignoring the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
Who’s ignoring evidence?
Bill Clinton started his first term with his own party holding a majority in both houses of Congress. The welfare reform for which he “worked” so hard, came after he got his butt kicked and needed to do something to keep from being voted out. Then he vetoed two versions of it, and in desperation, signed off on the Republican version of it, over the objections of democrats.
The conflict did exist, but it was between ideological purity and winning the election.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 06:17mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton started his first term with his own party holding a majority in both houses of Congress.
That’s right. There was conflict over welfare reform within the Democratic Party, including conflict among liberals. That demonstrates the point.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:32That’s right. There was conflict over welfare reform within the Democratic Party, including conflict among liberals. That demonstrates the point.
And Clinton got around to it when the democrats were in a state of retreat. Which demonstrates the opposite point.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 22:07mkfreeberg: And Clinton got around to it when the democrats were in a state of retreat.
You can only sustain your position by pretending we haven’t responded. Welfare reform was a signature issue for Bill Clinton before he ran for president, predating the situation you claim caused him to support welfare reform. Furthermore, when Clinton promised in 1992 to “end welfare as we have come to know it”, he was immediately in conflict with many liberals, again predating the situation you claim caused him to support welfare reform.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 05:12You can only sustain your position by pretending we haven’t responded. Welfare reform was a signature issue for Bill Clinton before he ran for president, predating the situation you claim…
Y’all can only sustain y’all’s position by pretending I haven’t responded. Bill Clinton has said all sorts of things. That’s what liars do.
“Signature issue” ≠ doing something definite.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 18:07mkfreeberg: Signature issue” ≠ doing something definite.
As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform.
Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 05:45http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/
Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals
We agree, then. A liberal may do non-liberal things, when he has to, to win re-election, when he’s on thin ice.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 06:28mkfreeberg: A liberal may do non-liberal things, when he has to, to win re-election, when he’s on thin ice.
In the case of Bill Clinton, his advocacy of welfare reform spanned his entire political career. You keep making the same debunked point. You really need to learn to incorporate new knowledge into your viewpoint.
mkfreeberg: A liberal may do non-liberal things …
Someone who is generally liberal may not be liberal on all issues. Liberalism is a balance between liberty and equality, and people strike different balances.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:36In the case of Bill Clinton, his advocacy of welfare reform spanned his entire political career.
Bill Clinton advocated for a lot of things. That’s what liars do.
You keep making the same debunked point. You really need to learn to incorporate new knowledge into your viewpoint.
From a guy who lies on national teevee? From the first President to be impeached in 130 years? From a guy who had his law license suspended for perjury?
Thanks, I’ll keep my own counsel on how, when, and from who I need to incorporate new knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 19:04mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton advocated for a lot of things.
Not merely advocated, but took actions based on that advocacy.
As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform.
Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill, Angers Liberals
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 05:33http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/
Not merely advocated, but took actions based on that advocacy.
He also vetoed it twice.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 06:27mkfreeberg: He also vetoed it twice.
Sure, and those vetoes led to changes that he thought improved the bill. He could have vetoed a third time, but that might have doomed the entire effort, so he settled for the best welfare reform he thought he could achieve politically.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 06:35He could have vetoed a third time, but that might have doomed the entire effort, so he settled for the best welfare reform he thought he could achieve politically.
Right! “Best” as in, “most liberal,” meaning, “most corrosive against independence and self-sufficiency.”
I think most people, confronted with the question of “Does one ‘battle with himself over whether to reject’ something that is supposed to be his ‘signature issue’?” would respond…probably not. That’s why y’all’s explanation doesn’t hold up.
Also, it’s very clear from the linked article that reduction of spending on food stamps and denial of aid to immigratns, is not what Bill Clinton was talking about when he mentioned “doing what is right.” That was not his “signature issue.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 17:02mkfreeberg: Right! “Best” as in, “most liberal,” meaning, “most corrosive against independence and self-sufficiency.”
Many liberals didn’t want a bill that reduced benefits. Clinton didn’t have to sign any bill.
mkfreeberg: I think most people, confronted with the question of “Does one ‘battle with himself over whether to reject’ something that is supposed to be his ‘signature issue’?” would respond…probably not.
There’s your black-and-white thinking again. Clinton signed a welfare reform bill. While he wanted to move people off welfare into the workforce, he wanted stronger protections, including support during the transition. However, he had to work with Congress, so had to settle for a compromise. Claiming that because he was willing to compromise makes him an uncompromising liberal just doesn’t make sense.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 17:12There’s your black-and-white thinking again.
A bowling ball is on the floor. Gravity stops it from going up. The floor stops it from going down. The bowling ball is at rest, but this does not make up the same as down. They remain opposites.
You produce a blob of gray paint on a palette. In so doing, you do not make white the same as black. They remain opposites.
Liberalism and conservatism remain opposites. A politician did something to pander to both — which is what politicians do. Y’all’s point relies on overlooking that last part, which makes y’all’s point particularly ridiculous.
“We can change what is wrong, we should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right.” What Clinton thinks of as wrong, and right, is pretty darn obvious. Oh, I’m sure y’all will want to debate it, but that doesn’t mean anything. Liberals are for dependency, conservatives are for self-reliance, and if there’s an exception to that then y’all’s example doesn’t successfully offer one.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 20:13mkfreeberg: A bowling ball is on the floor. Gravity stops it from going up. The floor stops it from going down. The bowling ball is at rest, but this does not make up the same as down. They remain opposites.
Okay.
mkfreeberg: You produce a blob of gray paint on a palette. In so doing, you do not make white the same as black. They remain opposites.
Okay.
mkfreeberg: Liberalism and conservatism remain opposites.
Not quite. While in often in opposition, they are not quite opposites. Liberalism advocates liberty and equality. Conservatism attempts to slow the rate of change. A conservative might ally with a liberal to resist the radical left or the radical right.
mkfreeberg: A politician did something to pander to both — which is what politicians do.
Bill Clinton did more than pander. Welfare reform was a signature issue over his entire career.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 03:15mkfreeberg: Liberalism and conservatism remain opposites.
Z: Not quite. While in often in opposition, they are not quite opposites. Liberalism advocates liberty and equality. Conservatism attempts to slow the rate of change. A conservative might ally with a liberal to resist the radical left or the radical right.
We’ve been through this. The thing we today call “liberalism” does not advocate liberty.
It’s not so fond of equality, either. Try telling a feminist sometime about mens’ rights, see how much sympathy that gets you. Try to tell an Occupy Wall Street protester that the “one percent” have an equal right to protect their property. Liberals believe in castes. They did in the slavery days, they do now, they have every single minute in between.
Bill Clinton did more than pander. Welfare reform was a signature issue over his entire career.
The second half of that is right, in a pandering sort of way.
Bill Clinton’s never done anything more than “pander,” about anything. He doesn’t care about anything but his dick, and everybody knows it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 17:50mkfreeberg: The thing we today call “liberalism” does not advocate liberty.
We cited dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholars, and provided multiple examples of common usage. You cite a conservative blog.
mkfreeberg: Bill Clinton’s never done anything more than “pander,”
You can claim anything you want, but you haven’t supported your claim, and it is contradicted by the evidence. Clinton did more than pander. He proactively implemented policies that often drew the ire of other liberals. As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. Oh, and worked to balanced the budget.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:19We cited dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholars, and provided multiple examples of common usage. You cite a conservative blog.
Conservative blogs are among the “common usage.” Conservatives, in fact, are among the “common usage.”
This seems to be where y’all have problems. Can’t cope with the opinions of those who disagree.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:30mkfreeberg: Conservative blogs are among the “common usage.”
It’s a classic case of undue bias. It’s like pointing to left wing blog that calls George Bush a Nazi. Just because they warp the definition to include Bush doesn’t mean that is how the term is normally used.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:36It’s like pointing to left wing blog that calls George Bush a Nazi.
Saying the liberals are for expansion of the welfare state, I think, is not quite like calling George W. Bush a Nazi. I think most people would see a difference between those two positions.
Of course, y’all are entitled to maintain ignorance, where others maintain knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:56mkfreeberg: Saying the liberals are for expansion of the welfare state, I think, is not quite like calling George W. Bush a Nazi.
It’s analogous. Just because some people call Bush a Nazi doesn’t mean that it a proper use of the term. By the way, Bush expanded the welfare state with a huge Medicare expansion.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 05:52t’s analogous. Just because some people call Bush a Nazi doesn’t mean that it a proper use of the term.
Correct. But I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
By the way, Bush expanded the welfare state with a huge Medicare expansion.
Don’t see what that has to do with anything either.
Meanwhile, saying liberals are for expansion of the welfare state, is not quite like calling George W. Bush a Nazi.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:35mkfreeberg: Don’t see what that has to do with anything either.
It’s simple. You pointed to a right wing polemic. Just because you can find a polemic somewhere that misuses political terminology doesn’t mean you have pointed to general usage.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 07:41Just because you can find a polemic somewhere that misuses political terminology doesn’t mean you have pointed to general usage.
My “polemic” in this case is that liberals are for expansion of the welfare state.
Are y’all trying to say that if some survey could be put out to people of varying ideological leanings asking “Are liberals in favor of expansion of the welfare state?”, the “general” answer that came back would be a negative?
So we have these three ways that the claim could be like calling George W. Bush a Nazi: Verity; popular acceptance; shock value. In none of the three ways does y’all’s comparison fit. Is there a fourth?
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:55mkfreeberg: My “polemic” in this case is that liberals are for expansion of the welfare state.
Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state.
Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state.
mkfreeberg: “Are liberals in favor of expansion of the welfare state?”, the “general” answer that came back would be a negative?
Most liberals advocate for an expansion of the welfare state, but as we have seen, not all. We might say that Clinton was liberal on most issues, but less liberal on the welfare issue. That’s because liberals are a diverse group, and place different emphasis on the values of equality and liberty.
This is the concept you always have troubles with, that just because we lump people into a category, that may not mean they share every characteristic.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 08:00Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state.
Clinton stands for a lot of things, very few of which have any truth to them. Some think of him as an honest person. Some think of him as a good husband. Some think of him as a uniter. There are even a few running around who have no idea he’s a lawyer.
He advocated for a reduction of the welfare state the way he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 10:21That’s because liberals are a diverse group, and place different emphasis on the values of equality and liberty.
They’re “diverse” the way Bill Clinton is honest and a good husband.
And they are especially enthused about issues in which equality and liberty are opposed, such as progressive taxes to “spread the wealth around.” On those issues, they consistently oppose liberty.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 10:23mkfreeberg: He advocated for a reduction of the welfare state
As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. Oh, and worked to balanced the budget.
Instead of waving your hands, why don’t you try to absorb this information before responding.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 13:31Instead of waving your hands, why don’t you try to absorb this information before responding.
Because y’all’s example is inferior. It’s a problem that’s going to come up regularly with liberalism, which among many other things, consistently champions the treatment of serious issues without seriousness. Example: Y’all says welfare reform was Clinton’s “signature issue”; telling the truth was also one of his signature issues, and so was being a good husband.
Would he be the model of such things? Seriously?
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 17:21Waving your hands is not an argument.
Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state. Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 19:42Waving your hands is not an argument.
More like: When y’all make a faulty argument and it gets called out as one, making the same argument again doesn’t do anything to fix the problem.
Bill Clinton had a lot of “signature issues” that never meant anything. That’s the way liars and narcissists are. So I don’t think we should call it “hand waving” to simply point out that y’all’s argument is an ineffectual one; it’s more like “fact stating.”
mkfreeberg: When y’all make a faulty argument and it gets called out as one, making the same argument again doesn’t do anything to fix the problem.
You still ignored the argument. As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. Oh, and worked to balanced the budget.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 05:14Is Bill Clinton the model of treating any of those issues seriously?
Y’all ignored the point. A natural consequence of not taking anything seriously is that when you are cited subsequently as an example of something, it is bound to be a poor example.
And Clinton took things “talk to Congress while receiving a blow job” seriously. Meaning, not at all.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 06:53mkfreeberg: And Clinton took things “talk to Congress while receiving a blow job” seriously.
You do realize that’s a classic fallacy of diversion, argumentum ad hominem.
mkfreeberg: Is Bill Clinton the model of treating any of those issues seriously?
Obviously, as he took actions based on his advocacy. Did you even read what we wrote? Look for the action words.
As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. Oh, and worked to balanced the budget.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 09:16You do realize that’s a classic fallacy of diversion, argumentum ad hominem.
No, it’s pointing something out about y’all’s case study’s lack of seriousness. There is a difference between that and an ad hom.
Once AGAIN — if y’all can’t see the difference, that isn’t anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:27mkfreeberg: No, it’s pointing something out about y’all’s case study’s lack of seriousness.
Of course it’s a classic fallacy of diversion, argumentum ad hominem of the form Bill Clinton couldn’t have been serious about welfare reform because he lied about sex. That’s exactly what is meant by an ad hominem. Clinton advocated for and worked on welfare reform over decades. That doesn’t change.
Now try to address the point. Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state. Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state. Please reconcile this with your definition of liberal which hinges on whether someone supports an expansion of welfare.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 10:37That’s exactly what is meant by an ad hominem. Clinton advocated for and worked on welfare reform over decades. That doesn’t change.
There’s another aspect to it y’all are missing. Clinton cannot be a good model of liberalism OR of welfare reform, or anything else for that matter. As I have explained to y’all already, this is a natural consequence of not taking anything seriously. Not sure why y’all keep arguing the point.
Once AGAIN — if y’all can’t see this, it isn’t anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:47mkfreeberg: Clinton cannot be a good model of liberalism OR of welfare reform, or anything else for that matter.
We didn’t cite him as a model, but as an instance. You made this exact same error before. Do you understand the difference?
mkfreeberg: As I have explained to y’all already, this is a natural consequence of not taking anything seriously.
That makes little sense. As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. He brokered peace in Ireland. Oh, and he balanced the budget.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 10:50We didn’t cite him as a model, but as an instance.
It’s a pretty poor citation, of whatever it’s supposed to be.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:58mkfreeberg: It’s a pretty poor citation, of whatever it’s supposed to be.
You claimed Clinton was a liberal.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 11:43You claimed Clinton was a liberal.
Yup. A buffoonish, unserious liberal. Are y’all disputing the claim?
- mkfreeberg | 05/27/2014 @ 04:01mkfreeberg: A buffoonish, unserious liberal.
A liberal, nonetheless. So we have,
* Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state.
* Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state.
As you defined liberals as those who support an expansion of welfare, and conservatives as those who support a reduction in welfare, your position is self-contradictory.
- Zachriel | 05/27/2014 @ 05:12As you defined liberals as those who support an expansion of welfare, and conservatives as those who support a reduction in welfare, your position is self-contradictory.
But, as we saw with the example of Newt Gingrich’s incoming Congress effecting change and rejecting the institutions that had come before, the “It only takes one example to refute the claim” rule does not apply here. (Perhaps it can be fairly waived in a lot of other places, too). If it does apply to this issue, then y’all’s definition would also be self-contradictory. At any rate, it’s obvious that we have to look at the big picture and rely on common sense to figure out what these terms truly mean.
Now, y’all’s example of Bill Clinton is not a very good one, since Clinton did not take anything seriously and wasn’t concerned about too much besides his own sexual gratification. We do know he wanted to win the election. And, there is something uniquely Clinton about this — most women would not lie to protect their adulterous husbands, just for the benefit of the political fortunes of the man, or for the (tenuously) married couple. Just as most men who’ve been caught lying, once reduced to debating the meaning of ‘is’ for sake of their continuing survival, would consider the show over and pack it in. So Clinton, as I’ve pointed out to y’all already, doesn’t serve as an example because on the list of what motivated him then and continues to motivate him today, ideological purity is nowhere near the top. Like most sexual predators, Bill Clinton reserves the top of such a list for things that benefit the self, not for things that benefit others.
As for Dr. King, he was assassinated in 1968. He did not argue for welfare dependency.
Y’all are really reaching for these examples. When y’all find them, they don’t support very much.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 03:29mkfreeberg: But, as we saw with the example of Newt Gingrich’s incoming Congress effecting change and rejecting the institutions that had come before, the “It only takes one example to refute the claim” rule does not apply here.
What rule is that? If you mean the distinction between left and right, then a single exception may or may not contradict the definition. For instance, a conservative might support some social change, and a liberal might on a particular issue take a conservative position.
In the case of Gingrich, he wanted to roll back some of the liberal programs of the previous generation. That puts him on the political right, so it’s not an exception.
mkfreeberg: Now, y’all’s example of Bill Clinton is not a very good one, since Clinton did not take anything seriously and wasn’t concerned about too much besides his own sexual gratification.
Not that it matters, but that is an unfair characterization. As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform. He also worked for open trade agreements. He brokered peace in Ireland. Oh, and he balanced the budget. That’s hardly the work of an unserious person.
mkfreeberg: So Clinton, as I’ve pointed out to y’all already, doesn’t serve as an example
Of course he’s an example. You said he was a liberal, so he’s an example. Perhaps you mean he is not a representative example.
mkfreeberg: As for Dr. King, he was assassinated in 1968. He did not argue for welfare dependency.
No one argues for welfare dependency. However, King did argue for an expansion of welfare.
* Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state.
- Zachriel | 05/28/2014 @ 05:49* Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state.
No one argues for welfare dependency.
Incorrect, unless y’all are intending to argue for a redefinition of “no one.”
However, King did argue for an expansion of welfare.
As the article clearly points out, King’s ideas about welfare do not qualify him as a liberal.
* Bill Clinton, whom you called a liberal, advocated for a reduction of the the welfare state.
* Dr. King, whom you called a conservative, advocated for an expansion of the welfare state.
The article I linked makes it very clear how the welfare state fails those it is supposed to serve. And, as I pointed out to y’all already, in fact a few times, Dr. King was assassinated before he could’ve seen much of this happen.
I’m afraid by repeating the same points that have already been debunked, all y’all have managed to prove is this: It is really, really, really hard to point anything out to y’all. Therefore, y’all’s treatises are the natural intellectual positioning of those who don’t learn very much.
I’m afraid I don’t find that very persuasive. The fact that y’all don’t have any actual names, makes it even less persuasive. Bunch of anonymous busybodies who can’t be told anything, think X. So?
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 17:29mkfreeberg: Incorrect, unless y’all are intending to argue for a redefinition of “no one.”
Please name the most prominent person who argues for welfare dependency.
mkfreeberg: As the article clearly points out, King’s ideas about welfare do not qualify him as a liberal.
Your definition was based on an expansion of welfare. You’re saying that someone who supported
Federal power over states’ rights
Ending segregation
Affirmative action
Income redistribution
Jobs programs
Urban renewal
Opposed the Vietnam War
Marched for jobs and freedom
Public employees’ unions.
is not a political liberal. Seriously, that’s what you’re claiming.
mkfreeberg: The fact that y’all don’t have any actual names, makes it even less persuasive.
Names for what?
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 05:44Liberal progressives had always wanted a centralised welfare state with which to build their utopian socialist future, but had always come up against a sceptical public. Now they had the victim group par excellence, African-Americans, to justify their tax-and-spend policies.
Of course, this implied that the black man was not the equal of whites in the market place. The black man needed help; he needed the support of the white progressive intelligentsia. This, of course, was pure patronizing; liberal condescension on a national scale.
But welfarism has not brought economic equality to American blacks. It has created ghettoes of dependency and levels of urban crime and family breakdown (particularly fatherless families) unseen before the advent of the welfare state.
:
Martin Luther King wanted to liberate black people from legal disabilities. He wanted African Americans to take responsibility for self-improvement and to stand as equals in the market place.
Many have succeeded. But for many more, perhaps the majority, white liberal welfare condescension has created ghettos on a scale unknown before the Second World War. In cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia, the level of black crime is a matter of major national debate.
With the money running out and increasing white flight, the bankruptcy of liberal welfarism has been exposed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 17:59mkfreeberg: Of course, this implied that the black man was not the equal of whites in the market place.
Let’s ask Dr. King!
It’s not unreasonable to disagree with King, but it is not reasonable to misrepresent his views. King supported
Federal power over states’ rights
Ending segregation
Affirmative action
Income redistribution
Jobs programs
Urban renewal
Opposed the Vietnam War
Marched for jobs and freedom
He was murdered while supporting a public employees’ union strike. He was politically liberal in his time, and he would still be considered liberal today.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:05During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:16You didn’t address the point. You claimed that King’s position on affirmative action was something other than what it was. You claimed King was a conservative, even though he held politically liberal positions across the board.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:22Had Dr. King lived, he would have seen the error of these policies.
I have already explained to y’all that he did not, and what that means. I don’t recall y’all “addressing that point” in any way at all.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:29mkfreeberg: Had Dr. King lived, he would have seen the error of these policies.
Possibly, but that doesn’t salvage your position. Dr. King supported liberal political policies on a wide range of issues, including affirmative action.
When you are wrong, you should simply say so, and modify your position accordingly.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:33Possibly, but that doesn’t salvage your position.
Who said anything about salvaging my position? It absolutely devastates y’all’s. A great many of the people who are conservative today, and were alive back then, were not as conservative back then. They were made that way by life’s experiences, and by the experience of seeing how public policy subsequently determines public fortune and despair.
Dr. King missed out on: The final indignities of the outgoing Johnson administration, and of the outgoing Warren Supreme Court; the risibility of the Vietnam situation; the failure of Keynesian economics; Carter making a mess of the school system, of the economy, and of our foreign policy; the “Malaise speech”; Ronald Reagan suddenly, inexplicably, making the hostage crisis go away as WELL as the energy crisis; the feminist movement losing every shred of its remaining credibility when its advocates sought to defend Bill Clinton; Al Gore trying to steal the Florida election; the 9-11 attacks. Most of the people who are conservative today, and were alive prior to these events, will point to one or more of the above in explaining their personal experiences, and how they were convinced liberalism just doesn’t work.
Dr. King almost certainly would have been among them, but as I’ve explained to y’all already, he was assassinated in 1968. Meanwhile, looking for ways that an entire class of people mired in poverty might be lifted out of it, he briefly considered an invasive and active government approach and so y’all figure he must be as good an example of an entrenched and dedicated liberal as anybody else. Well. “There’s your black-and-white thinking acting up again,” to coin a phrase.
- mkfreeberg | 05/30/2014 @ 04:22mkfreeberg: Dr. King almost certainly would have been among them
What we do know is that he was politically liberal while he was alive. Calling him a conservative because he might have changed his views if he had lived is simply not a valid argument.
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 07:30What we do know is that he was politically liberal while he was alive. Calling him a conservative because he might have changed his views if he had lived is simply not a valid argument.
As my sources make clear, there are many other reasons to consider Dr. King a conservative, it isn’t limited to conjecture about how he might have changed his mind had he lived.
Although, the man was open-minded and intelligent. So that’s not just idle conjecture.
- mkfreeberg | 05/31/2014 @ 16:38mkfreeberg: As my sources make clear …
You don’t have any sources. You linked to a polemic while ignoring everything we posted. Dr. King supported these policies:
Federal power over states’ rights
Ending segregation
Affirmative action
Income redistribution
Jobs programs
Urban renewal
Opposed the Vietnam War
Marched for jobs and freedom
Strikes by public sector employees
These are all liberal positions.
- Zachriel | 05/31/2014 @ 18:06You don’t have any sources. You linked to a polemic while ignoring everything we posted.
Hand waving is not an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 06/01/2014 @ 07:38mkfreeberg: Hand waving is not an argument.
That’s correct. We made specific points concerning King’s political views. You then posted a polemic which did not address those specific points.
- Zachriel | 06/01/2014 @ 09:04My so-called “polemic” says: “American liberals saw blacks, not as King’s free men before the law, but as a victim group, dependent on welfare hand-outs from the state.” This defines a difference between King’s vision and the vision of “American liberals.”
Y’all have made it clear it is very difficult to get points across to y’all or to tell y’all anything; but other than that, how did y’all ever reconcile this? It’s a pretty important and basic distinction over which y’all are so breezily glossing here: Free, versus not-free. Dependent, versus not-dependent. So to buy y’all’s argument, we have to pretend opposites are identical. Which pretty much means the argument fails, unless y’all can do something to save it.
Y’all’s answer to which is, evidently, “Look how hard it is to tell us anything.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 03:48mkfreeberg: My so-called “polemic” says: “American liberals saw blacks, not as King’s free men before the law, but as a victim group, dependent on welfare hand-outs from the state.”
King was an American liberal, and there are virtually no liberals of note who want blacks dependent on welfare, including LBJ who wanted to make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.”
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 05:31…there are virtually no liberals of note who want blacks dependent on welfare, including LBJ who wanted to make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.”
Right. Intentions are everything, results don’t matter at all. I’ll have to add that chapter to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 17:31mkfreeberg: Right. Intentions are everything, results don’t matter at all.
Of course results matter, but they don’t change the definition. Someone may be a utopian, even though implementation of their ideals may be dystopian.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 17:36Someone may be a utopian, even though implementation of their ideals may be dystopian.
If someone tries to put out a house fire by dousing it in gasoline, they could plead ignorance one time, although even that would be a stretch. Once they make a habit out of this, you have to start questioning their motives.
Even if they give great speeches.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 18:16mkfreeberg: If someone tries to put out a house fire by dousing it in gasoline, they could plead ignorance one time, although even that would be a stretch.
Several problems with that position. Each generation has to relearn the lessons of the previous generation, and the young tend to idealism. Not everyone would agree that liberalism has always failed, and liberalism has had notable successes in the last century, such as ending segregation and establishing a basic social safety net. (One could argue that the successes led to overreach.) The implication of your position is that liberals, such as Dr. King, were not sincere in their support of liberal policies.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 04:14Each generation has to relearn the lessons of the previous generation…
Some do.
- mkfreeberg | 06/03/2014 @ 05:20mkfreeberg: Some do.
We raised several objections to your claim, any one of which undermines your claim. You only responded to one, and that was an admission that some idealistic youth are quite sincere in their beliefs.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 05:24We raised several objections to your claim, any one of which undermines your claim.
Y’all are an unknown-size collection of anonymous Internet busybodies who evaluate the efforts of liberals based on the speeches the liberals give, and say risible things such as “Each generation has to relearn the lessons of the previous generation.” Y’all are not in a position to say what undermines what.
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2014 @ 04:54mkfreeberg: Y’all are an unknown-size collection of anonymous Internet busybodies …
Fallacy of diversion (ad hominem).
Zachriel: Someone may be a utopian, even though implementation of their ideals may be dystopian.
mkfreeberg: If someone tries to put out a house fire by dousing it in gasoline, they could plead ignorance one time, although even that would be a stretch.
Several problems with your position.
* Naïvety: Each generation has to relearn the lessons of the previous generation, and the young tend to idealism.
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 05:45* False Premise: Not everyone would agree that liberalism has always failed, and liberalism has had notable successes in the last century, such as ending segregation and establishing a basic social safety net. (One could argue that the successes led to overreach.)
* Counterexample: The implication of your position is that liberals, such as Dr. King, were not sincere in their support of liberal policies.
ad hominem
Pointing out an opponent’s unfitness for raising a point, is not ad hominem. If we don’t know who y’all are, then we don’t know who’s complaining about failing to understand this-or-that — when others, who have some sort of identity, have reported no such problem understanding the same things.
Each generation has to relearn the lessons of the previous generation.
Incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 05:42mkfreeberg: Pointing out an opponent’s unfitness for raising a point, is not ad hominem.
Of course it is. That’s exactly what the term means.
- Zachriel | 06/06/2014 @ 10:40Of course it is. That’s exactly what the term means.
No, it isn’t.
…is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
In this case, if y’all claim something is unclear to y’all, while the same thing is clear to everyone else who has a name — and we don’t know y’all’s names — one would be hard pressed to call that “irrelevant.” We’d have to be impressed by the fact that the statement made, is incomprehensible to…who? There’s no telling. And since there’s no telling, y’all’s claim of lack of ability to comprehend, loses its effectiveness.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 21:44mkfreeberg: In this case, if y’all claim something is unclear to y’all, while the same thing is clear to everyone else who has a name — and we don’t know y’all’s names — one would be hard pressed to call that “irrelevant.”
Actually, we keep providing citations showing your understanding of the term liberal is not consistent with how most people use the term. And yes, you introduced a fallacious ad hominem.
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 04:58Actually, we keep providing citations showing your understanding of the term liberal is not consistent with how most people use the term.
If that is indeed true, it says little other than that there is a point to be made about how people are using the terms incorrectly. Or, are y’all confessing that in y’all’s universe, there’s no point to saying anything at all, unless a majority of all those assembled already know it? Seems like a recipe for never learning anything. Actually, more than “seems like”; it would have to be exactly that.
And yes, you introduced a fallacious ad hominem.
When someone tries to make a point out of not being able to comprehend something, which hasn’t confused anybody else in attendance, and that person refuses to reveal who he is, it changes the ramifications; it effectively nullifies them. Anonymous people have to learn their place. They’re not on the same footing as people who reveal who they are, or at least, disclose something identifiable about themselves.
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 10:06mkfreeberg: Anonymous people have to learn their place.
Don’t worry. We won’t ignore your comments simply because you are some anonymous person on the Internet. That would be rude, as well as a fallacious ad hominem.
mkfreeberg: If that is indeed true, it says little other than that there is a point to be made about how people are using the terms incorrectly.
Words are defined by usage. The term conservative has a pedigree stretching back generations. We’ve provided many citations, dictionaries, encyclopedias, current scholarship, even newspaper articles from the past. You simply ignore these examples, and refuse to explain why and how they fit your own peculiar understanding of the term.
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 12:44We won’t ignore your comments simply because you are some anonymous person on the Internet. That would be rude, as well as a fallacious ad hominem.
By that logic, every “appeal to authority” y’all have ever made is an “ad hominem attack” against people who are not experts.
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 19:45mkfreeberg: By that logic, every “appeal to authority” y’all have ever made is an “ad hominem attack” against people who are not experts.
That makes no sense at all. Why would showing you the respect of listening to your point of view be an ad hominem attack?
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 05:29That makes no sense at all. Why would showing you the respect of listening to your point of view be an ad hominem attack?
I suppose y’all would have to tell me.
“It doesn’t matter what you think because you’re not an expert” is an argument very similar to “It doesn’t matter if y’all claim not to comprehend something because we have no idea who y’all are.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/08/2014 @ 06:06mkfreeberg: “It doesn’t matter what you think because you’re not an expert”
That’s not our position. What matters is whether you can support your argument.
mkfreeberg: “It doesn’t matter if y’all claim not to comprehend something because we have no idea who y’all are.”
That’s not our position. What matters is whether you can support your argument.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 06:31What matters is whether you can support your argument.
A lot of the people who have watched how y’all respond to such “support,” would take issue with that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 03:54mkfreeberg: A lot of the people who have watched how y’all respond to such “support,” would take issue with that.
We have supported our position. The term conservative has a pedigree stretching back generations. We’ve provided many citations, dictionaries, encyclopedias, current scholarship, newspaper articles. You simply ignore these examples, and refuse to explain why and how they fit your own peculiar understanding of the term. Furthermore, you refuse to answer simple questions about your position, and when all else failed, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 05:30We have supported our position.
But, in so doing, y’all have not managed to change reality. Seems y’all are consistently confused about this.
If A is identical to B, a citation doesn’t make them different. If X is different from Y, “responding” doesn’t make them equal.
And when y’all’s point is “we don’t understand” and my rebuttal is “Who’s that?”, that is not an ad hom attack. Might feel like one if y’all are accustomed to people agreeing as quickly as possible to make y’all go away, but that doesn’t mean that’s what it is.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 17:49You had suggested we didn’t support our position. In fact, we have supported our position. Words are defined by general usage. The term conservative has a pedigree stretching back generations. We’ve provided multiple citations, dictionaries, encyclopedias, current scholarship, newspaper articles. You simply ignore these examples, and refuse to explain why and how they fit your own peculiar understanding of the term. Furthermore, you refuse to answer simple questions about your position, and when all else failed, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 04:47Furthermore, you refuse to answer simple questions about your position, and when all else failed, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
False. I succeeded in demonstrating what it takes for y’all’s point to find support, and it is unsustainable. Y’all have to stand as final arbiters of how much weight these citations should carry, according infinite weight to y’all’s own, and downgrading my own citations as “polemics.”
When it takes that kind of game playing to make y’all’s position the correct one, well, it’s not likely to be the correct one. And we shouldn’t ever allow liberals to define what conservatism is, or to study history for us. They don’t care about either one, and aren’t too keen on defining things in general..
- mkfreeberg | 06/11/2014 @ 19:39Zachriel: Furthermore, you refuse to answer simple questions about your position, and when all else failed, resorted to ad hominem attacks.
mkfreeberg: False.
Of course you have. Of course you did.
mkfreeberg: I succeeded in demonstrating what it takes for y’all’s point to find support, and it is unsustainable.
You’ve made a number of unsupported claims. You defined liberals as those who advocated an expansion of the welfare state, but then called Clinton a liberal who worked to reduce the welfare state, and King a conservative who worked to expand the welfare state. King supported
Federal power over states’ rights
Ending segregation
Affirmative action
Income redistribution
Jobs programs
Urban renewal
Expansion of welfare
Opposed the Vietnam War
Marched for jobs and freedom
King was murdered while supporting a public employees’ union strike. He was politically liberal in his time, and he would still be considered liberal today.
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 04:43It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
Common sense says, and a lot of people would certainly say, this is relevant.
Y’all have dismissed it as a “polemic.” Repeatedly. So, it’s hard to tell y’all things, which would naturally result in a situation in which y’all wouldn’t know very much. Can’t work out any other way, right?
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 05:14mkfreeberg: It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
The Democratic Party was complicit in segregation for generations. In the twentieth century, many Democrats repudiated that past, and worked for passage of civil rights legislation. Did you have a point?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 05:48Did you have a point?
Yes.
Some are receptive to it. Others are not.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 06:23mkfreeberg: Yes.
Well, if you can’t state it clearly, then it is probably not worth making.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 06:24Well, if you can’t state it clearly, then it is probably not worth making.
Nobody with an actual name has complained of any difficulty involved in understanding it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 09:37You’ve made a number of unsupported claims. You defined liberals as those who advocated an expansion of the welfare state, but then called Clinton a liberal who worked to reduce the welfare state, and King a conservative who worked to expand the welfare state.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 12:15…but then called Clinton a liberal who worked to reduce the welfare state…
False. Clinton did not “work” to reduce the welfare state, he made compromises that involved such a reduction once he was backed into a corner over it. It’s a pretty bad example to support a pretty weak point.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 19:48mkfreeberg: False. Clinton did not “work” to reduce the welfare state …
As governor, Clinton instituted workfare in Arkansas, represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform; as president, he provided state waivers for local welfare reform, then signed the 1996 welfare reform.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:18He also signed Motor-Voter. See, reality is often more complicated than talking points from the democrat party propaganda machine.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:54“Worked to reduce.” Pffft.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:55As usual, you ignored our response. Not sure why you would think that would be persuasive. Perhaps you don’t care to make an actual argument.
Claim: Clinton worked to reduce the welfare state.
Support: Clinton
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:04* instituted workfare in Arkansas.
* represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform
* provided state waivers for local welfare reform
* signed the 1996 welfare reform
Claim: Clinton worked to reduce the welfare state.
Support: Clinton
* instituted workfare in Arkansas.
* represented the National Governors Association in drafting the 1988 Reagan welfare reform
* provided state waivers for local welfare reform
* signed the 1996 welfare reform
Right.
mkfreeberg: Right.
Glad you’re in agreement. So that returns us to this:
You defined liberals as those who advocated an expansion of the welfare state, but then called Clinton a liberal who worked to reduce the welfare state, and King a conservative who worked to expand the welfare state.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:22Glad you’re in agreement. So that returns us to…
Confusing ignorance with knowledge. Read, learn.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:34mkfreeberg: Confusing ignorance with knowledge. Read, learn.
We’re aware of Cloward and Piven. That doesn’t change the underlying facts, much less the definitions.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:43We’re aware of Cloward and Piven. That doesn’t change the underlying facts, much less the definitions.
Yes, nothing changes anything y’all don’t want it to change.
But actually, it does change everything. See, a reasonable argument could be made that Clinton’s pals, there, were also for shrinking down the welfare state — by destroying it. To be accomplished, in turn, by overloading it.
So, just because an argument can be made, and can be propped up as something convincing and salable, doesn’t mean it actually has merit.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 17:48mkfreeberg: See, a reasonable argument could be made that Clinton’s pals, there, were also for shrinking down the welfare state — by destroying it.
Um, no. Cloward and Piven wanted to increase the welfare state. They did want to overload the system with applicants so that a more comprehensive system could be put in place. However, Clinton’s welfare reforms, from Arkansas to the White House, did exactly the opposite, by moving people off welfare into the workplace.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 17:57Cloward and Piven wanted to increase the welfare state. They did want to overload the system with applicants so that a more comprehensive system could be put in place. However, Clinton’s welfare reforms, from Arkansas to the White House, did exactly the opposite, by moving people off welfare into the workplace.
Right, we agree on C+P. Who were Clinton’s pals, and not for social reasons.
I see in other threads y’all are making a big show out of having asked questions to “clarify my position” and not getting back answers y’all think y’all should be getting back. Are we seeing, here, a reliable example of y’all’s level of genuine curiosity? Here is an indicator that Bill Clinton might not have been trying to shrink the welfare state. How much consideration are y’all going to pay to the possibility that the content may not be equal to the packaging?
Why would a fighter for a smaller, leaner welfare state have anything at all politically to do with Cloward and Piven?
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 04:13mkfreeberg: Who were Clinton’s pals, and not for social reasons.
No. They had political influence, and Clinton is a politician.
mkfreeberg: How much consideration are y’all going to pay to the possibility that the content may not be equal to the packaging?
We’re certainly willing to consider it, but it doesn’t comport with the facts.
mkfreeberg: Here is an indicator that Bill Clinton might not have been trying to shrink the welfare state.
Clinton made a career of workfare, left a legacy of workfare, and a reduced welfare state.
mkfreeberg: Why would a fighter for a smaller, leaner welfare state have anything at all politically to do with Cloward and Piven?
Much of Clinton’s own political party resisted a smaller, leaner welfare state. Clinton is a politician, and like all effective politicians, worked with people of many different political views.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 04:37They had political influence, and Clinton is a politician.
Ah. So…no, then. No curiosity about why a politician would ally with proponents of something that’s supposed to be oppositional to his own objectives.
Move along everybody, there’s nothing to see here.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:19mkfreeberg: No curiosity about why a politician would ally with proponents of something that’s supposed to be oppositional to his own objectives.
Just about everybody shares some common ground. In this case, Clinton allied with Republicans to garner majority support.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:30Just about everybody shares some common ground. In this case, Clinton allied with Republicans to garner majority support.
And with that, the glaring contradiction is reconciled. No reason to look further.
Thank y’all for demonstrating the very casual thought process by which one concludes Clinton worked tirelessly to diminish the welfare state.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:08mkfreeberg: Thank y’all for demonstrating the very casual thought process by which one concludes Clinton worked tirelessly to diminish the welfare state.
You’re welcome. Welfare reform is considered one of his signature accomplishments, something he worked on for his entire career, from Arkansas to the White House.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:09Welfare reform is considered one of his signature accomplishments…
In error, apparently.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 18:08mkfreeberg: In error, apparently.
Actually, it’s considered a signature accomplishment because of the long-lasting effects of moving people from welfare into the workforce. Besides welfare reform, Clinton is known for open trade agreements, a balanced budget, brokering peace in Ireland, and establishing stability in the Balkans.
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 05:39Actually, it’s considered a signature accomplishment because of the long-lasting effects of moving people from welfare into the workforce.
Right, Clinton took credit for the Gingrich economy.
That’s what democrat politicians do. When Republicans do something that produces positive results, they take the credit. When their own policies culminate in disaster, they blame Republicans.
They have a reputation for doing this, and it’s entirely deserved. If they cared about actual likely results, for the benefit of someone besides the democrat party, they wouldn’t be democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 06/18/2014 @ 20:46mkfreeberg: Clinton took credit for the Gingrich economy.
Gingrich voted against the 1993 Omnibus, as did every other Republican in Congress. They claimed it would crash the economy. They were wrong.
However, Gingrich does deserve credit for continuing to push for welfare reform, and working with Clinton to pass a bill.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:22Gingrich voted against the 1993 Omnibus, as did every other Republican in Congress. They claimed it would crash the economy. They were wrong.
Were they? It didn’t measurably help. It was only after Republicans were elected to a majority in both houses that the economy started to improve.
In fact, going back several decades, the health of the economy can be seen to correlate much more strongly to which party has control of Congress, than which party has control of the White House. We’ve seen it in recent times as well. Clinton’s best years with the economy were when Republicans had Congress. George Bush’s worst years with the economy were when the democrats were elected to Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 06:03mkfreeberg: Were they?
Yes, they were wrong. The economy didn’t crash; it was the start of the broadest modern peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Real growth was 4% in 1994—the year before Republicans came to power in the Congress.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 06:17…it [Clinton’s Omnibus] was the start of the broadest modern peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.
False. The economic expansion didn’t start until Republicans won Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 18:17mkfreeberg: The economic expansion didn’t start until Republicans won Congress.
The Republicans gained control of Congress in January 1995. Real GDP growth in 1994 was 4.13%.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 02:50http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
The Republicans gained control of Congress in January 1995. Real GDP growth in 1994 was 4.13%.
Right, and in ’92 it was even higher. 1991, 1.23%; 1992, 4.33%; 1993, 2.62%; 1994, 4.13%; 1995, 2.28%. From 1996 onward it it’s clear something was fixed, four straight years of >=4% growth. This is according to y’all’s own link. Weak tea. Once again, it seems y’all posted a link and hoped nobody would click it open. By the time things really turned around, the Republican Congress had been seated.
Until then, it was just a laundry list of debacles, whack-job Supreme Court appointees, travel office scandal, Hillary-care, Omnibus spending, troopergate, Vince Foster suicide…mess.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: Right, and in ’92 it was even higher.
Gingrich voted against the 1993 Omnibus, as did every other Republican in Congress. They claimed it would crash the economy. They were wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 09:15Gingrich voted against the 1993 Omnibus, as did every other Republican in Congress. They claimed it would crash the economy. They were wrong.
They could have been reasonably assuming that the House of Representatives would stay under democrat control for another 40 years, in which case, who knows what could’ve happened. The policies supported by democrats have a hurtful, not helpful, effect on the economy. They’re supposed to.
At any rate, we don’t have much evidence to support the idea that the Omnibus helped the economy in any way. None at all, really. And no reason to think it would. It was supported by democrats, after all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 17:00mkfreeberg: They could have been reasonably assuming that the House of Representatives would stay under democrat control for another 40 years, in which case, who knows what could’ve happened.
No. The claim was that the 1993 Omnibus, which included marginal tax increases, would crash the economy. The Republican Congress did not repeal the 1993 Omnibus, and it didn’t crash the economy. They were wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:37M: They could have been reasonably assuming that the House of Representatives would stay under democrat control for another 40 years, in which case, who knows what could’ve happened.
Z: No. The claim was that the 1993 Omnibus, which included marginal tax increases, would crash the economy. The Republican Congress did not repeal the 1993 Omnibus, and it didn’t crash the economy. They were wrong.
So the Republicans stopped the economy from crashing; the democrats wish to claim credit for this. Alright, situation-as-usual then.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2014 @ 16:08The claim was that the Omnibus of 1993 would crash the economy. It didn’t, so the claim was false.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 04:36The claim was that the Omnibus of 1993 would crash the economy. It didn’t, so the claim was false.
Not if, the reason it didn’t crash the economy, was that the Republicans got in and stopped it from happening.
The Gingrich House instituted a variety of reforms that helped the economy. In succeeding years, according to y’all’s own source, there were several annual reports in a row of greater-than-4% growth, to which Clinton could not lay claim before that happened.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 07:01mkfreeberg: The Gingrich House instituted a variety of reforms that helped the economy.
The House alone doesn’t make law. Gingrich did work with Clinton on welfare reform, and they eventually enacted reform.
In any case, the claim that the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy was obviously false.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 09:08In any case, the claim that the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy was obviously false.
It’s good that Republicans got in there to keep it from happening.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 10:04mkfreeberg: It’s good that Republicans got in there to keep it from happening.
They didn’t repeal the 1993 Omnibus, and the marginal tax rates stayed in place during the entire Clinton Administration. That means those who claimed the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy were simply wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 15:47They didn’t repeal the 1993 Omnibus, and the marginal tax rates stayed in place during the entire Clinton Administration. That means those who claimed the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy were simply wrong.
Or, once empowered — which was an event a lot of people reasonably did not expect in 1993 — they managed to stop it from happening.
Clinton’s best economic years were when the party opposing him took control of Congress. George W. Bush’s worst economic years were when the party opposing him took control of Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:07mkfreeberg: Or, once empowered — which was an event a lot of people reasonably did not expect in 1993 — they managed to stop it from happening.
The claim wasn’t that Democrats would crash the economy, but that the 1993 Omnibus would. It obviously didn’t, so they were obviously wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 05:14The claim wasn’t that Democrats would crash the economy, but that the 1993 Omnibus would. It obviously didn’t, so they were obviously wrong.
The event by which the Republicans took the Congress, was outside of their expectations when they made the claim. This is reasonable, as it was outside the expectations of just about everyone else too.
But, Clinton blew it before the first midterms, and blew it beyond most reasonable expectations.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 06:04mkfreeberg: The event by which the Republicans took the Congress, was outside of their expectations when they made the claim.
So they were wrong on that too. In any case, the 1993 Omnibus did not crash the economy.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:06So they were wrong on that too. In any case, the 1993 Omnibus did not crash the economy.
Had the Omnibus bill had a beneficial effect on the economy, rather than a deleterious one, y’all could discuss that. Rather than “See, they predicted such-and-such a thing and it didn’t happen.” Is that the very best thing that can be said about the Omnibus bill? That Republicans predicted its toxic effect would surpass the private sector’s ability to adapt, and it turned out not to? How pathetic.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 18:21mkfreeberg: Had the Omnibus bill had a beneficial effect on the economy, rather than a deleterious one, y’all could discuss that.
It apparently didn’t as the economy grew 4% in the following year.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 03:58It apparently didn’t as the economy grew 4% in the following year.
And, far less the year afterward. Until the Republicans got in.
Clinton’s best economic years were when the party opposing him took control of Congress. George W. Bush’s worst economic years were when the party opposing him took control of Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:25mkfreeberg: Clinton’s best economic years were when the party opposing him took control of Congress.
Try to keep track. The claim is that Republicans predicted that the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy.
There was four percent growth in the year after the Omnibus which raised marginal tax rates. That growth continued during the rest of Clinton’s term, even though the Omnibus and the marginal tax rates were not repealed. They were not repealed until the Bush Administration, when growth became anemic, and ended with a crash.
The Republicans were clearly wrong. It’s not even a close question.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:29The claim is that Republicans predicted that the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy.
The claim was that if I drank the poison, I’d die. I only got sick, so the claim was wrong.
The claim was that if I hauled five hundred pounds of cinderblocks for no reason, I wouldn’t make it to the next gas station. I made it, so the claim was wrong.
Y’all want me to “keep track”? So obsessed are y’all with falsifying claims that y’all can’t track what’s a good plan, what’s a bad plan — or even the falsification.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:43Incidentally, the next time democrats seized control of the White House, the House and the Senate — the economy did melt down.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:43mkfreeberg: The claim was that if I drank the poison, I’d die. I only got sick, so the claim was wrong.
In this case, the person who drank the potion became stronger.
mkfreeberg: The claim was that if I hauled five hundred pounds of cinderblocks for no reason, I wouldn’t make it to the next gas station. I made it, so the claim was wrong.
That’s right, the claim would be wrong.
mkfreeberg: Incidentally, the next time democrats seized control of the White House, the House and the Senate — the economy did melt down.
The economic meltdown occurred during the Bush Administration, due to a festering bubble in the securities market.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:46In this case, the person who drank the potion became stronger.
Right! After he saw a different doctor who didn’t give him poison.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 04:28mkfreeberg: Right! After he saw a different doctor who didn’t give him poison.
The Omnibus was not repealed during Clinton’s term in office.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 05:18The Omnibus was not repealed during Clinton’s term in office.
Right, the patient’s stomach was not pumped when he went to the other doctor. But he became much healthier, and now y’all are trying to make something of the other doctor’s prediction that the patient would die if he took the medicine prescribed by the first doctor.
By the way, when the patient went back to that first doctor some 14 years later, he did get awfully sick. Not dead yet, although we’re waiting to see.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 17:50mkfreeberg: But he became much healthier, and now y’all are trying to make something of the other doctor’s prediction that the patient would die if he took the medicine prescribed by the first doctor
Oh gee whiz. It’s not that difficult. GDP growth was 4% in the year after the 1993 Omnibus. The patient was well, very well. And continued to be well even while continuing with the 1993 Omnibus. The marginal tax increases were not repealed until the Bush Administration. Those who predicted doom if the Omnibus was passed were simply wrong.
mkfreeberg: By the way, when the patient went back to that first doctor some 14 years later, he did get awfully sick.
Um, the patient had a heart attack in 2008 after several years of an unhealthy lifestyle.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 18:09Um, the patient had a heart attack in 2008 after several years of an unhealthy lifestyle.
Yeah. Electing democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 04:18mkfreeberg: Yeah. Electing democrats.
Not sure this is that difficult to understand.
* Republicans claimed that the 1993 Omnibus would crash the economy. Instead, the economy entered its broadest economic expansion in modern history.
* The Bush Administration presided over the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
- Zachriel | 06/26/2014 @ 05:02Not sure this is that difficult to understand.
Failure to understand is not the issue. A mighty nation poisoning itself, by putting democrats in charge, is the issue.
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 18:54mkfreeberg: Failure to understand is not the issue.
On the 1993 Clinton budget bill.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/
They were wrong. It’s not that complicated.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 03:04They were wrong. It’s not that complicated.
“You said if you drank the poison you’d die, and you only got sick for a little while until you went to a better doctor. YOU were WRONG.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/27/2014 @ 05:59mkfreeberg: “You said if you drank the poison you’d die, and you only got sick for a little while until you went to a better doctor. YOU were WRONG.”
You’re being silly. Not only did the patient take the potion, but the patient continued to take the potion. The claim made by the Republicans simply wasn’t true.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 09:48You’re being silly.
I said “Okay, what did Bill Clinton do to bring about this wonderful Clinton Economy?,” in response to which y’all said, Omnibus spending bill which raised taxes on the rich, as well as corporations — and those who use fuel. An economy consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location; raising taxes on the rich doesn’t do anything to help that, since it diminishes the incentive for anyone to engage in capitalism.
Pointing this out is not partisan; or it should not be, at any rate. Taxes diminish. That is what they are expected to do. We use the word “tax” for all sorts of things that don’t have to do with government, like “the busy afternoon of errands taxed my energy” or “the ignorance taxed my patience.”
I asked for something Clinton did that helped the economy, y’all volunteered an example of something he did that — taxed it. The exact opposite. Who’s being silly?
And now y’all want to make this game out of “Republicans said this would happen, instead that happened” — which is a dodge. But okay, if we’re going to accommodate that, in a spirit of generosity: What if the prediction really did fail, what does a failed prediction say about the predictor? If something exceptional happened, it doesn’t say much.
Two exceptional things, outside of Clinton’s control, happened. The Internet, and Republicans taking over Congress.
So who’s silly? Y’all are dodging the issue, embarking on this prediction-imbroglio, all the while asserting in the ultimate failed argument: That a thing is the opposite of itself. Aristotle’s Law of Identity, once again, beckons for y’all’s attention.
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 03:29mkfreeberg: An economy consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location; raising taxes on the rich doesn’t do anything to help that, since it diminishes the incentive for anyone to engage in capitalism.
There are many moving parts in an economy. The conclusion of economic experts was that the large federal deficit were limiting the available capital for economic growth and restricting business formation. Reducing federal deficits would allow an expansion of business. And that is exactly what happened. It also put the U.S. in a much stronger position fiscally.
mkfreeberg: Two exceptional things, outside of Clinton’s control, happened. The Internet, and Republicans taking over Congress.
That wasn’t the claim, which was that Republicans had falsely said that the 1993 budget plan would crash the economy. They were wrong. (By the way, Gore had worked very hard to create the conditions for the growth of the Internet.)
Not sure why something as obvious as this should be contentious. Republicans said one thing, and another thing happened instead, so they were obviously wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 06:01There are many moving parts in an economy.
True. But at the end of the day, if you’re taxing it, you’re not making it run faster or stronger. You’re doing the opposite.
It’s like up versus down. Y’all can treat it as a launch-point for some convoluted discussion involving an exchange of complex ideas; it doesn’t necessarily follow that that’s what it is. Up v. down. Wet v. dry. Tax v. help.
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 08:18mkfreeberg: But at the end of the day, if you’re taxing it, you’re not making it run faster or stronger.
We’d be happy to discuss that claim, but it’s not the claim at issue. Repubicans claimed that if the 1993 Clinton budget passed, the economy would crash. That was false.
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 08:49We’d be happy to discuss that claim, but it’s not the claim at issue. Repubicans claimed that if the 1993 Clinton budget passed, the economy would crash.
Actually, the “issue” was: “Okay, what did Bill Clinton do to bring about this wonderful Clinton Economy?”
Y’all’s reply to this was a poison that didn’t kill the patient. But economies, and persons, consume lots of poisons that don’t necessarily kill them. It’s not hard to show the poison is poisonous.
There is the meaning of the word “tax,” as I’ve already indicated. Then there is the fact that, as soon as Clinton’s party regained control of both chambers of Congress, the economy did indeed suffer catastrophic failure. If we go back in time to when they gained control of the White House and both chambers, we have — oh, Jimmy Carter, again the economy suffers catastrophic failure. All of this perfectly consistent with the word “tax.”
Note that this isn’t even partisan thinking. It simply respects the difference between building something up vs. diminishing it, which was my original point: “Okay, what did Bill Clinton do to bring about this wonderful Clinton economy?” Since there is no answer to that question, y’all are forced to go down this bunny-trail of “Republicans said this would happen and instead that other thing happened.” Yeah. Humans of all political stripes say lots of things will happen that don’t happen, but that’s neither here nor there.
Using the “physician” analogy, we’d have to perceive the democrats as like from the middle ages, prescribing leeches and bloodletting — taxing — as a cure-all for every social ill, and thinking nothing of the dazzlingly high mortality rate among their “patients.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 06:34mkfreeberg: But economies, and persons, consume lots of poisons that don’t necessarily kill them. It’s not hard to show the poison is poisonous.
That wasn’t the claim.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s reply to this was a poison that didn’t kill the patient.
As the claim was the potion would kill the person, and the person didn’t die, then the claim was wrong.
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 06:37That wasn’t the claim.
That’s okay. It is a counterpoint. It shows how & why y’all’s rebuttal fails. Y’all understand how this works?
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 07:39mkfreeberg: That’s okay.
Then we take it you have abandoned your original claim.
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 09:03Then we take it you have abandoned your original claim.
Y’all can if y’all like. Y’all seem pretty free & easy about leaping to that particular conclusion, with myself and others. It doesn’t become true just because y’all repeat it to y’all’selves, although it does seem y’all have been given remarkably little opportunity to figure that out about life.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 20:32mkfreeberg: Y’all can if y’all like.
Good. Then we can agree that Republicans were wrong when they claimed that passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan would lead to economic catastrophe. In fact, it marked the start of the broadest economic expansion in modern U.S. history.
- Zachriel | 06/30/2014 @ 04:46M: Y’all can if y’all like.
Z: Good. Then we can agree…
No. I said y’all can. That’s the great thing about living in a free country. If freedom means anything at all, it must include the freedom to be wrong. Y’all have cherished this particular freedom more than most, so y’all ought to understand.
- mkfreeberg | 07/01/2014 @ 04:58mkfreeberg: If freedom means anything at all, it must include the freedom to be wrong.
Sure. You can be wrong if you want. You can even ignore obvious facts. That doesn’t make much of an argument, though.
The Republicans were wrong when they claimed that passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan would lead to economic catastrophe. In fact, it marked the start of the broadest economic expansion in modern U.S. history.
- Zachriel | 07/01/2014 @ 09:47That doesn’t make much of an argument, though.
Nor does “Then we take it you have abandoned your original claim.”
I notice y’all use that, seemingly, without understanding its foundation. It’s as if y’all saw someone win an argument that way and want to emulate it but don’t understand how it works.
- mkfreeberg | 07/02/2014 @ 05:01mkfreeberg: Nor does “Then we take it you have abandoned your original claim.”
We were verifying whether you had changed your position or not. It’s often hard to tell.
Republicans said that passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan would lead to economic catastrophe. In fact, it marked the start of the broadest economic expansion in modern U.S. history. Hence, the Republicans were wrong.
It’s a basic syllogism.
- Zachriel | 07/02/2014 @ 05:43We were verifying whether you had changed your position or not. It’s often hard to tell.
Here in the human species, when we ask questions like “we take it that you have abandoned your original claim,” we tend to be bearing some idea in mind about what this “claim” is.
Y’all keep talking about what the Republicans said would happen if the democrats got their way. They were ultimately proven correct about that, but meanwhile, y’all haven’t shown any evidence of retaining, let alone showing much concern about, any claim of mine.
This is why people think y’all are a Ruby script. It’s like y’all are arguing with nothing more than involuntary reflexes. Y’all haven’t shown much of anything here, other than that cargo-cult thinking leads to cargo-cult behavior.
- mkfreeberg | 07/03/2014 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: Y’all keep talking about what the Republicans said would happen if the democrats got their way.
Specifically, we were discussing Republican claims about what would happen if the 1993 Clinton budget passed. Republicans claimed it would devastate the economy. Instead, it was followed by a long and broad economic expansion.
- Zachriel | 07/03/2014 @ 10:11Specifically, we were discussing Republican claims about what would happen if the 1993 Clinton budget passed. Republicans claimed it would devastate the economy. Instead, it was followed by a long and broad economic expansion.
Right, y’all went off on a tangent. In so doing, y’all raised legitimate questions about whether y’all understand the concept of unanticipated variables.
Like, the Internet’s influence on business. Or, Republicans taking over Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 05:52mkfreeberg: Like, the Internet’s influence on business. Or, Republicans taking over Congress.
That’s irrelevant to the claim, which was that passage of the 1993 Clinton budget would crash the economy. The claim was simply false.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 06:48That’s irrelevant to the claim…
Didn’t read anything after this.
It’s false.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 14:55mkfreeberg: Didn’t read anything after this.
It’s a basic syllogism.
A = passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan
B = ensuing economic catastrophe
Claim: A → B
A observed
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 15:08~B observed
Therefore the claim A → B is false.
Therefore the claim A → B is false.
And from that, we are to conclude what, exactly?
The next time democrats ran both houses of Congress and the White House, the economy did indeed implode.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 16:08mkfreeberg: And from that, we are to conclude what, exactly?
The claim is false. It’s a very basic syllogism.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 18:19The claim is false. It’s a very basic syllogism.
That, and we can also conclude something else: It’s hard to tell liberals anything.
Also, that if this were not the case, they wouldn’t be liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 07/05/2014 @ 13:11mkfreeberg: That, and we can also conclude something else: It’s hard to tell liberals anything.
A = passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan
B = ensuing economic catastrophe
A → B was claimed by some Republicans
To address the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
- Zachriel | 07/05/2014 @ 18:10To address the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
Y’all are making an assumption that isn’t true: That the end goal, rather than strengthening the economy and making life better for millions of Americans, is simply to be right & win arguments. In this case, about how much poison the “patient” could consume without dying.
Libs are funny, because they think achieving knowledge of some “fact” means they get to claim dictatorial privilege in saying what is to be inferred from it. By everyone.
It’s good that the Republicans took over Congress before the economy completely melted down, the way it did in 2007-2008. But of course, some of the credit should go to the other unanticipated variable, the Internet’s unprecedented effect on commerce.
- mkfreeberg | 07/06/2014 @ 05:40mkfreeberg: Y’all are making an assumption that isn’t true: That the end goal, rather than strengthening the economy and making life better for millions of Americans, is simply to be right & win arguments.
We are examining a very straightforward syllogism. That you refuse to discuss our response, but try to avoid the discussion is telling.
A = passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan
B = ensuing economic catastrophe
A → B was claimed by some Republicans
To address the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
- Zachriel | 07/06/2014 @ 06:42To address the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
That is incorrect.
I can address the syllogism by pointing out it is a useless observation.
- mkfreeberg | 07/07/2014 @ 19:18mkfreeberg: I can address the syllogism by pointing out it is a useless observation.
That wasn’t your claim above. You really have to work hard to avoid facing the truth. We’ll restate.
To refute the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 03:04That wasn’t your claim above. You really have to work hard to avoid facing the truth.
Actually, the issue here is that y’all said “To address the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim” etc. And this is incorrect.
What y’all might have meant to say was, “To address the syllogism to our satisfaction…” It’s a recurring theme I & others have noticed about many of y’all’s exchanges with others. Y’all already got it figured out how it’s supposed to go. This is why y’all don’t learn anything.
So can y’all explain to me why the rest of us should take note of the opinions, of anonymous people who never learn anything?
- mkfreeberg | 07/08/2014 @ 06:43mkfreeberg: So can y’all explain to me why the rest of us should take note of the opinions, of anonymous people who never learn anything?
We learn new things every day.
mkfreeberg: What y’all might have meant to say was, “To address the syllogism to our satisfaction…”
No, we restated it because you were apparently confused.
A = passage of the 1993 Clinton budget plan
B = ensuing economic catastrophe
A → B was claimed by some Republicans
To refute the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 11:34We learn new things every day.
President Obama has something to say every day; very little of it true. Think I see a connection!
To refute the syllogism, you would have to show that Republicans didn’t claim A → B, or that A didn’t occur, or that ~B wasn’t observed.
So noticing that it’s pointless isn’t good enough? Questioning what is to be inferred from this is not good enough?
Observing that the economy did indeed melt down the next time democrats were in charge, is somehow not adequate?
- mkfreeberg | 07/09/2014 @ 05:26mkfreeberg: So noticing that it’s pointless isn’t good enough?
Not only was the Republican claims false, but it shows your inability to acknowledge simple truths.
mkfreeberg: Observing that the economy did indeed melt down the next time democrats were in charge, is somehow not adequate?
The financial meltdown occurred during the Bush Administration.
- Zachriel | 07/09/2014 @ 09:04Not only was the Republican claims false, but it shows your inability to acknowledge simple truths.
Y’all still haven’t defined how it’s relevant.
Seems like the takeaway is, “Sure the democrats’ policies are damaging to the economy, but Republicans can’t predict things so what difference does it make?”
Is there something else we should be inferring from this?
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:02More concise & elegant:
“Sure democrat policies kill the economy, but Republicans are much worse because they can’t accurately predict how & when.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:03mkfreeberg: Seems like the takeaway is, “Sure the democrats’ policies are damaging to the economy, but Republicans can’t predict things so what difference does it make?”
No, our point is much more limited.
mkfreeberg: Is there something else we should be inferring from this?
We would just like you to simply learn to admit to fact. Without that, you can’t possibly have a rational argument over policy. Republicans claimed that the Clinton budget’s marginal tax increases, would crash the economy. Instead it marked the beginning of a long and broad economic expansion.
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 06:21No, our point is much more limited.
When Republicans get their predictions wrong, it doesn’t cost people their health insurance policies?
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:23Zachriel: We would just like you to simply learn to admit to fact.
mkfreeberg: When Republicans get their predictions wrong, it doesn’t cost people their health insurance policies?
Is it really that difficult for you to admit to fact?
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 06:30Primary takeaway:
The policies of the democrat party are harmful to the economy at large, and to the people within it. Those policies are supposed to be harmful to the economy, and the people: it is definitional, “tax” means “tax,” to diminish and weaken, NOT to strengthen.
And the best that can be said for democrats, is that Republicans occasionally demonstrate some predictive error — in figuring out just how damaging the democrat policies are going to be. Then again, everybody who predicts things, shows some predictive error. The democrats showed theirs on October 1, 2013.
Secondary takeaway:
The Zachriel do not actually “discuss.” What they call a “discussion” is actually the recitation of a script, and they get all twisted & bent out of shape if the other side does not follow the script they’ve got planned. Essentially, they confuse a monologue with a dialogue, and vice-versa. In continuing to act this out, they show the mentality of those who suffer from CBTA (Can’t Be Told Anything) disease; those who go through the motions of learning much, while actually learning nothing. And why & how those people consistently end up being what we today call “liberals.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 18:42mkfreeberg: The policies of the democrat party are harmful to the economy at large, and to the people within it.
Perhaps, and we would be happy to have that discussion once we resolve the original question.
mkfreeberg: Then again, everybody who predicts things, shows some predictive error.
So are you admitting that the Republicans were wrong about Clinton’s 1993 budget?
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 04:59Perhaps, and we would be happy to have that discussion once we resolve the original question.
I see. And the recent exchange about the predictive power of the Republicans is an example of that happiness?
- mkfreeberg | 07/11/2014 @ 05:47mkfreeberg: And the recent exchange about the predictive power of the Republicans is an example of that happiness?
We said we would be happy to have that discussion once we resolve the original question. No reasonable discussion can be had when one party refuses to acknowledge demonstrable facts.
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 05:53No reasonable discussion can be had when one party refuses to acknowledge demonstrable facts.
Very true. But, unlike more relevant facts like “Hillary is okay with inequality when she happens to be on the plusher side of it,” the predictive power of the Republicans imposes a definitional challenge, artfully articulated by Her Shrewness herself: What difference, at this point, does it make?
We know taxation weakens and doesn’t strengthen. That is in the definition. Tax, v. We know it from experience. Some Republicans thought the dose of poison would be imminently lethal, and it turned out to take a while longer. Perfectly qualified doctors make similar predictions about the life expectancy of the terminally ill, and are similarly contradicted by subsequent events. Their credibility does not suffer. Other doctors make predictions about unhealthy lifestyles, and are similarly contradicted by subsequent events. Their credibility does not suffer either. The wisdom of their lecturing, also, does not suffer in credibility loss. Nor should it. Smoking tobacco is unquestionably bad for you, just as taxation unquestionably has a “taxing” effect on an economy.
- mkfreeberg | 07/12/2014 @ 05:57mkfreeberg: We know taxation weakens and doesn’t strengthen.
We do? While it certainly represents a transfer of money, taxing in order to defend again invaders can strengthen a community.
mkfreeberg: unlike more relevant facts like “Hillary is okay with inequality when she happens to be on the plusher side of it,”
You’re using that word again, “equality”. Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
mkfreeberg: Some Republicans thought the dose of poison would be imminently lethal,
And you now agree they were wrong?
mkfreeberg: and it turned out to take a while longer.
The crash didn’t happen until long after the margin tax cuts were repealed.
- Zachriel | 07/12/2014 @ 06:26Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
That would have to do with something that could be called “evenness of distribution,” or something, except even that wouldn’t be accurate in the case of income in our society because that’s not something that is “distributed.”
At any rate, what y’all are discussing is not “equality.” That word does not fit at all. Equal is equal.
- mkfreeberg | 07/16/2014 @ 17:43mkfreeberg: That would have to do with something that could be called “evenness of distribution,” exception that wouldn’t be accurate in the case of income because that’s not something that is “distributed.”
Of course it is. That’s exactly what it’s called. Economists often talk about income distribution, meaning the statistical occurrence in a group or population.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StatisticalDistribution.html
mkfreeberg: At any rate, what y’all are discussing is not “equality.”
Funny that statisticians consider it a measure of equality or inequality. See Gini, Variabilità e Mutabilità 1912. But what would statisticians know about statistics.
You have said American society was more equal after the American Revolution. It wasn’t perfectly equal though, so obviously equality isn’t a simple dichotomous condition when applied to a society as a whole.
- Zachriel | 07/17/2014 @ 05:08Funny that statisticians consider it a measure of equality or inequality….But what would statisticians know about statistics.
If the experts call a hole in the ground a tree instead of a hole, they’re mistaken.
You have said American society was more equal after the American Revolution.
Right, I theorized that y’all play the “We asked a question and you haven’t answered” game because y’all really don’t have anything else. Then I answered y’all’s question and y’all came up with another one.
Which doesn’t prove the theory, but it certainly does provide support for it, and this is an excellent example of using the scientific method. Continuing to indulge y’all’s “tic,” on the other hand, would not be.
- mkfreeberg | 07/17/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: If the experts call a hole in the ground a tree instead of a hole, they’re mistaken.
Sure, but as we’re talking about botanists, it’s unlikely they would make that mistake.
mkfreeberg: Then I answered y’all’s question and y’all came up with another one.
No. It was the same two questions. We started with an example, repeated four times without you responding.
Z, 7/5/2014: For instance, the American Revolution created a more equal society, having eliminated nobility; however, a slave society can hardly be considered perfectly equal.
So we rephrased it as a question in order to focus your attention.
Z, 7/8/2014: Do you agree that the U.S. was a more equal society than being a colony of the British Empire? Do you agree that the U.S. was not a perfectly equal society in the aftermath of the American Revolution?
We repeated the example and question several more times, which you continued to ignore. So we then asked just the first question.
Z, 7/11/2014: Do you think that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
To which you replied, “Of course.” Well, duh. So then we asked the next duh-question. Do you think the American Revolution created a perfectly equal society?
The duh-answer, which you refused to provide is “Of course not.” That means there is an in-between measure of equality, and that means there is not a simple dichotomy concerning social equality.
mkfreeberg: Which doesn’t prove the theory
Actually it does prove the claim. By showing there is a state of equality between two other states, it shows that social equality is not a simple binary condition. That’s why you ignored the example, and why you resisted answering the duh-questions.
- Zachriel | 07/17/2014 @ 06:20By showing there is a state of equality between two other states, it shows that social equality is not a simple binary condition. That’s why you ignored the example, and why you resisted answering the duh-questions.
But, redefining words is not an argument, I’m told. In situations where the word “equal” is being used, and correctly, it is indeed a simple binary condition.
Y’all’s argument relies on a mutation of even the most simplest algebraic problem that can possibly be posed: X = 1; find X. Sure, what y’all say ends up being “true” if we apply the loose gooey Escher’s-logic that binds the lib-verse, but that just shows the logic is bad. And we’ve been here before. Quite a few times..
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 09:20mkfreeberg: But, redefining words is not an argument, I’m told.
No, but words often have more than one meaning, which can often be determined from context. (Also, we can use special definitions for the purpose of discussion, but that’s not the case here.)
It’s clear you understand that when speaking of social equality, it’s not a simple binary condition. You know this because you agree that the American Revolution resulted in a more equal society but not a perfectly equal society.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 10:21It’s clear you understand that when speaking of social equality, it’s not a simple binary condition.
No, things are equal or else they’re not.
If there is inequality, then equality does not exist. A little bit of inequality is still inequality.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 16:35mkfreeberg: No, things are equal or else they’re not.
Then how could American society be more equal after the American Revolution as you indicated previously?
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 16:43Then how could American society be more equal after the American Revolution as you indicated previously?
If inequality exists between two things, those two things are not equal.
This is not up for debate, since I’m not the one who made it that way. It’s something that simply is.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 17:33mkfreeberg: If inequality exists between two things, those two things are not equal.
Yes, we understand that use of the term. Then how could American society be more equal after the American Revolution as you indicated previously?
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 18:36Then how could American society be more equal after the American Revolution as you indicated previously?
Precisely. This is why liberalism doesn’t work, even as an envisioned goal, for anything further out than tomorrow morning’s glorious revolution. The answer to your question is, inequality certainly does exist after the Revolution, we have liberals running around telling us so, never allowing us to forget about it, writing fund-raising letters about it.
The incorrect use of the term is key to why liberalism doesn’t work. But it won’t be possible to get the point across to y’all, who see everything in terms of “Ho ho! We caught the other side in an inconsistency!” What y’all have found is that liberalism, in America, is particularly unworkable because it purports to continue a revolution that was inherently conservative.
“More equal” is not only a mathematically incorrect way of looking at the world, it is the behavior shown by small children right before their mothers correct them, so that the children will become better adults in the future. “My brother got more Cheerios, so I want more milk.” Conservatives do not tolerate that in their children, because the thing conservatives seek to conserve is civilization, which cannot endure that way. France proved that. So did Russia, and Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 01:46mkfreeberg: The answer to your question is, inequality certainly does exist after the Revolution
Okay. So you have agreed that the American Revolution resulted in a more equal society, and you have also agreed that there was still inequality. Hence equality is not a binary condition in this context.
mkfreeberg: “More equal” is not only a mathematically incorrect way of looking at the world
Huh? Are you repudiating your previous position, when you agreed that the American Revolution created a more equal society?
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 05:36So you have agreed that the American Revolution resulted in a more equal society, and you have also agreed that there was still inequality. Hence equality is not a binary condition in this context.
But, y’all have agreed we aren’t really discussing “equality,” which is just an inaccurate colloquialism infecting common usage, for the benefit of liberals and their ideology; this is evenness of distribution. The “binary condition” is the key difference between those two things.
It is very important for liberals to control the narrative as they sell their bad ideas, in general, and even more so in this specific case. If liberals could be somehow forced to say “Our priority is to promote evenness of distribution” instead of “to promote equality,” it would be more widely known that they seek not to promote the cause of justice, but rather to thwart it by diminishing the rewards of diligence as well as the consequences of sloth. Even in that case, “distribution” would be yet another inaccurate colloquialism because in a system of free exchange, earnings and profits are not “distributed,” they are eared.
So that’s two layers of technical foul, two instances of flawed premise that ought not be accepted in a responsible dialog: That the issue is promotion of “equality” — which is, after all, a binary condition — and that it has something to do with a distribution. As millions of people have learned after wasting years of their lives being liberals, the ideology is really all about avoiding consequences of laziness, and diminishing the rewards of hard work. The lesson need not be that expensive, though, we can just watch the news and conduct an informal survey of what exactly it is that liberals want to do. Or, we can subscribe to President Obama’s special interest groups, and receive e-mails.
mkfreeberg: But, y’all have agreed we aren’t really discussing “equality,” which is just an inaccurate colloquialism infecting common usage, for the benefit of liberals and their ideology; this is evenness of distribution.
Liberals, such as Milton Friedman? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
Perhaps the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary would help. “the desire for a more equal society (= in which everyone has the same rights and chances)”.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 08:57Liberals, such as Milton Friedman? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
Right, a technically inaccurate colloquialism. Addressing specifically the question of whether “equal” is binary, which is probably not what Friedman was doing, we see — it is. “Greater equality” is not an accurate use of the term. “Even distribution” would be a better way of putting it, although as noted above, that also has problems when we discuss a free market economy. (Which, in point of fact, does seem to be what Friedman was discussing.)
Perhaps the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary would help. “the desire for a more equal society (= in which everyone has the same rights and chances)”.
That would be testable, and therefore a binary comparison.
This is the part where y’all fess up that your claim doesn’t work. Things are equal, or else they’re not. “More equality” may be something people discuss now and then, the same way they discuss “this room is colder than that room” or “this room is very very cold,” although when one looks at what cold really is, we see it isn’t technically possible to have “more” of it.
We let people get away with it to avoid being annoying pedants. In this case though, y’all have specifically claimed that equality is not a binary comparison. Which it is.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 10:08mkfreeberg: Right
So Milton Friedman is being incoherent when he says that freedom leads to more equality? Sorry, that’s just not tenable. Friedman’s meaning is very clear, and bis statement is worthy of discussion.
mkfreeberg: a technically inaccurate colloquialism.
There’s nothing inaccurate about saying two things are near equal, or two things are nearer to being equal than two other things.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 11:06So Milton Friedman is being incoherent when he says…
No, he was extending the courtesy of using the colloquialism. We don’t call it out for its technical inaccuracy in contexts where that isn’t relevant, because most people aren’t interested in being annoying pedants.
However, in this context y’all have specifically made the claim that “obviously equality isn’t a simple dichotomous condition…” So it becomes relevant.
Will y’all now acknowledge that that was not correct? If 1 is stored in the variable X, X==1 is a true statement, X==2 is a false statement. Period end of story.
Y’all don’t get to say, well, X is kidna-sorta equal to 2, since that would abuse the word “equal.” Nobody else gets to either. Well…I guess they could, but that would be wrong.
I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 12:56mkfreeberg: No, he was extending the courtesy of using the colloquialism.
Friedman was using it in a common manner, with little likelihood of being misunderstood—except perhaps by you.
mkfreeberg: However, in this context y’all have specifically made the claim that “obviously equality isn’t a simple dichotomous condition…”
In the context of Friedman’s comment, it’s clear that it is not a dichotomy, as some social situations are closer to being equal than others. We say they are “more equal”. Not sure why you consider that contentious.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 13:12Friedman was using it in a common manner, with little likelihood of being misunderstood—except perhaps by you.
Ah, but I didn’t misunderstand. This has been established.
Y’all reflexively leap to that thing, I notice — the other side always misunderstood something. I think if y’all were making a more worthwhile argument, these discussions wouldn’t be quite so circular.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 17:33mkfreeberg: Ah, but I didn’t misunderstand.
Good. Then when someone, such as Milton Friedman, uses the term you will understand the intended meaning without making an argument based on a conflation of the different definitions.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 18:39Good. Then when someone, such as Milton Friedman, uses the term you will understand the intended meaning without making an argument based on a conflation of the different definitions.
Again (we’ve been here before, a few times): When y’all fail to understand something, it isn’t an accurate assessment of the argument to postulate it’s the other side that needs an explanation before the other side understands. That may be y’all’s comfort zone, but that doesn’t make it the truth.
See the other thread for what “equal” means.
I notice a lot of y’all’s arguments very quickly abandon the rugged and reliable logical pathway of “We know X, because here is the evidence” and drift off into the tall grass of “so and so said such-and-such.” Someone seems to have forgotten to tell y’all: That isn’t how you “prove” things.
- mkfreeberg | 07/21/2014 @ 18:09mkfreeberg: I notice a lot of y’all’s arguments very quickly abandon the rugged and reliable logical pathway of “We know X, because here is the evidence” and drift off into the tall grass of “so and so said such-and-such.”
As language is determined by usage, quoting usage IS evidence. Are you saying Milton Friedman’s statement was incoherent?
- Zachriel | 07/22/2014 @ 05:12As language is determined by usage, quoting usage IS evidence. Are you saying Milton Friedman’s statement was incoherent?
I’m saying “near equal” is not the same as “equal.”
That is not up for debate.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 05:12mkfreeberg: I’m saying “near equal” is not the same as “equal.”
So there is a term “near equal”, which then means there is “more equal” and “less equal”. These terms mean closer or further from strict equality. Glad we are now in agreement. Have no idea why that was an issue.
So when someone advocates for “greater equality”, that is not necessarily the same as advocating for perfect equality.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 05:33So there is a term “near equal”, which then means there is “more equal” and “less equal”. These terms mean closer or further from strict equality. Glad we are now in agreement. Have no idea why that was an issue.
Because the pitch y’all are selling relies so much on deception, that such elementary concepts of truth like “equal” have to be turned upside-down to make it look like a good idea. This is a sign that nobody should be buying. It’s also a good sign that whoever’s selling it, should stop trying to sell it. Narratives shouldn’t require that much work.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 16:03mkfreeberg: Because the pitch y’all are selling relies so much on deception, that such elementary concepts of truth like “equal” have to be turned upside-down to make it look like a good idea.
Our words mean what they say.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 16:38Our words mean what they say.
Not if they come from a universe in which “equal” doesn’t mean equal.
This is a primary building block of all logical thought. It is more fundamental than “true” or “false”; “does variable 0 equal variable 1?” When y’all’s ideas require tinkering with foundational layers that are that deep, well, that just means the blueprint to your building calls for construction on no foundation at all. What y’all have just conceded is “Our ideas don’t look good unless first, we pretend ‘equal’ does not mean ‘equal’.” It’s a devastating admission for y’all to have made. It admits that the people who think this way, contrary to liberal propaganda, haven’t been & could not have been involved in building any useful thing in human history at all, and have been hogging the credit for things built by those who think more responsibly — probably throughout the entire time.
Not a big surprise to anyone who’s been watching Obama & crew. “You didn’t build that.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 06:31mkfreeberg: Not if they come from a universe in which “equal” doesn’t mean equal.
As usual, you ignore your own words. You said “I’m saying ‘near equal’ is not the same as ‘equal.’” If something can be near equal, then something can be more equal or less equal.
This is standard English. Is English your first language?
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 06:51If something can be near equal, then something can be more equal or less equal. This is standard English.
If it isn’t equal, it isn’t equal. This is physics AND math AND logic AND the building block of just about every useful piece of knowledge that can be gathered, by anyone, to build anything, that is actually supposed to work.
If y’all get that one wrong, then what can y’all get right? It’s difficult to come up with anything; this is a foundational prerequisite to everything else, including the basic concepts of “true” and “false.”
At this point, we have to abandon the discussion of what is & is not so, y’all simply are not fit to comment if y’all can’t distinguish “equal” from “not equal”; everything that involves an equation is going to be beyond you. But we can still pursue this to gain new insight on how y’all get things so glaringly wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 13:03mkfreeberg: If it isn’t equal, it isn’t equal.
It is reasonable to say whether two things are closer to being equal than others. Are you saying this statement is incoherent?
“A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” — Milton Friedman
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 13:54It is reasonable to say whether two things are closer to being equal than others.
Gotcha. True or false:
2 == 3.
?
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 06:142 does not equal 3, however, 2 is closer to equality with 3 than is 97.
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 06:22Are you saying this statement is incoherent?
“A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” — Milton Friedman
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 06:23Are you saying this statement is incoherent?
I’m not discussing coherence. What I’m discussing is that the foundational building block of all human knowledge, what is true vs. what is false, relies in many ways on the binary concept of equality. Go pick a structured programming language listing of working code, at random, you’ll typically find it’s pockmarked-silly with “if {variable} == {value}”, followed by a section of code to be executed if this equation evaluates to true. Then sometimes followed by an “else” which is followed by a section to be executed if it evaluates to false. That’s how you make things work in the real world.
But it seems, to make y’all’s propositions even look presentable, it becomes necessary to recognize false things as true, and unequal things as equal. That’s another way of saying if it’s well-established what truth is, we immediately recognize y’all’s arguments don’t work.
So it makes sense y’all would work so hard to generate confusion about these things. It also helps to explain why Barack Obama and other liberals, to return to the topic of this post, Do Everything Wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 07:13mkfreeberg: I’m not discussing coherence.
That’s exactly what we’re discussion, logical coherence. You didn’t answer the question. Are you saying this statement is incoherent? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” — Milton Friedman
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 07:20That’s exactly what we’re discussion, logical coherence.
No, we’re “discussion” whether or not 2 is equal to 3, as we’re “discussion” whether or not equality is a binary condition. Common sense says that it is, and y’all are trying to find new ways of clouding the issue and undermining this fundamental building block of all human knowledge.
Y’all have brought up Milton Friedman and y’all have brought up the number 97, neither of which address whether or not 2 is equal to 3. Obviously, if y’all simply answer the question and leave it at that, it will be damaging to the little sales pitch y’all are engaging here, so I know I’m not going to get y’all to simply answer the question.
But, to illustrate this, let’s do it one more time. The challenge is to simply answer, true or false:
2 == 3.
?
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 10:42mkfreeberg: No, we’re “discussion” whether or not 2 is equal to 3
Already answered.
Z: 2 does not equal 3
Now is 2 closer to being equal to 3 than is 97? Are you saying this statement is incoherent? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” — Milton Friedman
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 11:05Now is 2 closer to being equal to 3 than is 97?
Yes if we’re talking about numeric comparison involving whole numbers. If we’re talking about a bitwise-mask compare of integers that are overlaid with bit fields, then it is implementation dependent. Example: Bit 0 of 3 is set to 1, as it is in 97 (1100001 binary). So the number 2 could be very different, depending on what bit 0 is supposed to represent. Therefore, a module tasked with determining whether the numbers are equal or not, lacking the knowledge of what bit 0 is supposed to do, had better just stick to business and fulfill the requirement as stated.
Y’all have just demonstrated why people who put political agendas in front of plain simple facts, don’t manage to get anything built besides electoral victories for those who share their political views. Which is another way of saying they don’t get anything built that actually helps anyone.
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2014 @ 06:33Z: Now is 2 closer to being equal to 3 than is 97?
So you’re saying this is an incoherent question, and people who answer it based on a common understanding of the terms are confused?
- Zachriel | 07/29/2014 @ 07:22So you’re saying this is an incoherent question, and people who answer it based on a common understanding of the terms are confused?
Again, I have not raised the subject of coherence. My position is that 2 is not equal to 3.
Do we need to argue about that?
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2014 @ 07:08mkfreeberg: My position is that 2 is not equal to 3.
We agree.
- Zachriel | 08/03/2014 @ 07:10mkfreeberg: Just like the posters under one of the comment threads here who can’t answer a simple question like “is 2 equal to 3?”
Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 11:05: 2 does not equal 3
You shouldn’t make stuff up.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2014 @ 15:52Context.
M: True or false:
2 == 3.
?
Z: 2 does not equal 3, however, 2 is closer to equality with 3 than is 97.
At that point, I’m already having more trouble getting a simple, straight answer to a simple, straight question than I would be having with someone who put reality ahead of a political agenda. The issue is not whether y’all understand this very basic arithmetic fact; the issue is whether y’all can put math above politics.
Which I pointed out:
M: Y’all have brought up Milton Friedman and y’all have brought up the number 97, neither of which address whether or not 2 is equal to 3. Obviously, if y’all simply answer the question and leave it at that, it will be damaging to the little sales pitch y’all are engaging here, so I know I’m not going to get y’all to simply answer the question.
But, to illustrate this, let’s do it one more time. The challenge is to simply answer, true or false:
2 == 3.
?
And y’all confirmed:
Z: Already answered.
Z: 2 does not equal 3
Now is 2 closer to being equal to 3 than is 97?
And I mentioned this behavior in the post linked, as well: We’re really dealing with two laws here, from two different worlds, a world of reason and a rule of emotion. Just like the posters under one of the comment threads here who can’t answer a simple question like “is 2 equal to 3?,” she can’t answer a simple question like “Do you come from a lawless country?” (6:19)
If you view the clip and fast-forward to 6:19, she’s demonstrating exactly the same behavior: What I would rather talk about is this other thing over here: I come from a country that, blah blah blah blah. Milton Friedman! Ninety-seven!
Once people put their political agenda ahead of reality, you can’t get them to simply answer a question and leave it at that.
2 ≠ 3.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2014 @ 03:34mkfreeberg: The issue is …
The issue is that you misrepresented our position, have done so even after we correct you.
If you can’t be honest on such a simple matter, why should anyone trust you on other matters?
- Zachriel | 08/07/2014 @ 05:28The issue is that you misrepresented our position, have done so even after we correct you.
The quote y’all have provided is incomplete. Y’all then went on to say:
Now is 2 closer to being equal to 3 than is 97? Are you saying this statement is incoherent? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” — Milton Friedman
So what I said is correct, y’all cannot concede the obvious and then just leave it alone. Also, this issue of “incoherent” comes up in y’all’s diatribes an awful lot, I don’t see anyone else making an issue out of it and yet y’all keep gravitating back toward that repeatedly. It’s as if y’all think things stop being true if y’all can’t understand them, which is a great summation of what’s wrong with liberal policy in general, and why & how it hurts people.
If y’all cannot concede the simple truth that 2 ≠ 3 and then just leave it at that, why should anyone else think y’all have what it takes to decide the more complex things?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2014 @ 06:17mkfreeberg: So what I said is correct
We agree that 2 ≠ 3.
You asked if 2 ≠ 3, and we answered that 2 ≠ 3. You then claimed we can’t answer the question, even though we had already answered it.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2014 @ 07:50You asked if 2 ≠ 3, and we answered that 2 ≠ 3…
And, couldn’t let it go at that, insisting on bringing up some stuff about 97. Then y’all persisted, even after I demonstrated that context is relevant: Are we comparing for purposes of arithmetic whole-number difference, or for the purpose of identifying which bits have been set and which have been cleared? Even after that, y’all kept 97-ing it, making it clear that in an implementation y’all’s political biases would prevent y’all from ever acting on the fact that 2 ≠ 3.
That’s a perfect post-mortem of why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did. Liberals, faced with a choice between allegiance to liberalism and truth, will reject truth every time.
Meanwhile, 2 ≠ 3. And, the healthcare.gov site wasn’t ready. Liberals cannot act on either one of those two plain facts.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 09:00mkfreeberg: And, couldn’t let it go at that, insisting on bringing up some stuff about 97.
Right. Because the economic term “income inequality” concerns the statistical differences, not strict equality.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2014 @ 09:22Because the economic term “income inequality” concerns the statistical differences, not strict equality.
“Equality,” on the other hand, refers to strict equality.
So it is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.” The accurate terminology would be “more even statistical distribution,” but if they used that to describe their goal then the goal would lose a lot of appeal, because it would look like micro-managing. Which it is.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 23:26mkfreeberg: So it is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
It wouldn’t be inaccurate. Based on your position it would be incoherent. But as economists use the term, it is your understanding of the term that is faulty. Greater equality means a more even distribution. A similar construction is “a more perfect union”.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2014 @ 07:31mkfreeberg: So it is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
It wouldn’t be inaccurate. Based on your position it would be incoherent. But as economists use the term, it is your understanding of the term that is faulty. Greater equality means a more even distribution. A similar construction is “a more perfect union”.
We’d be happy to provide citations from economists and statisticians using the term “greater equality” and “greater inequality”.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2014 @ 07:33It wouldn’t be inaccurate. Based on your position it would be incoherent.
Again: Even though y’all are injecting the issue of “coherence” into this, the issue has nothing at all to do with coherence. It is perfectly coherent to say “This room is colder than that room,” or “There is a lot of cold in this room,” or “I’m breaking out in sweat, we need to make it colder.” But it isn’t scientifically accurate, and economics is supposed to have something to do with science.
As is the case with “greater equality,” we tolerate the inaccuracy. We tolerate it because it is coherent; very few people are going to have any kind of problem figuring out what is being said.
There’s no problem with figuring out the concept. We use this at the pistol range, because we want all of the impact points to be close together, as close together as possible, and close to the bulls-eye. We would never say something like “achieve greater equality,” though, because that is a setting in which everyone needs to understand exactly what’s going on, all of the time, or someone can be seriously hurt. So we call it tightening the group, or reducing the spread.
Such accurate terminology, however, treats those impact points as what they are: Objects, to be managed. If “economists” and Sunday-morning talking heads and democrat-activists used terminology that would reduce the income earners to objects to be managed, like “tighten the spread” or “reduce the disparity” it would do nothing to promote this fantasy of a new economic policy giving the prospective voter more money at the expense of his fellow citizens who are more productive, and it would make it clear that he is being micro-managed by control freaks. It would therefore result in democrats losing elections.
But it would be much more accurate.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2014 @ 05:29mkfreeberg: It is perfectly coherent to say “This room is colder than that room,” or “There is a lot of cold in this room,” or “I’m breaking out in sweat, we need to make it colder.”
Those would all be coherent statements.
mkfreeberg: So it is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
Per your stated position, this statement is incoherent, because equality is a strict dichotomy, and there can not be greater or lesser inequality. By the same token, there can’t be a “more perfect union”, because perfection is also a strict dichotomy.
Of course, this ignores the mathematical distinction between an arithmetic equality and statistical dispersion, as well as the vernacular that “more perfect” means closer to perfection.
mkfreeberg: We tolerate it because it is coherent; very few people are going to have any kind of problem figuring out what is being said.
That’s not consistent with your previous statements. But that’s fine. Let’s see how long you can maintain the stance that the term “greater equality” (cf Milton Friedman) has a coherent meaning in the English language.
This returns us to the original point. Someone can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality. Someone might support a social safety net and still support robust markets, for instance. Or someone might think that a society that puts freedom first will naturally achieve greater equality too.
- Zachriel | 09/03/2014 @ 05:48Per your stated position, this statement is incoherent…
Ironically, “This statement is incoherent,” is incoherent, because from reading it I’m entirely unsure of what “this statement” is supposed to be.
Coherence is overrated anyway. If something is true, it doesn’t matter who fails to understand it.
On the gun range, if people misunderstand what’s going on, someone might get hurt, so the people running the gun range try to avoid that. In an economics class, if people misunderstand what’s going on it might result in democrats getting elected to office. Our economy probably be doing a lot petter if the people running economics classes put more effort into avoiding that.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2014 @ 06:33mkfreeberg: from reading it I’m entirely unsure of what “this statement” is supposed to be.
Parallel structure, dude.
mkfreeberg: Coherence is overrated anyway.
Tee hee! This is why we visit this blog. You are hilarious. Ha, ha!
mkfreeberg: If something is true, it doesn’t matter who fails to understand it.
Logical incoherence means internally inconsistent or illogical, hence it is neither true nor false.
- Zachriel | 09/03/2014 @ 06:58Parallel structure, dude.
Ambiguity, squids.
Tee hee! This is why we visit this blog. You are hilarious. Ha, ha!
The “I laugh at it, and that makes it untrue” defense. Well, now we know why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
Logical incoherence means internally inconsistent or illogical, hence it is neither true nor false.
So everything y’all have called “incoherent” is neither true nor false?
This all makes for fine rhetorical aesthetics. But it isn’t the type of arguing that verifies what is & isn’t so; not the kind that stops the flawed design of a semi-automatic rifle that would blow up in a shooter’s face. It’s the forensic style of pure-academics, who may think highly of themselves and of each other as the monologues are rehearsed and performed, but whose ideas don’t meet up with reality, at least without disappointing to disastrous results. Like I said, now we know why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
- mkfreeberg | 09/04/2014 @ 19:25mkfreeberg: Ambiguity
Even when we gave you a hint! It’s not that hard.
mk: A, B, C
Z: those statements (A,B,C) are logically coherent.
mk: D
Z: this statement (D) is logically incoherent.
mkfreeberg: So everything y’all have called “incoherent” is neither true nor false?
“Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.”
- Zachriel | 09/05/2014 @ 08:25It’s not that hard.
I could apply my guessing skills to guess at what y’all have in mind. “Ambiguity” refers to the necessity of my having to do this, without regard to whether or not I’m successful. That makes y’all’s statement incoherent, since it’s ambiguous, and because it’s incoherent that makes it ironic.
Also, being anonymous, y’all aren’t in any position to declare things incoherent. So, some anonymous entity somewhere on the Internet is having trouble figuring something out; what of it? it’s a tautology.
- mkfreeberg | 09/05/2014 @ 17:16mkfreeberg: I could apply my guessing skills to guess at what y’all have in mind.
We were very explicit. We even mapped it out for you.
mkfreeberg: Also, being anonymous, y’all aren’t in any position to declare things incoherent.
Just because an unknown entity, such as mkfreeberg, argues a point doesn’t impact the validity of that argument. That depends on the quality of the argument, not the identity of the arguer.
- Zachriel | 09/05/2014 @ 18:45We were very explicit. We even mapped it out for you.
And yet, y’all can’t seem to understand ambiguity is ambiguity. The issue isn’t my lack of ability to guess, the issue is the ambiguity.
There may be a plainer way of explaining it. But I don’t know what that would be. Y’all will just have to try harder.
Just because an unknown entity, such as mkfreeberg…
Unlike y’all, I’m not an unknown entity. Not that it matters, since I haven’t used the “It must not be true because I don’t find it to be coherent” argument. Apart from y’all, I haven’t seen anyone else raise coherence as an issue. Thing I Know #439.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 02:11mkfreeberg: And yet, y’all can’t seem to understand ambiguity is ambiguity.
Any ambiguity you imagined was resolved when we mapped it out for you.
mkfreeberg: Unlike y’all, I’m not an unknown entity.
Sure you are. However, as we said, that doesn’t impact the validity of your arguments, nor have you claimed any particular expertise. Your arguments are poorly reasoned and poorly supported regardless of who you are.
- Zachriel | 09/06/2014 @ 05:50Any ambiguity you imagined was resolved when we mapped it out for you.
Y’all said, er, “mapped”: “D”. So no, y’all haven’t “mapped it out.” Let’s try it again.
M: So it is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
Z: Per your stated position, this statement is incoherent…
“This statement” is:
1. “It is inaccurate for liberals to talk about their goal…”
2. Liberals talking about their goal.
incoherent (adj.):
Other than me pointing out that y’all are incoherent when y’all complain about incoherence, I don’t recall anyone raising coherence as an issue other than y’all. That’s irony.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 07:23We provided this definition already. Incoherent, internally inconsistent; illogical.
So it is {incoherent, per mkfreeberg’s stated position} for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
If you define equality as a strict dichotomy, as you insisted above, then it is incoherent to talk about “greater equality” just as it would be incoherent to talk about “a more perfect union”. Of course, native speakers in the English language understand the terms to mean “closer to equality” and “closer to perfection”, but perhaps English is not your first language. On the other hand, you seem impervious to learning.
From above:
Z: Let’s see how long you can maintain the stance that the term “greater equality” (cf Milton Friedman) has a coherent meaning in the English language.
The answer is, not long.
- Zachriel | 09/06/2014 @ 07:29So it is {incoherent, per mkfreeberg’s stated position} for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
So now y’all are changing to #2; y’all’s claim is that it is the liberals who are incoherent. I’d previously been pretty sure y’all were on #1, saying it was my statement that was incoherent.
Y’all’s claim of incoherence continues to be, ironically, incoherent. “Not logical or well-organized; not easy to understand.”
Perhaps it would be simpler if we just agreed — liberals would be more technically accurate, as well as more coherent, if instead of saying “We are for greater income equality,” they rather said “We are for a more even distribution of material goods.” Of course, that might turn off potential voters because it looks like micro-managing. But then again, that would be accurate and an honest representation of the political goals.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 12:57mkfreeberg: So now y’all are changing to #2; y’all’s claim is that it is the liberals who are incoherent.
That would seem to be your claim, based on your previous discussion of the incoherence of the term “greater equality”.
mkfreeberg: if instead of saying “We are for greater income equality,” they rather said “We are for a more even distribution of material goods.”
That’s basically what the term means. Let’s see how long you can maintain the stance that the term “greater equality” (cf Milton Friedman) has a coherent meaning in the English language.
- Zachriel | 09/07/2014 @ 07:12That would seem to be your claim, based on your previous discussion of the incoherence of the term “greater equality”.
So, which claim are y’all calling incoherent?
That’s basically what the term means.
If we strike the word “basically” from the sentence above, does it remain true? If not, then that would make it a tautology masquerading as something useful.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 05:36mkfreeberg: So, which claim are y’all calling incoherent?
it is {incoherent, per mkfreeberg’s stated position} for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
mkfreeberg: If we strike the word “basically” from the sentence above, does it remain true?
One could quibble over your conflation of income with a more even distribution of material goods.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 05:38it is {incoherent, per mkfreeberg’s stated position} for liberals to talk about their goal of “greater equality.”
Then, y’all are restating my objection inaccurately; it has little to do with incoherence. Indeed, millions of people have great confidence in their interpretation of what has been said to them. My objection is that this confidence is false.
It isn’t a matter of coherence, it’s a matter of deception.
One could quibble over your conflation of income with a more even distribution of material goods.
Well that’s the point, isn’t it? If liberals were honest, they would achieve a greater distinction between income and wealth. But we know they’re not dedicated to solving a problem with “even distribution of material goods,” since this country doesn’t have a wealth tax, and I don’t see too many liberals advocating for one.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 06:18mkfreeberg: My objection is that this confidence is false.
Well, no. You argued for weeks about whether the term “greater equality” was a coherent concept, that equality was always a strict equality, even though it is often used in statistics to refer to dispersions. However, you then modified your view to accept the usage while using scare-quotes, then retreated somewhat. So here we are again.
Given that greater equality refers to a statistical dispersion, then our response is that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality. For instance, someone might support robust markets, while also supporting a social safety net.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 06:26Well, no. You argued for weeks about whether the term “greater equality” was a coherent concept, that equality was always a (etc., etc)…
As I’ve pointed out already, coherence is an issue not often raised by anyone at all besides y’all’selves. The only exceptions I’ve been able to find is when I pointed out the irony of y’all being incoherent while objecting to incoherence.
Given that greater equality refers to a statistical dispersion…
Actually, when I refer to “greater equality” I’m talking about a greater presence of things that are actually equal. Like: I’m rich, you’re poor, but we both face the same penalties if we jaywalk. I’m white, you’re black, but if we apply for the same job we have the same chance of getting in. Equality.
…our response is that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
A lot of liberals don’t agree with y’all about that, as is evidenced by the lack of disagreement among liberals about how close together these incomes should be before the equalizing is good enough. As I’ve pointed out already, if we take y’all’s definition of “equality” seriously then pistol marksmen would use that term to describe the desired end-state of rounds striking the target at a “more equal” point. Which is not a term you actually hear at the pistol range, since people need to say what they really mean there, or someone might get hurt.
But then there are our friends the liberal academics, the “intellectuals” who deal with ideas and not with practice…
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2014 @ 23:06mkfreeberg: As I’ve pointed out already, coherence is an issue not often raised by anyone at all besides y’all’selves.
Actually, it was you who raised the issue near the top of the thread, saying in reply to the use of the term “greater equality” that “Things are equal, or else they’re not.” We provided examples of the term “greater equality” from Milton Friedman, the Oxford Dictionary, frequent usage, and statistics. You then agreed to the usage, but then here you are again arguing the same point.
mkfreeberg: Actually, when I refer to “greater equality” I’m talking about a greater presence of things that are actually equal. Like: I’m rich, you’re poor, but we both face the same penalties if we jaywalk. I’m white, you’re black, but if we apply for the same job we have the same chance of getting in. Equality.
Greater is a comparative term. Your first example is legal equality, the second is equality of opportunity. It can only be greater or lesser equality when compared to some other condition.
Zachriel: …our response is that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
mkfreeberg: A lot of liberals don’t agree with y’all about that, as is evidenced by the lack of disagreement among liberals about how close together these incomes should be before the equalizing is good enough.
Um, that doesn’t make sense. If they all were for perfect equality, there would be no disagreement.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2014 @ 05:45Actually, it was you who raised the issue near the top of the thread, saying in reply to the use of the term “greater equality” that “Things are equal, or else they’re not.”
And then, since y’all were having trouble with this I explained it explicitly:
This seems to be one of those situations in which Cuttlefish A can’t recall the dialogue in which Cuttlefish B participated. In other words, a situation that shows why it’s an idea so seldom practiced that multiple anonymous individuals should share an account: Turns out, it isn’t that good of an idea. So much confusion going on, and the blame all goes on y’all’s side of the net.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2014 @ 17:31mkfreeberg: Then, y’all are restating my objection inaccurately; it has little to do with incoherence.
Yet you repeatedly argued that it was incoherent.
mkfreeberg: Indeed, millions of people have great confidence in their interpretation of what has been said to them. My objection is that this confidence is false. It isn’t a matter of coherence, it’s a matter of deception.
Instead of arguing that point, you spent weeks arguing about whether “greater equality” was a coherent concept. Then when you said you would accept the standard terminology, you again retreated from that position.
So, given the standard usage for “greater equality”, let us return to the original point. Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 05:53Yet you repeatedly argued that it was incoherent.
Then I’ll repeatedly clarify:
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 09:24mkfreeberg: My objection is that this confidence is false.
To which, before your long distraction about the coherence of ‘greater equality’, we responded, “Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 09:39To which, before your long distraction about the coherence of ‘greater equality’…
But, y’all continue to misunderstand the objection. Which is just weird.
Do y’all understand yet, or do y’all need me to paste it again?
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 10:25mkfreeberg: y’all continue to misunderstand the objection
We understand your point. You believe that liberals are being deceptive when they claim to want greater equality. You pointed to examples where liberals don’t always act towards greater equality. Our response remains, “Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 11:38We understand your point.
Apparently not. The objection has to do with deception, not incoherence.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 09:13mkfreeberg: The objection has to do with deception, not incoherence.
Is this not your claim? You believe that liberals are being deceptive when they claim to want greater equality.
- Zachriel | 09/14/2014 @ 09:17Is this not your claim? You believe that liberals are being deceptive when they claim to want greater equality.
Yes. Let us suppose for sake of argument that they’re not being deceptive.
For things to be equal, they have to be equal. Example: Several among y’all, and several other town residents in addition, and myself along with you all, are busted for jaywalking. We all face the same fine, irrespective of our religions, sexual preferences, sex, race; that’s equality.
If I were to take the position “liberals want the same brand of equality with regard to income, in other words they want everyone to make the same amount” surely y’all would protest that that’s not an accurate representation of the liberals’ goals. And I would agree with the protest. Therefore…
They’re not about equality. They’re for a more tightly restricted distribution of income levels, by way of top-down micro-management. But that doesn’t sound as good as “greater equality.” So, they practice deception.
It isn’t incoherence though. Few people who receive the message, would say they have any trouble understanding it. In fact, that’s part of how the deception works so well. But it isn’t accurate to say they’re for greater equality. They obviously don’t want Barack Obama to be equal to everybody else.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 09:57mkfreeberg: Let us suppose for sake of argument that they’re not being deceptive.
Sounds like you are actually going to try to make an argument! Let’s see how it goes.
mkfreeberg: For things to be equal, they have to be equal.
When talking about income equality, we’re talking about a dispersion, not an absolute equality.
mkfreeberg: They’re not about equality. They’re for a more tightly restricted distribution of income levels, by way of top-down micro-management.
Some do, some don’t. Some think that the top is controlled by an oligarchy, and that it requires reducing their role in order to reduce income inequality. In any case, many liberals believe there is a role for government to play, at least to provide a safety net, education for the young, to provide more equal opportunity by preventing racial and religious discrimination, etc.
mkfreeberg: But that doesn’t sound as good as “greater equality.” So, they practice deception.
You’re confusing means and goals. The means you point to is top-down management, while the goal is reducing income inequality. That’s not deception. That’s calling different things by different names. For instance, Milton Friedman advocates free markets to reduce income inequality.
- Zachriel | 09/14/2014 @ 10:26When talking about income equality, we’re talking about a dispersion, not an absolute equality.
Then, a sincere expression of the goal would have something to do with “dispersion.” Not equality.
As I pointed out earlier, the stated goal of reduced disparity would be analogous to a pistol marksman at the firing range trying to tighten his grouping. I daresay you could spend a good fifty years in that setting and never once hear anyone refer to this objective as “greater equality.” It’s just not going to happen.
Now, why is that? I’ve explained it already. On the firing range, simple misunderstandings make it more likely someone could get hurt — which is undesirable.
In academia and intellectualist vocations, misunderstandings of this sort make it more likely a democrat gets elected — which people in those professions, being unconnected from ultimate results, generally see as desirable. And so we find ourselves in a mythical sort snowglobe-underworld, an enchanted land of designed misunderstandings.
Where misunderstandings are undesirable…as in, designing, building and repairing car engines, maintaining bridges, cleaning out sewer pipes, software engineering, pistol ranges, anything where things have to actually WORK — “I do believe you’d get yer ass kicked sayin’ something like that, man.” And so people have to be sincere. The democrats wouldn’t know, or care, anything about this.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 17:13mkfreeberg: Then, a sincere expression of the goal would have something to do with “dispersion.” Not equality.
The term is called income equality/inequality. Here’s an example: “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/15/2014 @ 05:21The term is called income equality/inequality. Here’s an example: “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
To repeat, the issue is not the difficulty figuring out what is being said, the issue is the intent to deceive. We don’t use “greater equality” to describe the desired end-state of rounds striking a target closer together at the firing range. In that setting, an intent to deceive is not only undesirable, but might very well get you ejected. And so they say things that actually describe the concept that is being communicated, like “tighter spread.” Things that transparently convey the understanding that greater control over the events by the shooter, an admirable quality, is what is being attempted.
It’s no different with liberal politicians, and the events of the citizens under them earning money: Greater control, tighter spread. That would accurately convey the interests and goals. But it wouldn’t win elections for democrats, because this required layer of deception would no longer be there.
- mkfreeberg | 09/16/2014 @ 21:53mkfreeberg: To repeat, the issue is not the difficulty figuring out what is being said, the issue is the intent to deceive.
Yes, we understand. Your example is faulty.
mkfreeberg: We don’t use “greater equality” to describe the desired end-state of rounds striking a target closer together at the firing range.
With firearms, the process of improving accuracy and precision is called accurizing, even though accurate is a dichotomous term meaning “capable of or successful in reaching the intended target”.
With incomes, the term concerning dispersion is called greater or lesser income equality or inequality. There’s nothing deceptive about using a term that is well-defined and well-known.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 05:18With incomes, the term concerning dispersion is called greater or lesser income equality or inequality. There’s nothing deceptive about using a term that is well-defined and well-known.
If there really was nothing deceptive about using this “income equality or inequality” term, then the term wouldn’t be used at all. Instead, people would use y’all’s “accurizing,” or “reducing the spread,” or “tightening up” — whatever is used at that firing range. After all, there are no meaningful differences between the two goals.
Except for two: 1) There are two dimensions to be considered at the firing range, the X and the Y, whereas there is only one dimension to be considered with income. And, 2) at the firing range, confusion and ambiguity are liabilities. An attempt to stir these up deliberately could, and should, get you expelled. In politics, when it comes to electing liberal democrats, confusion is an asset; since people aren’t going to vote for liberal politicians unless they’re confused about what’s going on.
- mkfreeberg | 09/18/2014 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: If there really was nothing deceptive about using this “income equality or inequality” term, then the term wouldn’t be used at all.
It’s a typical idiomatic English, such as “a more perfect union”. While perfect is normally a dichotomous term, when combined with “more” it means closer to perfection. Perhaps English is not your first language?
- Zachriel | 09/19/2014 @ 04:12It’s a typical idiomatic English, such as “a more perfect union”. While perfect is normally a dichotomous term, when combined with “more” it means closer to perfection. Perhaps English is not your first language?
Yes, it’s fun to pretend the other side is lacking competence, but follow the train of thought here: We do not use that “typical idiomatic English” at the firing range, and the reason we do not use it there isn’t because of the two dimensions versus one. Tightening the spread of rounds is essentially the same goal as tightening the spread of incomes.
The difference is that when we talk of tightening the spread of incomes, the goal is to elect democrats, which makes misunderstandings desirable. At the firing range, misunderstandings are undesirable, even deadly. And so we use the kind of “English,” there, that actually does what languages are supposed to do: Convey thoughts and ideas accurately.
Were we to do that with the other matter, the tightening spread of incomes would look like what it truly is: Micromanaging, of most intimate aspects of one’s life, by total strangers. It would then fall to the voters to decide if these strangers should have that micro-managing power — and, democrats would lose elections.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2014 @ 04:37mkfreeberg: . At the firing range, misunderstandings are undesirable, even deadly.
Sure, but idiomatic language is used by people who use firearms, as well as the usual jargon. Take the word “accurate” meaning “free from mistakes or errors”. Yet we have no problem understanding what is meant by more accurate.
It’s a typical idiomatic English, such as “a more perfect union”. While perfect is normally a dichotomous term, when combined with “more” it means closer to perfection.
- Zachriel | 09/20/2014 @ 06:20Sure, but idiomatic language is used by people who use firearms, as well as the usual jargon.
Oh? Where is this firing range, where people say “I want my rounds to strike the target with greater equality?”
They don’t say that. They might say “I want to achieve greater control over my sidearm.” But if we were to transfer such plain and clear language to politics, with liberal politicians saying “I want to achieve greater control over what people are allowed to earn,” liberal politicians would not get elected; they’d be ejected instead.
Although that would be much more honest.
- mkfreeberg | 09/20/2014 @ 06:24mkfreeberg: Where is this firing range, where people say “I want my rounds to strike the target with greater equality?”
With firearms, that would be called precision. Equality is not the proper measure.
mkfreeberg: liberal politicians saying “I want to achieve greater control over what people are allowed to earn,” liberal politicians would not get elected; they’d be ejected instead.
Liberals, such as Milton Friedman? “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/20/2014 @ 06:27With firearms, that would be called precision. Equality is not the proper measure.
It’s exactly the same goal, the only difference being one works with two dimensions, an X and a Y, the other works with one, the level of income. So if “equality is not the proper measure” on the one, then that must remain so on the other, and I’m glad y’all have come around on this.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 05:20mkfreeberg: It’s exactly the same goal,
No, they’re not the same goal. Firearms require precision (dispersion) and accuracy (bias). Income inequality refers simply to the dispersion.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about firearms ‘equality’ with regards to hitting targets. There is an accepted meaning of income inequality. Changing that meaning is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 06:02Firearms require precision (dispersion) and accuracy (bias). Income inequality refers simply to the dispersion.
I see. So because the firearm exercise has precision in mind — they have a “bulls eye” — this makes “equality” inappropriate in that setting. The complete and total absence of any “bulls eye” in the income non-dispersal exercise, is what makes “equality” appropriate for that setting.
Is there more to the argument than that? Or are you ready for my verdict on whether or not it works?
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 08:49mkfreeberg: So because the firearm exercise has precision in mind — they have a “bulls eye” — this makes “equality” inappropriate in that setting.
In English, we don’t use the term equality for targets. We use the term accuracy. We do however, use equality in phrases such as greater equality or greater inequality. We have provided examples.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 08:52In English, we don’t use the term equality for targets. We use the term accuracy. We do however, use equality in phrases such as greater equality or greater inequality. We have provided examples.
At the firearms range, it is most advisable to take note of a wide spread, disregarding the issue of whether any rounds happened to hit the bulls eye. If the spread is wide, some impact points may very well have netted a high score, but a mere glimpse of the target overall will reveal that to have been luck. Improvement is therefore needed in the calibration of the weapon, the skill of the shooter, the compatibility of the range distance with the weapon’s capabilities, or perhaps all of these things.
In that situation, dispersal is the real issue. “Accuracy” is considered to have been a settled matter, it isn’t there because if it were there then there wouldn’t be dispersal. So, yes. It’s exactly the same consideration.
The truth is, we use the terms like “precision” and “spread” because it’s important to be clear with your terminology at the gun range; we use the term “equality” with respect to incomes, because it’s important to obfuscate and confuse when you’re trying to elect democrats.
But you can’t achieve this “greater equality,” or whatever you want to call it, anyway without destroying the ability and the opportunities of those earning the incomes. There are a lot of people who don’t have very high incomes simply because they don’t wish to have them, can’t hack the responsibility. That is why it is important to obfuscate and confuse when you’re trying to elect democrats. In this issue, they’re doing the same thing they do with so many others, pretending to build something great and grand when they’re really out to destroy.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 09:05mkfreeberg: At the firearms range, it is most advisable to take note of a wide spread, disregarding the issue of whether any rounds happened to hit the bulls eye.
That is incorrect. If there is minimal spread, but you keep missing the target, then your shot is not accurate—by definition. That means when you go hunting, you will *consistently* miss.
mkfreeberg: “Accuracy” is considered to have been a settled matter, it isn’t there because if it were there then there wouldn’t be dispersal.
There is always dispersal with firearms.
Add accuracy and precision to the list of concepts you are ignorant about. We explained it above, but perhaps you should do some research on your own first.
mkfreeberg: But you can’t achieve this “greater equality,” or whatever you want to call it, anyway without destroying the ability and the opportunities of those earning the incomes.
Within certain ranges, but that’s irrelevant to simply understanding the term. Income inequality is well-defined, even having a precise mathematical expression. If you wish to discuss the possible deleterious effects of efforts to increase income equality, we can have that discussion, but not as long as you continue to argue semantics.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 09:15Add accuracy and precision to the list of concepts you are ignorant about. We explained it above, but perhaps you should do some research on your own first.
Minus-one for ending a sentence with a preposition, and y’all haven’t made the point that any such list should be updated any such way. Y’all are welcome to update y’all’s own list.
If dispersal is minimal but the rounds are all striking far away from the target, there is still a problem. Someone must have forgotten to tell y’all. So yes, these are two separate things, and if there is broad dispersal, the concern is exactly the same as these democrats who fret over income “inequality.” But, since clarity is important at the gun range, they don’t use this term even as they confront exactly the same problem.
The difference is that clarity is not important when people try to get democrats elected. Confusion is more important in that setting; if people aren’t confused, they’re less likely to vote for democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 09:29mkfreeberg: Minus-one for ending a sentence with a preposition
1) It’s an adverb.
2) There’s no rule in English against using a preposition at the end of a sentence.
“Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/ending-sentences-with-prepositions
3) Obvious fallacy of diversion.
Did you bother to learn the meanings of accuracy and precision?
mkfreeberg: If dispersal is minimal but the rounds are all striking far away from the target, there is still a problem.
That’s right. The firing is precise, but inaccurate.
mkfreeberg: the concern is exactly the same as these democrats who fret over income “inequality.”
Income inequality is well-defined, and can even be given a precise mathematical expression.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 10:02M: If dispersal is minimal but the rounds are all striking far away from the target, there is still a problem.
Z: That’s right. The firing is precise, but inaccurate.
So what I said was correct. These are two separate issues.
Shooters desire a narrow spread, just as democrat politicians desire a narrow range of incomes among their constituents. The shooters also desire, in addition to this narrow spread, to place it on a bulls-eye but that’s a bit off-topic. As far as the narrow spread, they are confronting the same issue the democrats are confronting, but must use a different terminology to describe it because they rely on clarity, whereas the democrat politicians rely on confusion. That is why the terms they use are different. It doesn’t have to do with hitting a bulls-eye.
Income inequality is well-defined, and can even be given a precise mathematical expression.
Right, we covered that already. Things are equal when they are equal, which can only mean that y’all’s use of it, in that context, is incorrect.
Unless y’all are talking about making everybody’s income actually equal to one another.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 13:42It’s [“about”] an adverb.
aboard, about, above, across, after, against, ahead of, along, amid, amidst, among, around, as, as far as, as of, aside from, at, athwart, atop…
Many of those are also adverbs. It’s not an either-or thing.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 13:47mkfreeberg: Shooters desire a narrow spread
Not necessarily. Rapid fire weapons are often useful even with wide dispersion. Sometimes, more useful than if they were narrowly dispersed.
mkfreeberg: just as democrat politicians desire a narrow range of incomes among their constituents.
Not all democrats want a narrow range of incomes, though most prefer a narrower range. And for those that do, they generally apply it towards society as a whole.
mkfreeberg: Things are equal when they are equal, which can only mean that y’all’s use of it, in that context, is incorrect.
Milton Friedman: “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
Just because you don’t like the term doesn’t mean it is used incorrectly. You can wave your hands about semantics all you want, but when people talk about income inequality, they are talking about the degree of income dispersion, such as defined by the Gini index for incomes.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 13:58mkfreeberg: Many of those are also adverbs.
Sorry. Thought you were referring to the sentence immediately before your comment.
In any case, “Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.”
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 13:59http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/ending-sentences-with-prepositions
Just because you don’t like the term doesn’t mean it is used incorrectly.
True, but there’s a lot more going on here than me not liking the term. For starters, it’s being used incorrectly. “Greater equality” is like “greater cold.” Two things are either equal, or else they aren’t.
For an example of where “greater equality” would be an appropriate use, you can look to the example to which I have agreed already: Greater numbers of people who, should they be caught committing a common offense like jaywalking or littering, will be treated equally before the law. But, our friends the liberals aren’t too interested in that. They don’t want whites and blacks to be treated equally when they apply for the same job, for example.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 14:14mkfreeberg: “Greater equality” is like “greater cold.”
No. Greater inequality refers to greater income dispersion.
mkfreeberg: Greater numbers of people who, should they be caught committing a common offense like jaywalking or littering, will be treated equally before the law.
That would be called greater legal equality. See how that works? It’s not as difficult as you make it.
mkfreeberg: They don’t want whites and blacks to be treated equally when they apply for the same job, for example.
It’s been shown that people with minority names have much less chance of getting a job than those with mainstream names, even if all other aspects of the application are the same.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 14:51mkfreeberg: “Greater equality” is like “greater cold.”
No. Greater inequality refers to greater income dispersion.
Nice dodge. “Greater inequality” is an altogether different issue, in fact an opposite issue. That would be like “greater heat,” a statement that is technically valid in every way.
M: Greater numbers of people who, should they be caught committing a common offense like jaywalking or littering, will be treated equally before the law.
Z: That would be called greater legal equality. See how that works? It’s not as difficult as you make it.
Oh? People never refer to that as greater equality, they always put the word “legal” in there when that’s what they’re wanting to discuss?
I doubt that very much…but, I suppose that would earn me a rebuke of “hand waving is not an argument.”
It’s been shown that people with minority names have much less chance of getting a job than those with mainstream names, even if all other aspects of the application are the same.
Right. Y’all’s fabric of thought is so flexible, its demands for re-labeling and re-definitions so ever-present and intransigent, that it finds justification for calling unequal treatment to be equal treatment.
What do we care about what any adherent to that method of thought, has to say about what’s equal? It’s like y’all want the final say in the solution to a long division problem worked out to thirty places past the decimal, but y’all mix up the 2 and 7 digits. We can’t even achieve agreement that unequal treatment is unequal treatment?
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 01:06mkfreeberg: People never refer to that as greater equality, they always put the word “legal” in there when that’s what they’re wanting to discuss?
It would depend on context. Where there is ambiguity, it’s a simple matter of asking.
Zachriel: Greater inequality refers to greater income dispersion.
mkfreeberg: “Greater inequality” is an altogether different issue, in fact an opposite issue
That should read “income inequality”, as has been remarked many time previous.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s fabric of thought is so flexible, its demands for re-labeling and re-definitions so ever-present and intransigent, that it finds justification for calling unequal treatment to be equal treatment.
We are using the term “greater equality” and “greater income equality” in the usual sense. Here’s an example:
Milton Friedman: “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/22/2014 @ 05:06It would depend on context. Where there is ambiguity, it’s a simple matter of asking.
Just speaking for myself, I have very seldom if ever heard the term “greater legal equality” even when the subject under discussion is protections and enforcements under the law. Racial profiling, for example. When is the last time anyone heard the term “greater legal equality”? Y’all have gone on at length y’all-selves, monologuing about how human history since the Renaissance has been a continuum of incremental improvements involving “greater equality,” without the “legal” word in there.
It seems like when y’all discuss the terms people use, often times y’all descend to the level of simply making it up, and inventing what people have been saying.
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 06:02mkfreeberg: Just speaking for myself, I have very seldom if ever heard the term “greater legal equality” even when the subject under discussion is protections and enforcements under the law.
More than 52 thousand references to “greater legal equality” on Google (exact quote match).
http://www.google.com/search?q=“greater+legal+equality”
More than 150 thousand references to “greater income equality” on Google (exact quote match).
Nearly 400 thousand references to “greater equality” on Google (exact quote match).
More than 1.6 million references to “greater social equality” on Google (exact quote match).
The concept of greater equality is widely used in the English language.
- Zachriel | 09/22/2014 @ 06:16mkfreeberg: Just speaking for myself, I have very seldom if ever heard the term “greater legal equality” even when the subject under discussion is protections and enforcements under the law.
Furthermore, the meaning of the term is clear in English, even if you haven’t heard the term before.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have gone on at length y’all-selves, monologuing about how human history since the Renaissance has been a continuum of incremental improvements involving “greater equality,” without the “legal” word in there.
Which, when you read the essay, is clear from context; religious equality, political equality, economic, and national equalities. We encompassed social and legal authority under the political.
The political power of the aristocracy was overthrown by war, such as by the American and French Revolutions, through reforms placing constitutional limitations on the royalty, with the rise of parliaments and legislatures, and through modern civil rights movements.
- Zachriel | 09/22/2014 @ 06:28http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
More than 52 thousand references to “greater legal equality” on Google (exact quote match).
More than 150 thousand references to “greater income equality” on Google (exact quote match).
Nearly 400 thousand references to “greater equality” on Google (exact quote match).
So it is y’all’s position that when people say “greater equality,” without the “legal,” they must be talking about income?
I would say — and I’m not the only one — if we have a situation in which well-established members of the community escape justice for committing the same misdemeanors that bring down a much harsher sentence on those who are less-well-off, and someone crusades for a change in that discrepancy and claims they are pushing for “greater equality,” that would be a fair representation of their efforts. It seems y’all disagree with that. Is that the case?
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 18:28mkfreeberg: So it is y’all’s position that when people say “greater equality,” without the “legal,” they must be talking about income?
Z: “It would depend on context.”
mkfreeberg: if we have a situation in which well-established members of the community escape justice for committing the same misdemeanors that bring down a much harsher sentence on those who are less-well-off, and someone crusades for a change in that discrepancy and claims they are pushing for “greater equality,” that would be a fair representation of their efforts.
Sure. As we said, how the term is used depends on context. Greater equality encompasses social equality, legal equality, and sometimes income equality. The latter terms are simply more specific.
- Zachriel | 09/23/2014 @ 05:56Z: “It would depend on context.”
Indeed it does, and must. Y’all’s own citation confirms that “greater equality,” exact-quote-match, is used nearly eight times as often as “greater legal equality.” Which is a very strong indicator that a lot of people have the protection-of-law thing in mind when they use the term, not the income-level thing.
- mkfreeberg | 09/25/2014 @ 17:53mkfreeberg: Y’all’s own citation confirms that “greater equality,” exact-quote-match, is used nearly eight times as often as “greater legal equality.”
That’s silly logic. In fact, “greater equality” is associated with “legal” and with “income” at about the same rate on Google, “legal” being slightly more common.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2014 @ 03:55If we search for “greater equality” OR “greater inequality” income vs. “greater equality” OR “greater inequality” legal, then income is a bit more common. Generally, they are both commonly used.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2014 @ 04:29That’s silly logic. In fact, “greater equality” is associated with “legal” and with “income” at about the same rate on Google, “legal” being slightly more common.
Actually, “silly logic” would be trying to divine the consensus meaning of phrases by assuming the intentions of hundreds of thousands of strangers, by way of a Google search. Y’all could just use common sense and ask: Is it consistent with the generally accepted meaning of “greater equality,” when we talk about diverse classes of people all subject to equal enforcement of the law, and benefiting from equal protection of the law? Yes or no.
It’s a question of active-voice versus passive-voice; relying on one’s own cognitive powers, versus relying on the opinions of others. Seems y’all have some very strong opinions about that particular question that y’all aren’t willing to state outright. Even though y’all are anonymous — which seems to be part of the problem. Interesting.
- mkfreeberg | 09/26/2014 @ 05:20mkfreeberg: Actually, “silly logic” would be trying to divine the consensus meaning of phrases by assuming the intentions of hundreds of thousands of strangers, by way of a Google search.
As meaning is defined by usage, surveying how people use the terms is exactly how to determine the meaning of phrases.
mkfreeberg: Is it consistent with the generally accepted meaning of “greater equality,” when we talk about diverse classes of people all subject to equal enforcement of the law, and benefiting from equal protection of the law? Yes or no.
Not necessarily. It depends on context. As we have shown, “greater equality” may refer to legal equality, social equality, income equality, or wealth equality.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2014 @ 11:20As meaning is defined by usage, surveying how people use the terms is exactly how to determine the meaning of phrases.
Very true. But,
M: Greater numbers of people who, should they be caught committing a common offense like jaywalking or littering, will be treated equally before the law.
Z: That would be called greater legal equality. See how that works? It’s not as difficult as you make it.
So the point y’all are trying to support here is: People who talk about “greater equality,” regardless of their ideological positioning, must be talking about levels of income; there’s no way they could be discussing equal treatment before the law, because if that’s what they meant then they would use this term “greater legal equality.”
Evidence y’all have brought to support this point: A Google search.
The difference between that, and providing support for what y’all have said, would be some sort of poll of the speakers and writers behind the statements that resulted in the Google hits.
Did y’all manage to get that done, or get hold of the papers put out by others who managed to get that done? Until that’s done, y’all are supporting the statement y’all made with nothing more than speculation.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 02:26mkfreeberg: So the point y’all are trying to support here is: People who talk about “greater equality,” regardless of their ideological positioning, must be talking about levels of income; there’s no way they could be discussing equal treatment before the law, because if that’s what they meant then they would use this term “greater legal equality.”
This is an excellent example of your inability or unwillingness to accurately read our position. We said, “It depends on context. As we have shown, ‘greater equality’ may refer to legal equality, social equality, income equality, or wealth equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 06:14This is an excellent example of your inability or unwillingness to accurately read our position.
No, try again. The exchange was:
mkfreeberg: “Greater equality” is like “greater cold.”
No. Greater inequality refers to greater income dispersion.
I do agree it is an excellent example. What it is an excellent example of, is y’all’s habit of shifting to another position, when y’all’s previous position has been defeated. I’m not the first to notice this.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 06:56mkfreeberg: I do agree it is an excellent example.
We corrected our misstatement in our very next comment.
Z: That should read “income inequality”, as has been remarked many time previous.
This is an excellent example of your inability or unwillingness to accurately read our position. We said, “It depends on context. As we have shown, ‘greater equality’ may refer to legal equality, social equality, income equality, or wealth equality.”
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 07:04This is an excellent example of your inability or unwillingness to accurately read our position. We said, “It depends on context. As we have shown, ‘greater equality’ may refer to legal equality, social equality, income equality, or wealth equality.”
Then, I’m not sure where the disagreement is.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 10:06mkfreeberg: Then, I’m not sure where the disagreement is.
You got hung up on the term “greater equality”.
mkfreeberg: “Hillary is okay with inequality when she happens to be on the plusher side of it,”
Z: You’re using that word again, “equality”. Turns out that people can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 13:56You got hung up on the term “greater equality”.
Not so much “hung up on”; pointed out, accurately, that is is a nonsense-term.
Two things are equal, or else they are not.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: Not so much “hung up on”; pointed out, accurately, that is is a nonsense-term.
Milton Friedman: “A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
mkfreeberg: Two things are equal, or else they are not.
Unless it is preceded by a qualifier, such as “greater”; then it refers to a dispersion.
alter-mk: Either something is perfect or it is not.
“To form a more perfect Union”
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 06:52http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
…then it refers to a dispersion.
But how much? How much “greater equality” must we have, when does it stop? And also, it’s not necessarily true that it refers to dispersion; “greater equality,” taken literally and in context of income, would mean a greater frequency of people making exactly the same amount of money. Is that not the goal?
If it is, then to be honest the democrats should just come out and say they want more and more people to make exactly the same amount of money. If not, they should say their goal is reduced dispersion. In either case, a more accurate statement of the goal is a less pleasing statement, which means the more pleasing statement of “greater equality” is a convenient deception.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 11:43mkfreeberg: But how much? How much “greater equality” must we have, when does it stop?
People have a variety of different views. However, empirical evidence shows that when income inequality is too high, it leads to economic disruptions and slow growth. If it is too low, then it leads to slow growth.
mkfreeberg: And also, it’s not necessarily true that it refers to dispersion; “greater equality,” taken literally and in context of income, would mean a greater frequency of people making exactly the same amount of money. Is that not the goal?
There are very view people who want perfect income equality. Most recognize the importance of income inequality to create incentives for economic growth.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 11:48People have a variety of different views.
And they don’t talk them out. Well, what a bunch of sissies.
However, empirical evidence shows that when income inequality is too high, it leads to economic disruptions and slow growth. If it is too low, then it leads to slow growth.
Calling bullshit on that. I’ve seen too many people claim that, and when they’re asked for evidence it turns out they have none.
There are very view people who want perfect income equality. Most recognize the importance of income inequality to create incentives for economic growth.
Really? There have been people crusading for “greater equality” who go “Wait, that’s too much equality, it’s more than what I had in mind”? How many examples do y’all have to offer?
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 14:57mkfreeberg: I’ve seen too many people claim that, and when they’re asked for evidence it turns out they have none.
For examples where income equality is too low, communist countries act as an example. They tend to have very low growth and innovation. For examples where income equality is too high, we have the U.S. before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession.
mkfreeberg: There have been people crusading for “greater equality” who go “Wait, that’s too much equality, it’s more than what I had in mind”?
Sure. Very few people are communists in the U.S., for instance.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 15:12For examples where income equality is too high, we have the U.S. before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession.
Then, the examples are not adequate, since the science is not settled on what caused the Great Depression, nor on what caused the Great Recession.
Looking at it with common sense in mind, one has to define excessive inequality, and in order to do that one has to define how much inequality would be natural. Entertaining that question, we see there has to be at least as much inequality of income as there is inequality in effort to produce the income; inequality in ambition to live a productive life. And, there is quite a bit of that.
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2014 @ 02:02mkfreeberg: Then, the examples are not adequate, since the science is not settled on what caused the Great Depression, nor on what caused the Great Recession.
We pointed to a correlation. That’s called evidence.
mkfreeberg: Looking at it with common sense in mind, one has to define excessive inequality, and in order to do that one has to define how much inequality would be natural.
Not what’s natural, but economically most beneficial. History can provide some guide. Note that America’s Affluent Society period coincided with low income inequality.
http://afterthemillennials.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/gini-index-usa.jpg
mkfreeberg: Entertaining that question, we see there has to be at least as much inequality of income as there is inequality in effort to produce the income; inequality in ambition to live a productive life.
That’s right! If there is too little income inequality, then there is no incentive to produce or innovate, with the danger of economic stagnation. On the other hand, if there is too much inequality, then there is also reduced incentives, plus the danger of economic retrenchment.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2014 @ 05:38We pointed to a correlation. That’s called evidence.
Didn’t say it wasn’t evidence. I denied it was adequate. The reading-comprehension thing again.
It’s a funny thing about libs. Whenever they’re caught in a mistake, suddenly there’s this microscopic differential that has to be parsed out, that their opposition simply was not sufficiently sophisticated to properly glean, properly tease from the tapestry. When it comes time to rephrase what their opposition said, on the other hand, they do so freely.
I guess it comes from beginning with the end in mind. Anything the opposition says is just so much mulch, and everyone knows you don’t need a surgeon’s scalpel or a pair of tweezers to spread manure. Comes off looking like a psychological disorder encumbering those who simply can’t admit they screwed up.
Note that America’s Affluent Society period coincided with low income inequality.
We know for a fact that there is inequality in the work ethic, always has been, always will be. We know for a fact that liberals ignore this, and when they gain power demand that the producers “share the wealth” with the non-producers. And, we know the producers manage this as an inconvenience, like a toothache; sometimes they get around it, sometimes they just figure it in as a cost of doing business. So, the producers produce, the liberals force them to spread it, they do so. Leave the liberals in charge too long, you get disasters, which the liberals then blame on non-liberals even when the liberals have been in charge of everything.
Then you put Reagan in, and suddenly the economy improves and the energy crisis ends. What’s proven here? Certainly nothing about reduced income inequality correlating to overall prosperity. More like, liberals are scavengers who just squat, and watch, and wait for something good to happen so they can hog the credit, always ready to point fingers when there’s blame. They don’t actually fix anything.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2014 @ 05:03mkfreeberg: Didn’t say it wasn’t evidence. I denied it was adequate.
Fair enough. But not only have high inequality before the Great Depression and Great Recession, but low inequality during the Affluent Society period.
mkfreeberg: We know for a fact that there is inequality in the work ethic, always has been, always will be.
We didn’t say that the Affluent Society coincided with zero inequality, but low inequality.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2014 @ 06:02Fair enough. But not only have high inequality before the Great Depression and Great Recession, but low inequality during the Affluent Society period.
And the confiscatory top marginal tax rates continued, right on into the Carter years, by which time Keynesian economics were thoroughly discredited. It took “tax cuts for the [hated] rich” to bring prosperity back again.
M: We know for a fact that there is inequality in the work ethic, always has been, always will be.
Z: We didn’t say that the Affluent Society coincided with zero inequality, but low inequality.
The reading comprehension thing again. Y’all’s rebuttal comes off like a pre-arranged cue-card one-liner to be used against someone who says “Ah hah! I found a lefty who is willing to support, or settle for, some inequality!” That is not what was said here.
If there is income inequality that results from work-ethic inequality, we essentially are left with two choices: 1) Interfere, diminishing this income inequality where it happens to be a natural consequence of ambition vs. sloth; or 2) let nature take its course, so that the slothful a) perish, b) become dependent wards of someone else’s charity, or c) learn. The first of those two choices merely exchanges one inequality for another: Inequality of consequence.
People who think their way through problems will recognize this instantly. People who try to solve everything by feeling instead of thinking, never quite seem to get it. I suppose it has to always be that way.
mkfreeberg: And the confiscatory top marginal tax rates continued, right on into the Carter years …
The Carter rates were the same as during the period known as the Affluent Society. The primary cause of the recession was the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, which raised interest rates in order to stifle inflation brought on by the Vietnam War. The recession continued until the Federal Reserve changed source. The policy worked to reduce inflation for a generation by showing the Federal Reserve had the political will to do what it took to control inflation.
mkfreeberg: If there is income inequality that results from work-ethic inequality, we essentially are left with two choices: 1) Interfere, diminishing this income inequality where it happens to be a natural consequence of ambition vs. sloth; or 2) let nature take its course, so that the slothful a) perish, b) become dependent wards of someone else’s charity, or c) learn.
Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2014 @ 05:13The Carter rates were the same as during the period known as the Affluent Society.
Right, I just said that.
The primary cause of the recession was the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, which raised interest rates in order to stifle inflation brought on by the Vietnam War.
Yeah…poor Jimmy got a bum rap. Just like a lot of people who failed, he wasn’t responsible for any of it, it just happened to him.
Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.
They’re also associated with the top 2% having a larger and larger share of the wealth. Tautology.
What we really need to be doing is bringing an end to work-ethic inequality. Except, not really, nature eventually takes care of that one way or another.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 03:20mkfreeberg: Yeah…poor Jimmy got a bum rap. Just like a lot of people who failed, he wasn’t responsible for any of it, it just happened to him.
That’s the point. He was responsible for it. They did what they thought was necessary to contain inflation, and paid a political price.
mkfreeberg: They’re also associated with the top 2% having a larger and larger share of the wealth. Tautology.
Add tautologies to the things you don’t understand. It’s a tautology only if it is necessarily true. It is certainly possible for the 1% to have a smaller share.
- Zachriel | 10/04/2014 @ 06:14Add tautologies to the things you don’t understand. It’s a tautology only if it is necessarily true. It is certainly possible for the 1% to have a smaller share.
Y’all can add whatever y’all like, to whatever lists y’all like to create. What y’all said was, and I quote, “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” That is a tautology.
An argument started about it, would be a red herring.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 13:44mkfreeberg: “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” That is a tautology.
That is not correct. Here’s a simple example using deciles.
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
27
Gini = 0.31
1
1
1
1
15
15
15
15
15
21
Gini = 0.39
Even though in the first example the top decile has a larger portion of the share of wealth, the Gini is lower. Simple inspection shows why.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 06:30Even though in the first example the top decile has a larger portion of the share of wealth, the Gini is lower. Simple inspection shows why.
The “It only takes one example to derail the argument” model doesn’t work here, because y’all did not say “The top 1% has a larger share of the wealth during periods of high inequality” before I called it a tautology. What y’all said was “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” That qualifies.
It seems y’all must have seen someone win an argument by using the form of “Add [blank] to the list of things [opposition] doesn’t understand.” Ironically, it would appear we need to add “do not understand” to the list of things y’all don’t understand.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:20mkfreeberg: “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” That is a tautology.
Sorry, but there is no way that is a tautology, with or without the emphasis. It happens to turn out that periods of history in the U.S. where income inequality increased is largely due to the top 1% having an increasing share of the wealth, but it didn’t have to be that way. And it’s quite possible that next time it won’t be.
Stating a fact, whether historical or otherwise, is not a tautology. That objects fall downward is not a tautology.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:32Stating a fact, whether historical or otherwise, is not a tautology.
Well we know that isn’t true. Lots of tautologies are factual. Look up some examples sometime.
It happens to turn out that periods of history in the U.S. where income inequality increased is largely due to the top 1% having an increasing share of the wealth…
Alright, that is not a tautology because that is different from what y’all said before, which was “associated with.” Here y’all are calling out a specific relationship of cause-and-effect.
I can see why y’all don’t like having it pointed out that the “associated with” is a tautology; it raises all sorts of possibilities about why the association exists. Perhaps the top 1% have the increased share of the wealth because of the increased inequality? Y’all have pointed to one example of how that might not necessarily be the case, but that’s the exception that proves the rule. Mathematically, and overall, we should expect to find this association.
Perhaps instead of saying things like “That is not a tautology,” it would be more honest if y’all were to say something like “It is inconvenient to our argument for you to point out that that is a tautology.” Although I know y’all won’t.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:44mkfreeberg: Alright, that is not a tautology because that is different from what y’all said before, which was “associated with.”
It wasn’t a tautology.
“Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
“Periods of high inequality are *not* associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
Either of these statements could be true or false; hence, it isn’t a tautology.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:47Either of these statements could be true or false…
Incorrect. Because this is not incorrect, it undermines y’all’s entire argument.
But y’all have yet to provide support for the other argument, the real one, about inequality of income/wealth being a bad thing. It is a natural consequence of inequality of work ethic. If you have a disparity with people trying, which you must expect if they have the freedom to choose whether to work hard or not, we should expect to find a disparity with how much wealth they end up having. Any attempt to diminish the inequality artificially, would necessarily involve an attempt to diminish this freedom to choose.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:52mkfreeberg: Incorrect.
Seriously? You’re arguing with math? Either of those statements could be true, and we provided an example showing you why it could be true.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:57Either of those statements could be true, and we provided an example showing you why it could be true.
At issue, as usual, is the thing y’all are trying to obstruct: This distinction between “is” and “is associated with.” If y’all are trying to say “is associated with” has the potential to be true as well as to be false, I suppose y’all could argue that that is an inherent quality of passive-voice statements.
Which would be quite correct. That’s why honest arguers tend not to use them. But it’s rather futile to hide behind an argument of “Our statement is not a tautology, for it could be true or false since it doesn’t actually say anything.” That would be ignorant of history, since the Greeks recognized tautologies, in the first place, because they don’t actually say anything.
“Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth” is just as much a tautology, as “Half of the population makes less than the median level of income.” It only sports a superficial appearance of saying something substantial, but it actually doesn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 22:26mkfreeberg: If y’all are trying to say “is associated with” has the potential to be true as well as to be false, I suppose y’all could argue that that is an inherent quality of passive-voice statements.
No. That is not correct either. Passive voice statements can be true or false. “The food was cooked.” “The food was not cooked.”
mkfreeberg: That’s why honest arguers tend not to use them.
John 3:3 “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
mkfreeberg: “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth” is just as much a tautology, as “Half of the population makes less than the median level of income.”
That is incorrect. The first statement may or may not be true. The second statement is necessarily true by definition. We provided a simple example above.
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 05:40No. That is not correct either. Passive voice statements can be true or false.
Actually that’s exactly what I just said. But at any rate, we’ve established that that is not what y’all were arguing, so the statement remains a tautology.
John 3:3 “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
Off-topic. Even if it were on-topic, I said “tend.”
We provided a simple example above.
Y’all’s example relies on transforming what y’all had said. What y’all said was “associated with.”
Maybe what y’all need to do is go back and re-phrase what y’all said — since y’all are needing to do that anyway — and just clarify what point it was y’all were trying to make.
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 05:50mkfreeberg: Actually that’s exactly what I just said.
You said true *and* false. Rather, they can be evaluated like any other claim exclusively either true or false.
“The food was cooked.” “The food was not cooked”. These statements can be properly evaluated as to whether they are true or false. If one is true, the other is false.
This is basic logic. Add passive voice to the list of things you do not understand.
mkfreeberg: That’s why honest arguers tend not to use {passive voice}.
John 3:3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
mkfreeberg: Off-topic. Even if it were on-topic, I said “tend.”
It’s not off-topic. It’s an example of passive voice by Jesus.
mkfreeberg: What y’all said was “associated with.”
Yes, that’s a statement which can be evaluated. It means to be found with, or correlated to. This isn’t really as difficult as you make it.
“Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth” is not a tautology because it may be true, it may be false, but not both.
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 06:30Add passive voice to the list of things you do not understand.
It’s too late. I’ve already added “do not understand” to the list of things y’all do not understand.
Looks like I have to add passive voice to that list as well. “Women are seen as inferior” can be proven to be true, at the same time as it can be proven to be false. So passive voice could be used to bypass the entire problem of tautologies; that excuse was available to y’all — yet another thing it seems y’all can’t or won’t understand. But, y’all chose not to take it.
It’s not off-topic.
Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anything under discussion. I’m afraid all y’all have demonstrated with the side-side-side-side discussion of passive-voice, is that y’all have some comprehension of what it is — but y’all can’t follow any conversation about it.
M: What y’all said was “associated with.”
Z: Yes, that’s a statement which can be evaluated.
Not effectively, since it’s impossible to disprove. Are y’all beginning to see the real ramifications of passive-voice?
Probably not, I’m guessing.
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 18:13mkfreeberg: Looks like I have to add passive voice to that list as well.
You introduced your belief that passive voice statements can’t be subject to verification. That is false. Here’s a simple example.
“The food was cooked.”
Zachriel: “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth”
…
mkfreeberg: Not effectively, since it’s impossible to disprove.
Of course it can be evaluated. The data is available, and we can show that when income inequality is high, the top 1% have a larger share of wealth. In any case, it’s not a tautology because, as we showed, it may be true or false depending on the actual dispersion.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 05:00You introduced your belief that passive voice statements can’t be subject to verification. That is false. Here’s a simple example.
“The food was cooked.”
Ah, but I see a difference between “The food was cooked” and “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
It is a meaningful difference. Do y’all see it?
If so, then y’all must acknowledge y’all’s example is inadequate. If not, then y’all are inadequate to the task of finding examples.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 05:10mkfreeberg: It is a meaningful difference. Do y’all see it?
Your claim is that passive voice claims are not subject to verification. That’s false. You should simply acknowledge that you were wrong, and move on.
We also showed you how to verify the statement concerning income inequality. It’s arithmetic.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 05:41http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/c/2/4c2cdc062e5491af499a49c1fc0e2e4f.png
Your claim is that passive voice claims are not subject to verification. That’s false…
No, it would be false if y’all were repeating back what I said, accurately. But, the reading comprehension thing again. I’m not the only one to notice y’all have this problem, and I’m not even the first one to point it out.
What I said was:
Bold emphasis added.
Conservatives are defined that way, of course. That’s the whole problem. Conservatives are defined as all sorts of things — heck, just name a definition at random, someone, somewhere, defines conservatives that way.
“Liberals are defined as people who are insane and hate life.” Y’all seriously want to tell me I can’t find someone who says “Hell yeah” to that one? Heck! Task me with finding a liberal who really does believe it, and I can do that. But the point is, passive voice statements of the sort y’all have been making, are non-technical, illogical, and inherently unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.
Notably, y’all didn’t answer the question about whether y’all could see the difference between the income inequality passive-voice claim, and the “food was cooked” passive-voice claim.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 17:12mkfreeberg: repeating back what I said, accurately
mk: If y’all are trying to say “is associated with” has the potential to be true as well as to be false, I suppose y’all could argue that that is an inherent quality of passive-voice statements. Which would be quite correct. That’s why honest arguers tend not to use them.
You said it is correct that it is an inherent quality of passive voice “to be true as well as false”. We provided several counterexamples. For instance, it is normally quite easy to verify the truth of the statement “the food was cooked”.
- Zachriel | 10/08/2014 @ 05:07We provided several counterexamples. For instance, it is normally quite easy to verify the truth of the statement “the food was cooked”.
I see a difference between “The food was cooked” and “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
It is a meaningful difference. Do y’all see it?
If so, then y’all must acknowledge y’all’s example is inadequate. If not, then y’all are inadequate to the task of finding examples.
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 03:08mkfreeberg: I see a difference between “The food was cooked” and “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
The first statement is passive voice. The latter is not. Both statements, however, are subject to verification.
You said it is correct that it is an inherent quality of passive voice “to be true as well as false”. We provided several counterexamples. For instance, it is normally quite easy to verify the truth of the statement “the food was cooked”.
- Zachriel | 10/10/2014 @ 05:42Tumblr is associated with Yahoo.
- Zachriel | 10/10/2014 @ 06:01Length of hair is associated (correlated) with how much shampoo is used.
Science is associated with indifference (by many people).
- Zachriel | 10/10/2014 @ 06:09The latter is not.
So “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth” is not a passive-voice statement.
I take it we would agree that the verb in the statement is “associated” and the object is “periods.” What, then, is the subject?
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 20:25mkfreeberg: I take it we would agree that the verb in the statement is “associated” and the object is “periods.”
In the sentence, associated is a linking verb. There is no implicit “by someone” who is doing the association. Rather, it means an empirical correlation.
Keep in mind, though, that passive voice may still constitute a verifiable claim, something you had confusion about above.
- Zachriel | 10/11/2014 @ 06:14In the sentence [“Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth”], associated is a linking verb. There is no implicit “by someone” who is doing the association. Rather, it means an empirical correlation.
If associating is being done, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
The immediate question before us is whether the sentence is equally testable with another passive-voice sentence, about food being cooked, which concerns an identified object changing states. We cannot apply a test to the claim until we know who is recognizing the association.
It seems y’all refuse to see this, which means y’all are unequal to the task of going out to find examples of passive-voice sentences equivalent to the one in question.
Keep in mind, though, that passive voice may still constitute a verifiable claim, something you had confusion about above.
Fascinating. So when y’all lose track of the point the opposition has been making, it is the opposition that must be confused.
This Weltanschauung seems, once again, to be nothing more than a formula for avoiding learning anything new.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 03:08mkfreeberg: If associating is being done, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
In the sentence, associate is being used as an intransitive verb. The association (meaning mathematical correlation) exists regardless of any third party.
mkfreeberg: So when y’all lose track of the point the opposition has been making, it is the opposition that must be confused.
This is your previous position:
mk: If y’all are trying to say “is associated with” has the potential to be true as well as to be false, I suppose y’all could argue that that is an inherent quality of passive-voice statements. Which would be quite correct.
- Zachriel | 10/12/2014 @ 06:51In the sentence, associate is being used as an intransitive verb. The association (meaning mathematical correlation) exists regardless of any third party.
False. Where associating is being done, someone must be doing it. So who?
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 20:28mkfreeberg: False.
Associate can be either a transitive verb or an intransitive verb, “to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions”.
- Zachriel | 10/13/2014 @ 06:19http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate
Associate can be either a transitive verb or an intransitive verb…
Nice red herring, but the issue is not whether it can be a transitive verb or an intransitive verb; the issue is that if associating is being done, someone must be doing it. So who?
- mkfreeberg | 10/14/2014 @ 21:54mkfreeberg: the issue is that if associating is being done, someone must be doing it.
Sunlight is associated (correlated) with warming on the Earth’s surface. This is true independent of anyone making a mental association.
- Zachriel | 10/15/2014 @ 05:35Sunlight is associated (correlated) with warming on the Earth’s surface. This is true independent of anyone making a mental association.
If that is what the speaker intends to say, then it is more accurate and better structure to just go with active voice and say “Sunlight warms the Earth’s surface.”
In a lot of cases, it isn’t necessarily true independent of who makes the association. In others, the statistics may prove it is true independent of who makes the association; nevertheless, the far more remarkable thing about it is that someone saw fit to make the association. “Black people are associated with falling property values and higher crime.” “Marriage, to a man, is associated with insolvency and weight gain.”
In this case we’re dealing with definitions of conservatives. We should start with making sure there are no liberals participating, since liberals are experts in being liberal, first, and in wherever they’re actually supposed to show expertise, second. Also, there is no ignorance on the planet more eminent and pervasive than the ignorance liberals show about what motivates conservatives.
There is also the matter of usefulness of the statement. “Conservatism is defined as…” a great many different things. In the end, the statement y’all are seeking to make is one of “Our definition is the only correct one, all the others are wrong.” Someone within y’all’s collective forgot to factor in, how well is that objective being serviced by the sentence structure. The methodology is not consistent with the objective, which leaves the audience in a position of wondering if y’all have an alternate, unstated objective, or if y’all just aren’t good at reconciling objectives.
Which is a situation that comes up often when one watches liberals “working” at something.
- mkfreeberg | 10/17/2014 @ 05:25mkfreeberg: If that is what the speaker intends to say, then it is more accurate and better structure to just go with active voice and say “Sunlight warms the Earth’s surface.”
The term ‘associate’ is perfectly valid in English. It has a slightly different meaning as it implies a correlation, not a direct causation or relationship. For instance, “longer hair is associated with using more shampoo”.
mkfreeberg: In a lot of cases, it isn’t necessarily true independent of who makes the association.
Well, it took how long for you to reach that point, even after we substituted another word to avoid the contention? And this after how long arguing about your faulty understanding as to whether it was a tautology, even after we provided the arithmetic to show that it wasn’t? Do you value your own position so slightly that you will go such extents to avoid discussing it? Or admitting simple errors? Or reading for comprehension rather than rhetoric?
mkfreeberg: In this case we’re dealing with definitions of conservatives.
No. The statement concerned the distribution of wealth. The rest of your comment doesn’t address the topic.
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 06:17The term ‘associate’ is perfectly valid in English.
The issue is not valid English, the issue is making claims that are meaningless.
Well, it took how long for you to reach that point, even after we substituted another word to avoid the contention? And this after how long arguing about your faulty understanding as to whether it was a tautology…
That’s why the claim is meaningless. It’s a tautology. Always true, therefore untestable.
Conservatives are associated with saving babies. Conservatives are associated with butchering babies. Conservatives are associated with preserving freedom. Conservatives are associated with destroying freedom. Conservatives are associated with sunlight, darkness, heat, cold, North South East West, with war, with peace. All true, therefore all untestable.
Y’all claim to be educating me about the proper use of the word “tautology,” when y’all labor under the misunderstanding that “valid English” has something to do with the complaint. I think y’all must have seen someone win an argument by claiming the other party didn’t understand something, and want to repeat the technique. But y’all don’t understand the technique, or the complaint being made, or “valid,” or tautologies…or conservatives.
I’m afraid y’all have just made a much more successful go of showcasing ignorance, than of pointing it out in others.
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2014 @ 09:55mkfreeberg: Conservatives are associated with saving babies.
That’s a transitive use of the verb and implies someone doing the association. Our use was intransitive, and means correlation.
mkfreeberg: That’s why the claim is meaningless. It’s a tautology. Always true, therefore untestable.
It’s not a tautology because it is possible that income inequality can increase while the top 1% does not increase its share. We provided the arithmetic above.
So, you’ve reverted on both points.
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 13:16It’s not a tautology because it is possible that income inequality can increase while the top 1% does not increase its share. We provided the arithmetic above.
So, you’ve reverted on both points.
Is that what happened? Because what I saw happening was, I ran into the “That’s not what we meant to say” rebuttal when I interpreted what y’all meant to say, logically, as having something to do with what y’all wrote; if association is being done, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating. We’ve been here before a few times.
Then, when I pointed this out, y’all ran down this tangent about whether or not “the term ‘associate’ is perfectly valid in English,” which is something entirely unrelated to any point of dispute. We’ve been here before a few times, too.
Maybe what needs to happen is, y’all need to articulate exactly what point it was y’all were trying to make. After all of these bunny trails, that remains unclear.
We’ve been there before, a few times, as well.
- mkfreeberg | 10/20/2014 @ 03:55mkfreeberg: “That’s not what we meant to say” rebuttal when I interpreted what y’all meant to say, logically, as having something to do with what y’all wrote; if association is being done, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
Perhaps English is not your first language, but that is not always correct. Sometimes we say A is associated with B by Johnny, meaning Johnny is making a mental comparison. But we can also use “associated” to refer to the connection between two things or happenings independent of any mental comparison.
“Sunlight is associated with warming on the Earth’s surface” is a valid use of the term without an explicit or implied “by Johnny”. The statement refers to the correlation between the two phenomena, which exists independent of any observer, or even if there are no observers. You can substitute “correlate” or “linked” if you prefer.
“Sunlight is associated with warming on the Earth’s surface.”
“Sunlight is correlated with warming on the Earth’s surface.”
“Sunlight is linked to warming on the Earth’s surface.”
mkfreeberg: If there is income inequality that results from work-ethic inequality, we essentially are left with two choices: 1) Interfere, diminishing this income inequality where it happens to be a natural consequence of ambition vs. sloth; or 2) let nature take its course, so that the slothful a) perish, b) become dependent wards of someone else’s charity, or c) learn.
Periods of high inequality are correlated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth. We provided two examples; the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Did people have a work ethic in 1929, but most lost their work ethic by 1932? No, but they did lose their jobs. Macroeconomic conditions led to increasing income inequality during the 1920s, and that led to economic instability.
- Zachriel | 10/20/2014 @ 05:38But we can also use “associated” to refer to the connection between two things or happenings independent of any mental comparison.
If something is associated, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
If nobody is doing the associating — then, the “is associated with” part becomes a false statement.
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2014 @ 11:53mkfreeberg: If something is associated, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
No. As we explained, association can also refer to a correlation between variables independent of any observer. There is no implicit “associated by Johnny” when used in this sense. We’ve provided other examples in the English language. Redefining the language doesn’t constitute an argument. We offered to substitute the word “correlate”, but you can’t seem to move forward with the discussion.
Periods of high inequality are correlated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth. We provided two examples; the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Did people have a work ethic in 1929, but most lost their work ethic by 1932? No, but they did lose their jobs. Macroeconomic conditions led to increasing income inequality during the 1920s, and that led to economic instability.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2014 @ 12:07M: If something is associated, it stands to reason someone is doing the associating.
Z: No. As we explained…
Then, if the claim has to do with “associated with,” and the subsequent support for it asserts that no one is doing the associating, that means the subsequent support for the claim contradicts the claim itself. The claim fails, as a falsehood.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2014 @ 22:56mkfreeberg: Then, if the claim has to do with “associated with,” and the subsequent support for it asserts that no one is doing the associating, that means the subsequent support for the claim contradicts the claim itself.
Now you’re just being silly. The leg bone is associated with the knee bone doesn’t presuppose someone doing the associating. It refers to the relationship between the two things.
- Zachriel | 10/29/2014 @ 05:26Now you’re just being silly. The leg bone is associated with the knee bone doesn’t presuppose someone doing the associating. It refers to the relationship between the two things.
Alright then, for future reference we’ll just keep in mind that when y’all say “associated with,” what y’all really mean is “not associated with.”
Let’s go back to the original statement then:
M: If there is income inequality that results from work-ethic inequality, we essentially are left with two choices: 1) Interfere, diminishing this income inequality where it happens to be a natural consequence of ambition vs. sloth; or 2) let nature take its course, so that the slothful a) perish, b) become dependent wards of someone else’s charity, or c) learn.
Z: Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.
Point being?
Without clarification of this (and there has been very little), I’m left assuming it’s something like: There is no disagreement on the point about work-ethic inequality, but high inequality of net worth or income, which one I’m not sure, is “associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” Therefore, what y’all meant to say is that y’all associate the periods of high inequality with larger rewards in store for those who show a greater and stronger work ethic. And, by implication, clearer and more encouraging market-messages to those who haven’t gotten around to showing this stronger work ethic, so that they have new goals toward which they can strive.
But also, that somehow, these are bad things. That last part I’m not quite sure I understand. I have the general impression y’all aren’t in any position to explain any further until such time as y’all go off and coordinate y’all’s messages a bit more. Because thus far, the only point y’all have managed to make is that progressive policies can be made to look constructive, if and only if there is a lot of confusion being maintained. Clarity doesn’t flatter them.
- mkfreeberg | 10/31/2014 @ 01:59mkfreeberg: Alright then, for future reference we’ll just keep in mind that when y’all say “associated with,” what y’all really mean is “not associated with.”
No. Actually, the proper way to read it is in context and after repeated explanations that our use of the term means “correlated with” and is irrespective of any particular observer. Indeed, we explicitly replaced the term, but you didn’t seem interested.
mkfreeberg: There is no disagreement on the point about work-ethic inequality, but high inequality of net worth or income, which one I’m not sure, is “associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
Work ethic inequality doesn’t explain the periods of high income inequality associated with the lead-ups to the Great Depression and the Great Recession. People didn’t suddenly lose their work ethics, though they did suddenly lose their jobs.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2014 @ 05:21Actually, the proper way to read it is in context and after repeated explanations that our use of the term means “correlated with” and is irrespective of any particular observer.
Correlated with, when no one is so correlating. Which means “correlated with” means “not correlated with.” More wisdom from the Opposite Planet.
Work ethic inequality doesn’t explain the periods of high income inequality associated with the lead-ups to the Great Depression and the Great Recession. People didn’t suddenly lose their work ethics, though they did suddenly lose their jobs.
People like, left-leaning types who show this “work ethic” while stewing away about how the boss is screwing ’em, and doesn’t deserve the profits off their labor, and the system is so unfair and so forth?
Perhaps their work ethic remained consistent but with a tougher economy, the standards escalated.
mkfreeberg: Correlated with, when no one is so correlating.
That’s right. Sunlight is correlated with warming even if no one is around to enjoy the sunshine.
mkfreeberg: People like, left-leaning types who show this “work ethic” while stewing away about how the boss is screwing ‘em, and doesn’t deserve the profits off their labor, and the system is so unfair and so forth?
So you’re saying that 25% of the U.S. workforce along with millions of other workers in industrial economies around the world all lost their work ethic between 1930 and 1933?
mkfreeberg: Perhaps their work ethic remained consistent but with a tougher economy, the standards escalated.
Turns out that it was due to the collapse of the global economy.
- Zachriel | 11/13/2014 @ 16:19Sunlight is correlated with warming even if no one is around to enjoy the sunshine.
So it would be more accurate, then, to say “There is a correlation between high inequality and the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth,” than “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
But that brings us back to the tautology problem. If by “the top 1%” you mean those possessing the top 1% of wealth, as opposed to those earning the top 1% of income, then it’s like yeah, duh.
In fact, even if by “top 1%” you mean the top 1% of income-earners, it’s still belaboring the obvious.
So we’ve established y’all weren’t pointing out that anyone was making the association, even though y’all did say someone was so associating. Now that we’ve settled that, exactly what was the point y’all sought to have made with this? Do y’all even know?
Because I get the impression we’re heading off down these various bunny trails, because y’all don’t. I’m not the first to have speculated on this.
- mkfreeberg | 11/15/2014 @ 18:51mkfreeberg: So it would be more accurate, then, to say “There is a correlation between high inequality and the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth,” than “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
Those are different statement. The latter implies increasing inequality, which is the case historically.
mkfreeberg: If by “the top 1%” you mean those possessing the top 1% of wealth, as opposed to those earning the top 1% of income, then it’s like yeah, duh.
We were referring to income, but it also applies to wealth generally.
mkfreeberg: In fact, even if by “top 1%” you mean the top 1% of income-earners, it’s still belaboring the obvious.
Actually, income inequality doesn’t mean that the income is concentrated in the top 1%. That particular distribution is particularly destabilizing.
mkfreeberg: So we’ve established y’all weren’t pointing out that anyone was making the association, even though y’all did say someone was so associating.
Sunlight is associated with warming even if no one notices.
mkfreeberg: Now that we’ve settled that, exactly what was the point y’all sought to have made with this?
Yes, you first argued as to whether there even was such a thing as great income inequality, because you refused to acknowledge that inequality can refer to a distribution (semantics). Then you argued about whether saying high inequality means the 1% has an increasing share of income is a tautology, even when presented an example where that isn’t the case (arithmetic). Then you argued about whether the term ‘associated’ necessarily implies someone doing the association, even when provided examples where that isn’t the case, and where we substituted other terms to avoid the quibble (semantics).
This relates to a discussion as to whether someone can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality. Instead of responding based on a fair reading of the claim, you spent the last ⅓ year arguing semantics and arithmetic.
mkfreeberg: Because I get the impression we’re heading off down these various bunny trails, because y’all don’t
We know exactly what the original point was. We know exactly the distractions you raised, which we have just detailed.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 06:37M: So it would be more accurate, then, to say “There is a correlation between high inequality and the top 1% having a larger share of the wealth,” than “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
Z: Those are different statement[s]…
Yeah. It would be very hard for them to be identical statements, if one is more accurate than the other.
The latter implies increasing inequality, which is the case historically.
No it doesn’t, it describes an association someone has made, which is kind of a “no-duh” association. It has nothing to do with the progression of time, and nothing to do with time at all other than to observe this concept of “periods.”
At any rate, as we’ve seen above, when I ask who has made the association y’all are forced to immediately back off from the statement. Y’all really aren’t very good at this.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 08:04mkfreeberg: No it doesn’t, it describes an association someone has made, which is kind of a “no-duh” association.
The correlation is independent of any particular observer. The sunlight is associated with warming even if no one notices.
mkfreeberg: It has nothing to do with the progression of time, and nothing to do with time at all other than to observe this concept of “periods.”
That is also incorrect. You will note that there was a dramatic increase in the concentration of income in the top 1% before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2008_Top1percentUSA.png/300px-2008_Top1percentUSA.png
You will also note that the Affluent Society coincided with a long period with lower concentration of income in the top 1%.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 08:24You will note that there was a dramatic increase in the concentration of income in the top 1% before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession.
To repeat, what y’all said was “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.”
If y’all meant to say “There is an association between periods of high inequality, before economic disasters” then y’all should have said that, instead of what y’all said. Is that what y’all meant to say?
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 11:15mkfreeberg: To repeat, what y’all said was “Periods of high inequality are associated with the top 1% having a larger and larger share of the wealth.” If y’all meant to say “There is an association between periods of high inequality, before economic disasters” then y’all should have said that, instead of what y’all said.
Both statements are accurate, though they mean different things. The first refers to an imbalance which is increasing, with the greater concentration of wealth among a few at the top. The second refers to high inequality, but is less specific, as it doesn’t mention how the parameter was changing, or how that inequality was expressed.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 11:35Both statements are accurate, though they mean different things. The first refers to an imbalance which is increasing, with the greater concentration of wealth among a few at the top. The second refers to high inequality, but is less specific, as it doesn’t mention how the parameter was changing, or how that inequality was expressed.
It would be highly unlikely for either statement to be inaccurate. They’re both rather useless statements. In fact, we still don’t have a clear picture of the point y’all were trying to make.
Had either statement clarified whether “inequality” referred to asset or to income inequality, they might have been a bit more useful, but only slightly so. Alas, even that has not been done.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 14:16mkfreeberg: It would be highly unlikely for either statement to be inaccurate.
Of course they could be inaccurate, but they’re not.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 14:19Of course they could be inaccurate, but they’re not.
Right. They are fektoids; factual statements whose veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but whose relevance would not.
At some point in time you discovered that if you just post enough bullshit, non-stop, you will win by attrition because most people simply do not give a fuck enough to waste their time debating what is basically a fleshy spambot. You’re so bad at this that you even annoy the shit out of the people you might have convinced.
- mkfreeberg | 11/17/2014 @ 05:44mkfreeberg: They are fektoids; factual statements whose veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but whose relevance would not.
It’s taken several months, but at least now you accept their accuracy. So let’s consider relevance.
In your original post you asked what Bill Clinton did to bring about the Clinton Economy. We responded with specifics, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, North American Free Trade Agreement, not to mention laying the regulatory groundwork for the Internet.
You then made some factually inaccurate arguments, such as the timing of the Clinton economic plan, the strength of the Roosevelt recovery, conflated a model with an instance, tried to argue that Clinton was a liberal and not a liberal, made a few gross overgeneralizations; finally, the discussion devolved into whether or not someone can be for greater equality without being for perfect equality. You argued for weeks that equality is an absolute dichotomous condition, even though it is often used qualitatively as a gradation, and mathematically as a dispersion.
mkfreeberg: At some point in time you discovered that if you just post enough bullshit, non-stop, you will win by attrition
It has nothing to do with winning. If you marshal strong arguments supported by evidence, you may be convincing. However, what you do is make an unsupportable statement, then try to avoid their implications, while expecting answers to your own diversions. So we answer your diversions, but never lose sight of the original points of contention, to which we continue to move the discussion. That’s what you find annoying, that you make a claim you can’t support, and then we won’t let you get off with fatuous replies.
- Zachriel | 11/17/2014 @ 06:32It’s taken several months, but at least now you accept their accuracy. So let’s consider relevance.
I accepted their accuracy before.
You then made some factually inaccurate arguments…
False.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2014 @ 05:43mkfreeberg: I accepted their accuracy before.
Your link points to just the other day, when you’ve been disputing them on various grounds for months, though you did go back and forth on the issue.
mkfreeberg: False.
Here’s just a couple of examples.
mk: So in order to credit Clinton with his own economy, we have to give him credit for the Republican’s ideas he had to steal in order to prevent being ousted by Bob Dole
The Clinton economic plan was part of his 1992 campaign. The Omnibus became law under withering Republican attacks just months after Clinton became president, and well before the 1996 campaign.
mk: anemic as the Roosevelt recovery
The Roosevelt recovery saw GDP growth of over 10% per year from 1933-1936, and averaged 7% per year from 1933-1939. That is very strong growth by any reasonable measure.
- Zachriel | 11/18/2014 @ 06:37The Roosevelt recovery saw GDP growth of over 10% per year from 1933-1936, and averaged 7% per year from 1933-1939. That is very strong growth by any reasonable measure.
And after 1937, disaster struck. But, that’s the way y’all would like the national economy to work now. Good to know.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 00:02mkfreeberg: And after 1937, disaster struck.
Roosevelt cut back on the New Deal in 1936 which led to a short recession. Overall growth in GDP was still a very strong 7% from 1933-1939.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 06:55Roosevelt cut back on the New Deal in 1936 which led to a short recession.
Y’all really should take the time to research the Wagner Act of 1935, and the increase in unemployment that followed.
Of course for anyone living in the here & now and paying attention, there isn’t too much research into history necessary, it’s obvious how this works. The President presides for years and years until it’s undeniable he owns the situation, and his supporters still insist he’s actually “fixing” what was already there before he arrived to start fixing.
While it gets worse.
But it’s interesting y’all think we had a “very strong” economy during what the rest of the world calls the Great Depression.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 08:01mkfreeberg: Y’all really should take the time to research the Wagner Act of 1935, and the increase in unemployment that followed.
Here’s unemployment for the period.
http://nhegewaldapush.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/9/2/10927263/9519062_orig.png
Notice that unemployment continued to drop until 1937, two years after the Wagner Act became law. Unemployment rose again when Roosevelt cut back on the New Deal in an attempt to balance the budget. When the New Deal was reimplemented, unemployment began dropping again, even though the Wager Act was still in effect. Unemployment reached 0% in 1942.
mkfreeberg: But it’s interesting y’all think we had a “very strong” economy during what the rest of the world calls the Great Depression.
Please don’t misrepresent our words. We said “Overall growth in GDP was still a very strong 7% from 1933-1939.”
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 08:19