Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)

Your use of the word never, makes your statement an absolute. This is a "hasty generalization" fallacy, please restate yourself or withdraw this statement gecko, because most certainly I can bring forward examples of where it was JUST as bad we thought.

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

it was an absolute my friend

truths usually are

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 03:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
Your use of the word never, makes your statement an absolute. This is a "hasty generalization" fallacy, please restate yourself or withdraw this statement gecko, because most certainly I can bring forward examples of where it was JUST as bad we thought.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Technicaly, it's not a fallacy, because he used the words "id like to say". And he can like to say anything he wants.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:44 pm

i dont know what poetic justice was trying to get across? i wish he had stuck with the current conversation...

but maybe thats justme.....

tusaki · Mar 6, 2004, 03:49 pm

As far as I can judge by his posts, he was using something like this to discredit you. Because he doesn't like what you are saying :) No offense, poetic.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:52 pm

its ok
its a version of ad hominem argumentum

12 grade debate tactics

him and lightbringer do it a LOT

Automatic Nate · Mar 6, 2004, 04:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
I have yet to witness a government program that "assisted the needy" without degenerating into a permanent entitlement blown way out of proportion to the original problem and making the original perdictions of cost look like an optimistic guess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Now this is another issue entirely. Would you like to begin specifically addressing what these kinds of programs have become, or would you prefer more discussions of neighbor-assistance in principle?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
If you can't see the difference between supporting ones family whom we are responsible for and propping up multiple generations of people from cradle to grave because somewhere along the way it became more important to purchase their self respect than to actually move them towards self sufficiency then you are probably a perfect democrat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Again, you're moving to issues that your initial statements did not cover. What does your phrase "purchase their self-respect" mean? I was talking about feeding people who otherwise would not eat. The duration of that feeding, whether or not it leads to incapacitation by philosophical necessity, and other questions we could discuss if you'd like. And "perfect democrat"? I'm not sure (though I've got a couple good guesses) what you mean by that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
Your relativism has clouded your ability to discern compassion from compulsion. If you think my providing my offspring with a room and not charging him rent is the same as people who are adults demanding and getting the fruits of my efforts to pay their rent then you are not living in reality. The support of my son is by love, compassion and voluntary....the support of the parasite class is by force and threat of imprisonment for me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Actually, I was simply demonstrating that all questions of providing for another person's physical needs are more complex than your initial remarks made them. Consider this: if you did not feed your children for several days, the government, upon finding this out, might well take them from you. Now can we best account for your feeding your chilren in terms of "compassion" or "compulsion"? After all, the second is a reality, whether it would ever come to that or not. And I voluntarily pay taxes that go, imperfectly, towards programs that provide, more or less efficiently, for my neighbors' needs. "[R]eality," I'm afraid, is more complex than your categories, as stated, allow for.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:07 pm

so are you saying that compulsory laws arent ones that you might indulge in anyway? like feeding your children everyday?

Automatic Nate · Mar 6, 2004, 04:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
so are you saying that compulsory laws arent ones that you might indulge in anyway? like feeding your children everyday?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm just guessing you're directing this at me, but I am saying that, absent a tax code, I might anyway contribute money or resources towards my neighbor's well-being. Now taxes are far from perfect (I'd rather not support the emperor's latest invasion), but they are a species of the neighbor-helping genus. So I'm not going to pretend that the government's gun at my head is what drives my taxpaying any more than the government's gun at my head keeps me from hitting my wife. I hope that I would help my neighbor and live peaceably with my wife anyway. What I do ethically is driven primarily by love of neighbor, not fear of government. And when the government legislates against love of neighbor, that's when I ignore the government--I'm not one with an entirely overriding fear of death.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I might anyway contribute <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
yeah maybe you would, just dont count on anyone else

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
emperor's latest invasion<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
any new rhetoric mr. doonesbury?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I hope that I would help my neighbor <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
when that hope is unfulfilled and you found your neighbor killing your family over food because the "crop" didnt come in at the commune like youd hoped, lets see how much you wish the police still existed

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And when the government legislates against love of neighbor,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
WTF are you talking about now?

Automatic Nate · Mar 6, 2004, 04:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)

yeah maybe you would, just dont count on anyone else
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
My point was in the context of the "compassion vs. compulsion" debate. I'm not sure how your response fits into that context.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
any new rhetoric mr. doonesbury?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not sure what to do with this... but I wish I could, as did Thoreau, withold the war tax and pay the rest. But I reckon that's why the IRS doesn't allow that option--people would be able to speak by witholding tax dollars from corrupt projects.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
when that hope is unfulfilled and you found your neighbor killing your family over food because the "crop" didnt come in at the commune like youd hoped, lets see how much you wish the police still existed<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Once again, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about--again, I was referring to the fact that "compassion" and "compulsion," in a system of law such as our own, are not so easily separated--I would likely give help to my neighbor if there were no tax code, but given the current shape of American civic life, to call my tax-paying either compassionate or compulsory would neglect one side of the reality. I assure you that I live quite a conventional American life--no communes to fear here.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
WTF are you talking about now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm talking about the common complaint that the government "forces" people to do this or that. If one does not fear death, that complaint rings somewhat hollow. If the government in fact asked me to do something that, outside of governmental edict, I would not do, I won't do it. But I'm part of a tradition that's nuts that way.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:56 pm

death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat. perhaps jail or removal or certain rights. but death?

Automatic Nate · Mar 6, 2004, 05:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat. perhaps jail or removal or certain rights. but death?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Ask the libertarians around here about this one--the "government's gun to your head" trope is one of their favorites for arguing that taxation is theft, that corporations are more moral than governments, and I'm sure for other things that I just can't think of right now.

And yes, I'm fully expecting some libertarians to post within the hour with "I never said..." responses. :)

Mar 6, 2004, 05:35 pm

meh. extremists should never be humored

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 6, 2004, 05:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Uh . . .really? What do policemen carry guns for?

--Jackney Sneeb

Mar 6, 2004, 05:59 pm

enforcement of the law.

do you think a policeman should go unarmed against criminals?

and stop quoting fromt hat totally onesided poll of yours

Mar 6, 2004, 05:59 pm

or are you going to claim that police walk around shooting people who dont pay taxes?

Automatic Nate · Mar 6, 2004, 06:06 pm

Have you looked over at the "Society" forum at Lightbearer's gun-to-the-head trope? I know'd they was in cahoots! I know'd it!

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 6, 2004, 06:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
enforcement of the law.
do you think a policeman should go unarmed against criminals?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You denied that the state uses death threats, did you not?

--Jackney Sneeb

Mar 6, 2004, 06:14 pm

i still do!

carrying a gun isnt a death threat.
shooting a criminal is a RESPONSE

maybe you should go here:
[url]http://dictionary.com[/uel]

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 6, 2004, 06:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
i still do!

carrying a gun isnt a death threat.
shooting a criminal is a RESPONSE<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A response to what?

--Jackney Sneeb

Mar 6, 2004, 03:39 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) Your use of the word never, makes your statement an absolute. This is a "hasty generalization" fallacy, please restate yourself or withdraw this statement gecko, because most certainly I can bring forward examples of where it was JUST as bad we thought. From Freedom, Prosperity Dave<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> it was an absolute my friend truths usually are

Mar 6, 2004, 03:42 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) Your use of the word never, makes your statement an absolute. This is a "hasty generalization" fallacy, please restate yourself or withdraw this statement gecko, because most certainly I can bring forward examples of where it was JUST as bad we thought.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Technicaly, it's not a fallacy, because he used the words "id like to say". And he can like to say anything he wants. Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 03:49 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	As far as I can judge by his posts, he was using something like this to discredit you. Because he doesn't like what you are saying :) No offense, poetic. Hope & Dream

Mar 6, 2004, 04:05 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Automatic Nate Molten Ash Location: Bogart, GA, USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,) I have yet to witness a government program that "assisted the needy" without degenerating into a permanent entitlement blown way out of proportion to the original problem and making the original perdictions of cost look like an optimistic guess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Now this is another issue entirely. Would you like to begin specifically addressing what these kinds of programs have become, or would you prefer more discussions of neighbor-assistance in principle? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,) If you can't see the difference between supporting ones family whom we are responsible for and propping up multiple generations of people from cradle to grave because somewhere along the way it became more important to purchase their self respect than to actually move them towards self sufficiency then you are probably a perfect democrat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, you're moving to issues that your initial statements did not cover. What does your phrase "purchase their self-respect" mean? I was talking about feeding people who otherwise would not eat. The duration of that feeding, whether or not it leads to incapacitation by philosophical necessity, and other questions we could discuss if you'd like. And "perfect democrat"? I'm not sure (though I've got a couple good guesses) what you mean by that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,) Your relativism has clouded your ability to discern compassion from compulsion. If you think my providing my offspring with a room and not charging him rent is the same as people who are adults demanding and getting the fruits of my efforts to pay their rent then you are not living in reality. The support of my son is by love, compassion and voluntary....the support of the parasite class is by force and threat of imprisonment for me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, I was simply demonstrating that all questions of providing for another person's physical needs are more complex than your initial remarks made them. Consider this: if you did not feed your children for several days, the government, upon finding this out, might well take them from you. Now can we best account for your feeding your chilren in terms of "compassion" or "compulsion"? After all, the second is a reality, whether it would ever come to that or not. And I voluntarily pay taxes that go, imperfectly, towards programs that provide, more or less efficiently, for my neighbors' needs. "[R]eality," I'm afraid, is more complex than your categories, as stated, allow for. "For neither Man nor Angel can discern Hypocrisie, The only evil that walks Invisible, except to God" --Paradise Lost

Mar 6, 2004, 04:21 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Automatic Nate Molten Ash Location: Bogart, GA, USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) so are you saying that compulsory laws arent ones that you might indulge in anyway? like feeding your children everyday?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm just guessing you're directing this at me, but I am saying that, absent a tax code, I might anyway contribute money or resources towards my neighbor's well-being. Now taxes are far from perfect (I'd rather not support the emperor's latest invasion), but they are a species of the neighbor-helping genus. So I'm not going to pretend that the government's gun at my head is what drives my taxpaying any more than the government's gun at my head keeps me from hitting my wife. I hope that I would help my neighbor and live peaceably with my wife anyway. What I do ethically is driven primarily by love of neighbor, not fear of government. And when the government legislates against love of neighbor, that's when I ignore the government--I'm not one with an entirely overriding fear of death. "For neither Man nor Angel can discern Hypocrisie, The only evil that walks Invisible, except to God" --Paradise Lost

Mar 6, 2004, 03:44 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	i dont know what poetic justice was trying to get across? i wish he had stuck with the current conversation... but maybe thats justme.....

Mar 6, 2004, 03:52 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	its ok its a version of ad hominem argumentum 12 grade debate tactics him and lightbringer do it a LOT

Mar 6, 2004, 04:07 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	so are you saying that compulsory laws arent ones that you might indulge in anyway? like feeding your children everyday?

Mar 6, 2004, 04:29 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I might anyway contribute <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yeah maybe you would, just dont count on anyone else </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by emperor's latest invasion<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> any new rhetoric mr. doonesbury? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I hope that I would help my neighbor <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> when that hope is unfulfilled and you found your neighbor killing your family over food because the "crop" didnt come in at the commune like youd hoped, lets see how much you wish the police still existed </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by And when the government legislates against love of neighbor,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> WTF are you talking about now?

Mar 6, 2004, 04:40 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Automatic Nate Molten Ash Location: Bogart, GA, USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) yeah maybe you would, just dont count on anyone else <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My point was in the context of the "compassion vs. compulsion" debate. I'm not sure how your response fits into that context. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) any new rhetoric mr. doonesbury?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not sure what to do with this... but I wish I could, as did Thoreau, withold the war tax and pay the rest. But I reckon that's why the IRS doesn't allow that option--people would be able to speak by witholding tax dollars from corrupt projects. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) when that hope is unfulfilled and you found your neighbor killing your family over food because the "crop" didnt come in at the commune like youd hoped, lets see how much you wish the police still existed<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Once again, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about--again, I was referring to the fact that "compassion" and "compulsion," in a system of law such as our own, are not so easily separated--I would likely give help to my neighbor if there were no tax code, but given the current shape of American civic life, to call my tax-paying either compassionate or compulsory would neglect one side of the reality. I assure you that I live quite a conventional American life--no communes to fear here. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) WTF are you talking about now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm talking about the common complaint that the government "forces" people to do this or that. If one does not fear death, that complaint rings somewhat hollow. If the government in fact asked me to do something that, outside of governmental edict, I would not do, I won't do it. But I'm part of a tradition that's nuts that way. "For neither Man nor Angel can discern Hypocrisie, The only evil that walks Invisible, except to God" --Paradise Lost

Mar 6, 2004, 04:56 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat. perhaps jail or removal or certain rights. but death?

Mar 6, 2004, 05:27 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Automatic Nate Molten Ash Location: Bogart, GA, USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat. perhaps jail or removal or certain rights. but death?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ask the libertarians around here about this one--the "government's gun to your head" trope is one of their favorites for arguing that taxation is theft, that corporations are more moral than governments, and I'm sure for other things that I just can't think of right now. And yes, I'm fully expecting some libertarians to post within the hour with "I never said..." responses. :) "For neither Man nor Angel can discern Hypocrisie, The only evil that walks Invisible, except to God" --Paradise Lost

Mar 6, 2004, 05:35 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	meh. extremists should never be humored

Mar 6, 2004, 05:55 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) death? the gov't doesnt use death as a threat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uh . . .really? What do policemen carry guns for? --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 6, 2004, 05:59 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	enforcement of the law. do you think a policeman should go unarmed against criminals? and stop quoting fromt hat totally onesided poll of yours

Mar 6, 2004, 05:59 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	or are you going to claim that police walk around shooting people who dont pay taxes?

Mar 6, 2004, 06:06 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Automatic Nate Molten Ash Location: Bogart, GA, USA Posts: 130	Have you looked over at the "Society" forum at Lightbearer's gun-to-the-head trope? I know'd they was in cahoots! I know'd it! "For neither Man nor Angel can discern Hypocrisie, The only evil that walks Invisible, except to God" --Paradise Lost

Mar 6, 2004, 06:12 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) enforcement of the law. do you think a policeman should go unarmed against criminals?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You denied that the state uses death threats, did you not? --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 6, 2004, 06:14 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	i still do! carrying a gun isnt a death threat. shooting a criminal is a RESPONSE maybe you should go here: [url]http://dictionary.com[/uel]

Mar 6, 2004, 06:15 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) i still do! carrying a gun isnt a death threat. shooting a criminal is a RESPONSE<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A response to what? --Jackney Sneeb