KiteZA

KiteZA: Libertarians Disappoint

kiteza:

johnr48:

johnr48:

As they speak out and protest in the streets of America in support of the protesters and against the over-bearing rule in Egypt they are showing a resolve and level of intolerance for whats going on in Egypt that they fail to show equally in their own country. Where are the protests…

 Would you rather guard what we have and stand to loose,  or have to fight to get it back after its gone?[…]

1. False choices[…]

1. To declare my freedoms, the freedoms and rights enjoyed throughout life as “False choices” is to ignore that which you likely have not enjoyed or experienced. This is evidenced by your assumption that I accept the designation of ” Western liberal democracy”, I do not. America is and has been The western conservative democracy. The entire threat is liberalism ie socialism. When you have for so many years lived and prospered as a nation on the conservative principles that made America so strong, the mad dash to the left of recent days has and will continue to stir emotions and bring about resistance. America could easily be headed toward tyranny and the chaos to thwart it. I am not saying it could happen tomorrow but we are at a tipping point where rights and freedoms that have been enjoyed for generations are being more aggressively attacked and endangered than ever before. Government threats against Internet freedoms and controls effect an already tattered freedom of speech, hate crime legislation essentially is PC laws. Over taxation, takes from the working class under the guise of “helping the poor”, “its for the children”, “feeding the hungry” and the like when in fact a significant amount of our dollars go into the pockets of public service unions, politicians and non-elected government officials in the form of better pay and benefits than the public earns. Forced commerce (obama care), licensing of religious and casual / passive activities (marriage, camping, fishing, lemonade stands, produce stands). The entire principle of small government has been ignored and we have been overran by government and the costs related to it and the corruption that has come with it. Financial markets have turned against middle America and the lower classes are left completely out. True small businesses are struggling at best and many are failing daily. Gas and food prices are soaring, the government regulations, market interference, subsidies, drilling restrictions, refining restrictions and environmental constraints are only pushing costs higher.  It would take little else to push America, into a period of civil unrest that would cause the government to take actions that could easily be described as tyrannical.

2. A nuclear islamic state is a concern for all.

3. Lets hope you are right.

4. The international perspective is clearly left of center. From the right the alternative VP beats a fool any day.

5. You may pay more for petrol but how is your tax structure in SA? Personal, corporate, property, passive activity, sales?

6. That’s OK, we all like to use dramatic effect from time to time.

7. Common sense is all to often confused with common belief or common thought. Common sense is what tells you that putting your hand in the fire will get you burned. You are wrong. You are wrong because people will not speak the truth, people will not tell the whole truth in an attempt to be PC. PC is not polite. Polite is being honest in the best possible way and caring about the effect or the effected. PC is about outward appearances. If the truth offends, be offended.

Reality, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. America might be doing “just fine” from the perspective that you have but from here, we are at a precipice and choices made now will effect generations. The view that I have for America’s future warrants causing people to look around and be aware of what their government is doing and be prepared to rise up and speak out. How would you rationalize that which you believe to be irrational?

1. You’re strawmanning my point and talking fancifully about rights (that, if I understood you, you assume I have never enjoyed?) being false choices. I didn’t mean the rights were false choices, obviously -  I meant that there isn’t a situation where you must fight for your rights because you will otherwise suffer their removal, right now, in the United States. I don’t buy it, and particularly not when you imply the removal of rights are some kind of liberal plan - might I remind you of the PATRIOT Act under a ‘conservative’ government? Also, You seem preoccupied with the Americanised version of “liberalism” in the sense that you’ve redefined it to mean “socialism”. I would refer you to the internationally accepted version of liberalism, and by extension “western liberal democracy” (which is a commonly accepted designation): Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Plenty of other, similar, definitions available. Besides, if we accept that America “has always been” a “western conservative democracy”, you’re blatantly ignoring the good portion of history when so-called “liberals” were elected into power. I’m not sure we can accept it, though, as you seem to have coined the term. Congratulations, but it’s clearly not commonly accepted.
2. This is sort of part of 1), but you brought up so much that it’s actually a different point, that of Big vs Small government (and all the examples you provided for small government). Let’s look at some of the bigger themes and examples: Absolutely agree that the smallest reasonable government is best, and that government shouldn’t needlessly interfere with our private lives. Absolutely agree that what is effectively corruption (diverting funds for the needy to lining pockets) is wrong. Absolutely agree that the middle class is being undermined. Blaming all of that on the spectre of ‘big government’, though, isn’t as effective as addressing the problems individually (even if it is a lot easier a banner to rally behind). Suddenly having a government 1/10th of the size wouldn’t suddenly save the middle class - but neither will the magical tax breaks for the rich. It wouldn’t stop corruption - ensuring the funds actually do go the needy would help a lot more there. Anyway, all of these issues are things that every country faces, without the threat of ‘armed revolution’ or claims of ‘tyranny’. The US doesn’t have “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)”, nor does it come close to that. Egypt, as per the original thread, can quite easily be considered to be under a tyrannical leader and government. It would take a lot more to push America, as a whole, over that particular precipice, when the differences between the two situations should be so striking.
3. A nuclear state is concern for all. Also, see Islamophobia.
4. It looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is sticking to protesting against authoritarianism in the form of Mubarak, but not entering the political fray themselves. The MB “[…]stresses that they have no intentions in nominating any of its members to run for the presidency nor do they intend to be part of a possible interim government”. Source is their website.
5. Side issue
6. Side issue
7. Dealt with
8. I was arguing for common sense; not pretentious, points-scoring political correctness. It’s common sense not to deeply offend and by hated by everybody around you, because, well, it’s like putting your hand into a fire. I agree that people should be honest and constructive with one another. Do you think it’ll help this debate if I called you obtuse? It might. Would it help if I called you an absolute retard? Probably not. I would say it’s common sense to avoid the latter. You might call it PC, but the essence is basically politeness, which you said was desirable.

Subjective reality’s a fun argument, and one I really like. In this case, though, I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the United States is on any more of a precipice than it has been at any other point in its history. People should always be able to criticise their governments - I view it as essential. The choices governments make tend to affect future generations, no matter who is running the governments. The point is that what’s going on is pretty much business-as-usual, so the level of fuss kicked up now (particularly in comparison to, say, the Bush years) seems strangely overblown. The things that aren’t entirely business-as-usual, like the massive job of healthcare reform, tend to be aimed in the nation’s best long-term interest anyway (in this case, a healthy population that can afford treatment is a good goal, and one that Americans should support for each other), although they require tweaking to minimize the harms and costs incurred.

And I would love it if you could explain what you meant by your final question. I’m stuck with this for now:

[img temp removed]

… but back to the topic of Egypt?

*NOTE: I’ve just gone back through this post and strikethrough‘d anything not quite relating to that.

(via johnr48)

LookingOut: The Top 10 Logical Fallacies in Everyday Arguments

dailyrenegade:

Ad hominem

Tries to counter an argument by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Ad ignorantiam

States that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

Argument from authority

Argues that something is true because a respected individual (an individual with authority) says it is.

Correlation implies causation

Fairly self-explanatory. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

False Dichotomy

Reducing a set of many possibilities to only two, in order to make a choice seem obvious when it is not.

Non sequitur

“Doesn’t follow”. When the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

“After this, therefore because of this”. Implies that because B happened after A, A must have caused B. 

Straw Man

Misrepresenting an argument in order to make it easier to argue against.

Tu quoque

“You too”. Justifying an action because someone else did it first, or damning a claim because its proposer has not adhered to it in the past. 

Ignoratio elenchi

Presenting an argument which, although it may be true, is not relevant to the topic in hand.

Via schofio

How handy.

(Source: schofio, via technipol)

KiteZA: Libertarians Disappoint

johnr48:

johnr48:

As they speak out and protest in the streets of America in support of the protesters and against the over-bearing rule in Egypt they are showing a resolve and level of intolerance for whats going on in Egypt that they fail to show equally in their own country. Where are the protests…

 Would you rather guard what we have and stand to loose,  or have to fight to get it back after its gone? I also do not believe that my statement qualifies as “scare tactics”. Scare tactics would be much more detailed about truths around the world like Pakistan doubling its nuclear arsenal, the “Muslim Brotherhood” declaring war on the United States, Joe Biden becoming Vice Pres and being one heartbeat away from being the dumbest world leader in history.  I would forcast $4 + a gallon gasoline and food prices going thru the roof, and on and on…… oh, wait, this has all come to pass.

Not once did I proclaim the “end of society” and America has “needed saving” from within since political correctness overcame common sense.

1. False choices. Firstly, ‘what we have’ is vague - I’ll just assume you’re talking about the concept of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’. If it is a choice between guarding or having to reclaim the freedoms that we, people living in Western liberal democracies, enjoy; then yes it sounds like a good idea to guard them. Prevention and the cure and all that. But quite honestly, is there a real risk of tyranny suddenly popping up - in the USA of all places? The whole arguments rests on the premise that there is a possibility of you ever having to ‘fight to get it back’ because it’s removed in the first place. I truly don’t believe that the USA is in any significant way straying towards tyranny. Could you explain in reasonable terms how it is?
2. You’re probably right - what you explicitly said is not really ‘scare tactics’. Scare tactics would include lines like “we are fighting a war with Islam” (which creates fear in people of Muslims, making it easier to justify wars in Middle Eastern countries, for example). Fear tactics would play off people’s insecurities and lack of knowledge, which, in the US, is often based off Islam and ‘foreigners’. This could include the omission of factoids that people might not otherwise realise, such as Pakistan being a US ally, thus making a well-armed Pakistan good for the United States. Assuming that statistic is true and accurate, of course.
3. Muslim Brotherhood declaration is a bit concerning. I’m trying to follow the situation in Egypt, so we’ll see how that plays out. To be honest, though, I don’t see a population that’s risen up in defence of their freedoms suddenly quietening down and letting a group (like the MB) subjugate them again. And you must admit - it’s oh-so-easy to rile up anti-American sentiment in Egypt when protesters campaigning for their human rights, and for democracy, are attacked with weapons displaying “MADE IN THE US”. I truly hope there will be a peaceful end to all of this, but it’s another huge issue in its own right.
4. Completely agree on Joe Biden. Never thought he was particularly effective at anything except embarrassing those around him. On the other hand, he was certainly the less terrifying vice-presidential candidate from an international perspective: a bit of a friendly idiot, perhaps, rather than an aggressive, vindictive foreign policy amateur. Also, not very relevant to original topic.
5. Commodity prices have little to do with tyranny in this case. Also, we pay more than you for petrol in South Africa. Suck it up ;)
6. In this case, I went for dramatic effect. I’m sorry for misquoting you. What I meant was that all too often, there’s a sense of “if you don’t do what we say, there will be impending doom of some form or another”, and I’ve seen it often from the libertarian/conservative/tea party camps. Even if the ‘impending doom’ is what I think you were trying to say, which is anarchy in the US (which could be considered the end of ‘society’ by some standards anyway).
7. Regarding the “PC vs Common Sense” line. I’ve seen it trotted out frequently - “you’re too afraid to offend someone to say anything, and you get so caught up in what is and isn’t acceptable to say or do that you lose touch with reality”. That is what you meant, correct? Hence, because ‘people have lost their common sense’, we need to bring America back on the right track. Quite frankly, you’re wrong. You’re wrong because, actually, a lot of the people you talk to are rather sensible and have what you would refer to as ‘common sense’. Sometimes people try and act in ways that are respectful of others, and try not to offend them. Actually, that’s not what’s relevant right now (and there shouldn’t be a need, based on that, to ‘save America’). Finally, the grand quest of ‘saving America’ because it’s been overrun with thinking and behaviour that will ruin our great land… Well, that sounds a little out of touch with reality to me - given that I look at America and see a country that, yes, has it’s difficulties, but is doing just fine. One might call that both quixotic… and lacking in ‘common sense’.

TL;DR: I think you’re wrong, and you’re arguing by vague rhetoric and diverting the issue.

Note: I don’t think you should be trying to galvanise people into anti-government protests when you don’t really have a reason to, and can’t really justify it. If you do have reasons and can justify them, I’m happy to talk to you about it - as this post shows. Obviously, I can’t stop you from doing anything. I would just like to see you rationalise it and have a bit of a debate, rather than accepting things unquestioningly.

"How the World Cup Wrecked South Africa" — #5 (300)

The sensationalist headline gives no credence to, nor is it supported by, the author’s arguments.

The author, Eve Fairbanks, points out that it’s strike season and then seems to want to draw a tenuous conclusion that the World Cup has destroyed the country (note the alternate title here).

If anything, the strongest argument for the World Cup ‘destroying’ the country that is made is the perception from the working class that the government has money to splash out on a World Cup and thus can afford to pay them better. Clearly, displays of extravagance from the wealthy will frustrate the poor - it didn’t need to be the World Cup, it could just as easily have been an MP splurging on hotel bills or first-class flights.
 
She furthermore claims that the workers are effectively better united and more ‘celebratory’ in their striking due to the festive World Cup atmosphere. If you look at almost any of the strikes or protests that the country has seen in the last few decades, the protesters are almost always singing and dancing - much like the so-called ‘World Cup Spirit’ that the author attributes to the latest strikes.

Besides, if her later observation stands - that the World Cup was one of the few times that the entire country could stand united and be proud - then it can hardly be said that the FWC ‘wrecked’ SA. You’ll be hard pressed to find something that united a nation in the same way that the tournament was able to.

The article comes across as a tired, pessimistic and sensationalist ‘warning’, without having making a convincing argument to justify the position. It is a collection of half-decent points that fail to be drawn into a meaningful conclusion: how exactly did the World Cup destroy South Africa?

Introduction to Debating

A fairly basic, yet comprehensive, guide to starting off debating.

The style of debating generally used in SA, as well as in the Gaborone Schools’ League, is the ‘World Schools High School Format’