Originally posted by KazetNagorraKN you wouldn't know a broken window fallacy if you fell through one.
Broken window fallacy.
The broken window fallacy is about how people might think a young hooligan smashing a window or an earth quake is good because of the opportunity it provides for the window mender or builders to repair the damage, all the while ignoring all the great things that might be achieved had resources not been diverted to those repairs.
Read Hazlitts "Economics in One Lesson" for an eye searingly clear explanation.
Hazlitt goes on to expand this to guvamint spending, people see the lovely bridge that some pollie has put their name on as if they built it themself but they don't look at the bigger picture of what it has actually cost in another area.
Nice to see you mention it, too bad you haven't even got a basic grasp of it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraShouldn't you be able to pay for your Univ. education since you're in the upper class? Why do you take the people's money for your education? Are you a leech? Should i stop spending my husband's money and take a job at the local bakery....wouldn't that take a job away from a poor person? Where's your Sound Reasoning with the Broken Window Fallacy which has nothing to do with leeches?
No, I don't feel guilty. Instead of trying pseudo-psychology as an explanation for my ideas, perhaps you should try finding it in sound economics.
GRANNY.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn the sense that you feel entitled to sit in moral judgment of someone who is breaking no laws and who is violating no one's rights, and then based on that moral judgment you want that person to be subjected to a different set of standards than everyone else.
In what sense? If you think freeloading is morally questionable you are a "totalitarian lunatic"?
It is every bit as just as applying different standards to someone based on their race or gender.
Originally posted by SleepyguySo morality is dependant on law alone? You can't be serious.
In the sense that you feel entitled to sit in moral judgment of someone who is breaking no laws and who is violating no one's rights, and then based on that moral judgment you want that person to be subjected to a different set of standards than everyone else.
It is every bit as just as applying different standards to someone based on their race or gender.
Originally posted by WajomaIt seems you don't understand it. The lazy housewife is not adding any value (other than providing company, perhaps), and just wasting resources. This is economically the same as a vandal demolishing something, "fueling" the economy.
KN you wouldn't know a broken window fallacy if you fell through one.
The broken window fallacy is about how people might think a young hooligan smashing a window or an earth quake is good because of the opportunity it provides for the window mender or builders to repair the damage, all the while ignoring all the great things that might be achieved had res ...[text shortened]... ther area.
Nice to see you mention it, too bad you haven't even got a basic grasp of it.
Originally posted by smw6869Perhaps my parents would be able to afford it. But the people of The Netherlands have decided that it's better if society as a whole pays for the education of students, so that they are not dependant on being lucky enough to be born in a relatively well-off family.
Shouldn't you be able to pay for your Univ. education since you're in the upper class? Why do you take the people's money for your education? Are you a leech? Should i stop spending my husband's money and take a job at the local bakery....wouldn't that take a job away from a poor person? Where's your Sound Reasoning with the Broken Window Fallacy which has nothing to do with leeches?
GRANNY.
The broken window fallacy applies to any form of leeching, be it vandalism, useless jobs, people on state welfare and people on spouse welfare.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is not at all what I said. I'm merely pointing out that you have no right to make demands on her time or resources. If her actions were criminal or violated someone's rights then that could/should be corrected. Otherwise, you are simply making demands on her time and resources that you have no right to make. In other words, you are the freeloader, or want to be, and it is your demands on her that are immoral. It's a simple little concept called freedom. She has it, from you.
So morality is dependant on law alone?
Originally posted by SleepyguyWho is making demands? I am in no position to demand anything from housewives. I'm simply claiming not working is immoral when you have the time and oppurtunity and you are not studying something or actively raising young kids. Saying something is immoral is not the same as saying something should be illegal.
That is not at all what I said. I'm merely pointing out that you have no right to make demands on her time or resources. If her actions were criminal or violated someone's rights then that could/should be corrected. Otherwise, you are simply making demands on her time and resources that you have no right to make. In other words, you are the free ...[text shortened]... on her that are immoral. It's a simple little concept called freedom. She has it, from you.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI think you misunderstanded the point of that post. I was not trying to say different legal standards should be applied to them, rather I was saying that applying the same legal standards does not necessarily lead to equality of oppurtunity or equality of the contribution to society.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]I am in no position to demand anything from housewives.
Exactly.
However, in your answer to Kelly you indicated that such "immoral" housewives should be subjected to different legal standards, i.e. that society should make demands on her on your behalf.[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOK. So then if you agree with Kelly, that there should be "one set of rules, one set of standards" for all, regardless of your desire for people to contribute equally, then I did misunderstanded it. My apologies.
I think you misunderstanded the point of that post. I was not trying to say different legal standards should be applied to them, rather I was saying that applying the same legal standards does not necessarily lead to equality of oppurtunity or equality of the contribution to society.