Sun Sets on the American Century

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You're not even trying to get my point. You are being illogical. No, I'm not just pulling that out of my butt - you're guilty of Appeal to Emotion, a logical fallacy. Instead of using facts like "XX percent of people are below the poverty line as defined by YY" you use "left out in the cold".

Why are you being illogical?

Because I don't have the energy or time to dig up actual numbers? I do
have a life with two jobs in it. Well, I guess that means I have no life, seeing
as I spend the rest of my time here, being illogical and all.

Do you have a smoke or not? 😠

Originally posted by stocken
Because I don't have the energy or time to dig up actual numbers? I do
have a life with two jobs in it. Well, I guess that means I have no life, seeing
as I spend the rest of my time here, being illogical and all.

Do you have a smoke or not? 😠

I have a life with two jobs too. I managed to find two minutes to look up your logical fallacies.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I have a life with two jobs too. I managed to find two minutes to look up your logical fallacies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're so talented. Go touch yourself, ok?

Er, where exactly did you look things up? I have yet to see you respond to
my link where they actually state clearly people living on the street with no
help to be given at the time. Or did you conveniently disregard that one?
Yawn...

I'm so tired, and nauseous. If you're not going to share with me on a
smoke, I'll just hit the bunker now, ok? 😴

Originally posted by stocken
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're so talented. Go touch yourself, ok?

Er, where exactly did you look things up? I have yet to see you respond to
my link where they actually state clearly people living on the street with no
help to be given at the time. Or did you conveniently disregard that one?
Yawn...

I'm so tired, and nauseous. If you're not going to share with me on a
smoke, I'll just hit the bunker now, ok? 😴

You're an out of control pot head and you wonder why no one understands your rambling illogical posts? Is pot legal in Sweedland?
Need chips, or dics? Have a nice nappy poo.

G.

Originally posted by stocken
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're so talented. Go touch yourself, ok?

Er, where exactly did you look things up? I have yet to see you respond to
my link where they actually state clearly people living on the street with no
help to be given at the time. Or did you conveniently disregard that one?
Yawn...

I'm so tired, and nauseous. If you're not going to share with me on a
smoke, I'll just hit the bunker now, ok? 😴

I have yet to see you respond to
my link where they actually state clearly people living on the street with no help to be given at the time.

Links don't need responses. I don't make much effort to respond to Ivanhoe's copy pastes. When I do I just copy paste my own stuff. But in the interest of goodwill, I'll analyze that article for you since you seem to want me to.


There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade.

There are three million homeless in Western Europe according to Time.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2003/0210/homeless/story.html


There's not much else in that article worth analyzing. If you disagree, please point me out to specific parts and I'll respond.

Originally posted by stocken
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're so talented. Go touch yourself, ok?

Er, where exactly did you look things up? I have yet to see you respond to
my link where they actually state clearly people living on the street with no
help to be given at the time. Or did you conveniently disregard that one?
Yawn...

I'm so tired, and nauseous. If you're not going to share with me on a
smoke, I'll just hit the bunker now, ok? 😴

Er, where exactly did you look things up?

Which "things" do you mean? I looked up logical fallacies on Google and went to several different lists. Would you like a list of logical fallacies that provides definitions which show that you Appeal to Emotion and make Ad Hominem attacks?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's not much else in that article worth analyzing. If you disagree, please point me out to specific parts and I'll respond.

From the link I posted, reposted for your convenience:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-10-homeless_x.htm

She said many of the chronically homeless have mental health and
substance abuse problems. Others, she said, simply cannot afford
housing.

That would not qualify as the state providing "decent living",
and it's what you get in a capitalist state. The more you move towards
capitalism, the more problems like this you'll see. Believe it or not, but
European countries are moving more and more towards capitalism, so
we're really no better. I just don't like the direction, and I resist as much
as I can.

SOCIALISM!!! YEAH!!!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Er, where exactly did you look things up?

Which "things" do you mean? I looked up logical fallacies on Google and went to several different lists. Would you like a list of logical fallacies that provides definitions which show that you Appeal to Emotion and make Ad Hominem attacks?[/b]

If there's one thing you can say about me, and have me agree
whole-heartedly, is that I often paint the grim picture rather than serving
up numbers. I wouldn't say I'm emotional, but I do use the effects of
emotion to make my points clear.

Let's say there's only one person in the whole world who's homeless. Just
one. If I serve up the numbers it would look something like:

Today there's about 0.0000000 .... 00001 % of the population without a
home, and that's just not right.

It wouldn't make for a very interesting post, would it? In fact, most
people would consider that an acceptable number. 1? That's not
much, considering the billions of people inhabiting this dusty old ball we
call earth.

Now, let's say I put it this way:

There is one person who wakes up every morning with more dirt than
clothes on his body. He has to drink his own urine to stay warm, but on
good days he might get his hands on a bottle of whiskey, and he has to
walk all day through a disdainful crowd in search for something to help
sustain his life; food and if lucky a few hours inside the warmth of a mall
before abruptly kicked out by security. His every day is a struggle to stay
alive and he's got next to no hope for a better tomorrow, because even
though it's perfectly legal for this man to wash up, go find a job and a
home, giving his current circumstances and whatever reason brought him
out on the street in the first place, he just won't be able to do that.

Suddenly, not even one is an acceptable figure, if you ask me. So,
there's a good reason I'm not statistical and mathematically plain. It's
the same reason I can't stand capitalism in it's most ruthless form.

Some call it being overdramatic, I say it's the human side of the same
coin.

Originally posted by stocken
If there's one thing you can say about me, and have me agree
whole-heartedly, is that I often paint the grim picture rather than serving
up numbers. I wouldn't say I'm emotional, but I do use the effects of
emotion to make my points clear.

Let's say there's only one person in the whole world who's homeless. Just
one. If I serve up the numbers it w ...[text shortened]... me call it being overdramatic, I say it's the human side of the same
coin.

All societies have this as a goal, but what will you sacrifice to get there?

For example, one way to achieve this would be for everyone to become Amish. Work hard on the land, farming, and eschewing all modern inventions. For some reason, there are no homeless among the Amish -- not even one. So that would solve the problem.

What are the other ways? Well, get someone to follow each homeless person around -- wash him, feed him, bring him to a shelter every evening, etc. A full-time babysitter. Each homeless person needs one -- can't have one for 2 because they might split up.

So that will solve the problem, too. Just raise taxes to get to that point. But how high do you have to go? What do you start to give up to make that happen?

'Zero tolerance' sounds like a fine goal -- very human as you say. But actually achieving such is very expensive.

Similarly, one might imagine full employment is desirable. Unforunately, full employment creates enormous upward pressure on wages and prices -- until eventually, companies cannot keep up and have to lay off or go out of business. That brings unemployment up somewhere into the 3-6% range. That seems to be the point of stability. In the meantime, people on fixed incomes have been badly hurt.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Unforunately, full employment creates enormous upward pressure on wages and prices

K-ziing! 😉

Which is why capitalism can never guarantee everyone that horrible
combination of words I'm so sick of writing now, whereas socialism could.
Though, agreed, at what price indeed.

Originally posted by stocken

Don't you feel even slightly embarrased at berating the US for it's homelessness problem now that you and I together have shown that the problem is far worse in Europe?

Originally posted by stocken
If there's one thing you can say about me, and have me agree
whole-heartedly, is that I often paint the grim picture rather than serving
up numbers. I wouldn't say I'm emotional, but I do use the effects of
emotion to make my points clear.

Let's say there's only one person in the whole world who's homeless. Just
one. If I serve up the numbers it w me call it being overdramatic, I say it's the human side of the same
coin.

One can easily make an emotionally evocative story which favors any position, though. Just paint a verbal picture of the horrors of the collapse of Communism in Russia and your tearjerk story will look quite tame in comparison. All of the sudden socialism doesn't look so good any more. I'm too lazy and perhaps not talented enough to write the paragraph, but I know that it can be done. Ask a good lawyer or actor. It's all about what you draw attention to and what you choose not to draw attention to.

Oh, by the way - your dramatic, emotionally laden style just leads me to not take you seriously. Your strategy fails utterly on me.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Don't you feel even slightly embarrased at berating the US for it's homelessness problem now that you and I together have shown that the problem is far worse in Europe?

You are the one making this into a Europe vs. America pissing fight. I
merely pointed out the inherent flaws of capitalism as opposed to
socialism as a response to that spruce-fella calling socialism a second
best.

Already from the start of this socialism-capitalism sub debate did I state
clearly that Sweden (part of Europe) is no longer (if indeed it ever really
were) a socialist state, but more of a mixed pot leaning toward capitalism
these days. So, no, I don't find it "embarrassing" how Europe fails
miserably on the homeless front. Well, not more embarrassed than I
already am about everyone turning more and more to money for all their
needs. If anything you've shown clearly what capitalism does, and I
suppose I should thank you for that.

I swear, if I didn't know any better I'd think people nowadays actually
believe that money is somehow a sacred thing that can change
everyone's life for the better.

Fools, I call them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
One can easily make an emotionally evocative story which favors any position, though. Just paint a verbal picture of the horrors of the collapse of Communism in Russia and your tearjerk story will look quite tame in comparison. All of the sudden socialism doesn't look so good any more. I'm too lazy and perhaps not talented enough to write the parag ...[text shortened]... ally laden style just leads me to not take you seriously. Your strategy fails utterly on me.

It is true that using rhetorical means, you can make just about anything
appear arbitrarily "good" or "bad". It would rely on one of the following
being true though: 1) Your reader must really have no clue as to what
you're talking about, or (s)he won't be so easily fooled, or 2) your reader
must be uncertain about exactly what you're saying and, afraid to look
stupid by asking simply accept what you're saying, or 3) you must actually
be right about what you're saying.

Lenist communism is not marxist communism. Just because Lenin called
it a communist state, doesn't really mean it was all that Marx had in
mind. According to Marx, communism can only come to be through the
successive transformation of capitalism to socialism to communism. You
can't do it by force, and you can't put in place a dictatorship that exploits
the proletariat much like capitalists already does. That just won't work.
It's supposed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that's
only supposed to last until the Bourgeoisie is no more. It would be no
more oppressing or dramatic a force than the legal system protecting
capitalism today. Only, it would stand against the minority group
with wealth instead of the majority masses without the
same.

So, while true that you can paint the grim picture about the fall of the
Soviet Union, that doesn't really stick in the eye of someone who knows
what socialism is all about, since clearly the Soviet Union was not in
truth a socialist->communist state.

As another example we can take Mubarak who claims to be the leader of
a democratic party in a multi-party semi-presidential republic (Egypt).
Because he claims that to be the case, that doesn't really make it so,
does it? So, if that system ever falls, will we then talk about how the
democratic republic as an idea has failed miserably? I think not.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Oh, by the way - your dramatic, emotionally laden style just leads me to not take you seriously. Your strategy fails utterly on me.

This I can do nothing about. I am the way I am. I do have nothing but
respect for what you post though, which is why I got a little disappointed and
said that stupid thing about how you can go touch yourself. I want to
apologise for that.

That I am embarrassed about. 😳