| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 11:06 AM
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Wow, obviously no "excessive language" rule on this forum, eh? |
No, there isn't. Get the fuck off the internet if you can't handle the word "fuck".
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 1195
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I joined the union in the late 70's. I was tickled to be making almost 22 bucks an hour, in the 70's!
My first union meeting they talked about a non-union bricklayers job being ruined by specialized paint and muriatic acid. This so called job was a goddamn masonry masterpiece. Really, my original trade is masonry, I am a simple construction worker who admires good work and this job was frickin artistry!
They laughed and had a good old time about it and then gave tips on how to ruin/ destroy other types of work.
I never went to another union meeting and left 6 months later.
We are all well aware of the union rhetoric, hell we know it as well as we do the religious crap.
It started as a great idea but is ending as the epitome of human nature. Greed. plain and simple. When half of Michigan is making 45 an hour and the other half is making 10 an hour, you can be damn sure those making 10 are willing to do what they can to make 45, and those making 45 are only willing to sit with their brothers, and will only, in pack like instances attack those who threaten them.
Union workers are human too, but they get caught up in the union rhetoric and do stupid shit. They hardly ever act alone, like dogs and teenagers they need a pack. This is not picking on them, just their own subconciouse realizations that they are wrong.
The unions will kill themselves by their own thievery long before they get killed by someone else's.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion.
The reality is: The majority of Christians are, because they have never read the Bible, whereas the majority of Atheists are, because they have. tjb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7220
Local time: 9:06 AM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I REMOVED YOUR SIZE AND COLOR TAGS IN THE FALLOWING QUOTES BECAUSE IT'S REALY FUCKING ANOYING TO CLOSE YOUR QUOTE TAGS. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLAM WITH THIS, KISS MY ASS HOLE.
Aside from that...
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron... |
Uhu... I ALMOST feel sorry for you as I post this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy |
Only a fucking moron like you would take wikipedia as an authority. |
Post a more authoritative source then. I DARE you to do it. SEE if it makes any difference.
Otherwise, your no different then any other pussy who bitches when he has been caught red handed in a basic fuck up.
| Quote: | | But if you had taken the trouble to read your own source, even they have it partly right, ...not an error in the logical structure of the argument, which is what I claimed. |
This is why your fucking up. I never said anything about the logical structure of WHAT statements the analogy contained. It was your strawman from the beginning. More over, false analogies are INFORMAL. Unless the person making the analogy is incoherently illiterate, structure doesn't have much to do with it. Your wrongly applying the use of the word "false".
| Quote: | | Read my post again, the part I wrote: IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES. Saying an analogy is false is like saying an opinion is false, a totally absurd concept But your own source gets it right in the second paragraph, an analogy can be INVALID, which is not the same as a true/false attribute.[And basically, what this author in your source is talking about are badly constructed analogies, which I clearly pointed out in a previous post. Again, a badly constructed analogy is a totally different concept than assigning a true/false value to a statement, |
Are you attacking an analogy or a single proposition? Can you figure out the difference?
| Quote: | which can only be assigned to a FACTIVE statement. Read the rest of your source, you will see that in the examples put there,
The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.
This can be represented as-- |
Your shockingly brazen dishonesty. It can only be matched by your laziness. This is what the article actually said:
| wiki wrote: |
While the universe may be like a watch in that it is intricate, this does not in itself justify the assumption that watches and the universe have similar origins. For this reason, most scientists and philosophers do not accept the analogy, known as the argument from design, with this one specifically known as The Watchmaker Analogy.
By changing a term, the fallacy becomes apparent:
The universe is like an intricate watch.
Many early watches were designed by locksmiths.
Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith.
The structure of the argument is similar, but here we can more easily see the evolution of watches in terms of less complex mechanisms and tools. The false analogy becomes more apparent in terms of comparing locks to watches, and locks to the universe. It should also be noted that many early watch and clockmakers were gunsmiths. |
This is the deal, you have 2 options.
1- You apologize to me publicly for everything you have said. Qualify it how you like, but IF I don't like your choice of words, I'll move on to #2. (so be honest)
2- I will challenge you to a moderated debate on this subject, being false analogies.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | I REMOVED YOUR SIZE AND COLOR TAGS IN THE FALLOWING QUOTES BECAUSE IT'S REALY FUCKING ANOYING TO CLOSE YOUR QUOTE TAGS. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLAM WITH THIS, KISS MY ASS HOLE.
Aside from that...
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron... |
Uhu... I ALMOST feel sorry for you as I post this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy |
Only a fucking moron like you would take wikipedia as an authority. |
Post a more authoritative source then. I DARE you to do it. SEE if it makes any difference.
Otherwise, your no different then any other pussy who bitches when he has been caught red handed in a basic fuck up.
| Quote: | | But if you had taken the trouble to read your own source, even they have it partly right, ...not an error in the logical structure of the argument, which is what I claimed. |
This is why your fucking up. I never said anything about the logical structure of WHAT statements the analogy contained. It was your strawman from the beginning. More over, false analogies are INFORMAL. Unless the person making the analogy is incoherently illiterate, structure doesn't have much to do with it. Your wrongly applying the use of the word "false".
| Quote: | | Read my post again, the part I wrote: IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES. Saying an analogy is false is like saying an opinion is false, a totally absurd concept But your own source gets it right in the second paragraph, an analogy can be INVALID, which is not the same as a true/false attribute.[And basically, what this author in your source is talking about are badly constructed analogies, which I clearly pointed out in a previous post. Again, a badly constructed analogy is a totally different concept than assigning a true/false value to a statement, |
Are you attacking an analogy or a single proposition? Can you figure out the difference?
| Quote: | which can only be assigned to a FACTIVE statement. Read the rest of your source, you will see that in the examples put there,
The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.
This can be represented as-- |
Your shockingly brazen dishonesty. It can only be matched by your laziness. This is what the article actually said:
| wiki wrote: |
While the universe may be like a watch in that it is intricate, this does not in itself justify the assumption that watches and the universe have similar origins. For this reason, most scientists and philosophers do not accept the analogy, known as the argument from design, with this one specifically known as The Watchmaker Analogy.
By changing a term, the fallacy becomes apparent:
The universe is like an intricate watch.
Many early watches were designed by locksmiths.
Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith.
The structure of the argument is similar, but here we can more easily see the evolution of watches in terms of less complex mechanisms and tools. The false analogy becomes more apparent in terms of comparing locks to watches, and locks to the universe. It should also be noted that many early watch and clockmakers were gunsmiths. |
This is the deal, you have 2 options.
1- You apologize to me publicly for everything you have said. Qualify it how you like, but IF I don't like your choice of words, I'll move on to #2. (so be honest)
2- I will challenge you to a moderated debate on this subject, being false analogies. |
I clearly demonstrated that your source on wikipedia is a mixture of good stuff and bad stuff. The example given on that wikipedia page is a logical construction with an invalid conclusion. Look at the Venn's diagram. Anyone with a rudiment knowledge of Logic would see that the statement, Therefore, the universe may have been designed by some kind of locksmith is an INVALID conclusion. The author of your source doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between true/false and valid/invalid. These are different concepts, that even you should be aware of. So in that confusion, the author makes a serious mistake in judgment. The example given is a case of a logical construction with an invalid conclusion, and not an analogy which the author has labelled false. True/false values are only assigned to factive statements, and analogies don't qualify as such.
The very fact that you asked me, Are you attacking an analogy or a single proposition? Can you figure out the difference? only shows you are more confused about the subject than the author of your webpage source. Read the Venn`s diagram again. If you haven`t figured out that the conclusion is invalid then I`m talking to an ignoramus, an amateur who is trying to pose as an expert. Until you've figured out this simple concept, there is very little for me to tell you. HOPE YOU GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4608
Local time: 3:06 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | I joined the union in the late 70's. I was tickled to be making almost 22 bucks an hour, in the 70's!
My first union meeting they talked about a non-union bricklayers job being ruined by specialized paint and muriatic acid. This so called job was a goddamn masonry masterpiece. Really, my original trade is masonry, I am a simple construction worker who admires good work and this job was frickin artistry!
They laughed and had a good old time about it and then gave tips on how to ruin/ destroy other types of work.
I never went to another union meeting and left 6 months later.
We are all well aware of the union rhetoric, hell we know it as well as we do the religious crap.
It started as a great idea but is ending as the epitome of human nature. Greed. plain and simple. When half of Michigan is making 45 an hour and the other half is making 10 an hour, you can be damn sure those making 10 are willing to do what they can to make 45, and those making 45 are only willing to sit with their brothers, and will only, in pack like instances attack those who threaten them.
Union workers are human too, but they get caught up in the union rhetoric and do stupid shit. They hardly ever act alone, like dogs and teenagers they need a pack. This is not picking on them, just their own subconciouse realizations that they are wrong.
The unions will kill themselves by their own thievery long before they get killed by someone else's. |
Unions are still a good idea, and for the same reasons they started. But there are real problems. I don't see why you criticize them for not acting alone, since the whole point is to not act alone. It's not good when solidarity becomes mob mentality, obviously. It all depends on what you're doing and why.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15946
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | aitm wrote: | I joined the union in the late 70's. I was tickled to be making almost 22 bucks an hour, in the 70's!
My first union meeting they talked about a non-union bricklayers job being ruined by specialized paint and muriatic acid. This so called job was a goddamn masonry masterpiece. Really, my original trade is masonry, I am a simple construction worker who admires good work and this job was frickin artistry!
They laughed and had a good old time about it and then gave tips on how to ruin/ destroy other types of work.
I never went to another union meeting and left 6 months later.
We are all well aware of the union rhetoric, hell we know it as well as we do the religious crap.
It started as a great idea but is ending as the epitome of human nature. Greed. plain and simple. When half of Michigan is making 45 an hour and the other half is making 10 an hour, you can be damn sure those making 10 are willing to do what they can to make 45, and those making 45 are only willing to sit with their brothers, and will only, in pack like instances attack those who threaten them.
Union workers are human too, but they get caught up in the union rhetoric and do stupid shit. They hardly ever act alone, like dogs and teenagers they need a pack. This is not picking on them, just their own subconciouse realizations that they are wrong.
The unions will kill themselves by their own thievery long before they get killed by someone else's. |
Unions are still a good idea, and for the same reasons they started. But there are real problems. I don't see why you criticize them for not acting alone, since the whole point is to not act alone. It's not good when solidarity becomes mob mentality, obviously. It all depends on what you're doing and why. |
unions often get corrupt and screw folks over....... but so does management.
this is an area where I will no doubt wind up pissing off socialists and capitalists. 
at the end of the day, I can't blame management for wanting to find a cheaper work force, (we all like to save money) nor can I blame workers for wanting better pay. (we all want a raise) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3881
Local time: 7:06 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | | this is an area where I will no doubt wind up pissing off socialists and capitalists. |
Not really.
I have nothing against unions, what I don't like are labor regulations.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2295
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
Not really.
I have nothing against unions, what I don't like are labor regulations. |
Labor regulations = legal protection of labor rights. Labor rights are what unions are supposed to stand for.
| hillbillyatheist wrote: |
unions often get corrupt and screw folks over....... but so does management.
this is an area where I will no doubt wind up pissing off socialists and capitalists.
at the end of the day, I can't blame management for wanting to find a cheaper work force, (we all like to save money) nor can I blame workers for wanting better pay. (we all want a raise) |
Corruption of unions most often takes place because of outside influence and pressures, such as the mob (which incidentally is given power by government regulation, as during prohibition), government corruption, or pressure by business in an attempt to weaken the power of those unions.
I believe a person has a right to a fair share of their own labor, so I do blame management for wanting a "cheaper" work force. Sure we all like to save money, but it is possible to do so ethically, without depriving a worker of his or her standard of living, which I believe is part of their "liberty". Thus, libertarian socialism. Contradiction of terms my ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2407
Local time: 9:06 AM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, in the exchange of labor for money, you praise labor for wanting a better deal and scorn management for wanting a better deal? Yes, libertarian socialism is a contradiction of terms as only half of any equation is considered worthy of seeking good terms.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2295
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | So, in the exchange of labor for money, you praise labor for wanting a better deal and scorn management for wanting a better deal? Yes, libertarian socialism is a contradiction of terms as only half of any equation is considered worthy of seeking good terms. |
If the "better deal" is depriving EITHER party of their liberty, which I would argue includes a certain threshold of standard of living (healthcare, education, etc) then I would say it is not considering the other "worthy of seeking good terms". Both you and I know that management is most often holding the power in this situation, there is almost always an imbalance in the favor of the employer.
I guess the difference is whether you count profiting at the expense of your worker "liberty" or "exploitation". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2407
Local time: 9:06 AM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The "better deal" deprives someone of their liberty if a person is coerced by violence of the threat of violence. If someone chooses to not work at all and as a result loses healthcare, education, etc, would you still say that person was deprived of their liberty?
No matter how bad you personally think a deal is, if both parties entered it freely and knowingly, then you have no right to but in.
Yeah, management holds more power than any individual worker. So? According to your contradictory philosophy the fact that they hold more power is proof that they must be forced to lose on more deals. You would use violence or the threat of violence to remedy what you consider an unjust situation and call that liberty.
Just like Bush did when he libertated the Iraqi people.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2407
Local time: 9:06 AM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Large red letters make my argument more convincing. |
You don't go far enough. You forgot the all-caps.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2295
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | The "better deal" deprives someone of their liberty if a person is coerced by violence of the threat of violence. If someone chooses to not work at all and as a result loses healthcare, education, etc, would you still say that person was deprived of their liberty?
|
If someone's only choice is to either work for a wage that is not enough to support that nation's basic standard of living (healthcare, education), or not work at all and be deprived of everything, that person was deprived of their liberty. I also don't think that deprivation of liberty is a function of physical violence alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2407
Local time: 9:06 AM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gnosis, for part of my lunch I am having an apple. Once I eat that apple, nobody else in the world can ever eat that particular apple. Anyone who has to either eat that particular apple and no other apple or starve will starve.
I have no concern for that person, given that there are billions of other apples in the world.
If all the jobs for that person's skill set pay that wage, then he is going to get his area's basic standard of living.
And why is he entitled to your standard of what he should get? What makes you aribter of what jobs he can or cannot accept? If he does accept a job that you feel pays too little, would you advocate violence of the threat of violence to force him to not work at that job?
You would be depriving him of his income if you did that. Perhaps he thinks a small income is better than no income. In that case you are depriving him of his liberty in the name of guaranteeing his liberty, just like Bush and Iraq.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2295
Local time: 12:06 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | Gnosis, for part of my lunch I am having an apple. Once I eat that apple, nobody else in the world can ever eat that particular apple. Anyone who has to either eat that particular apple and no other apple or starve will starve.
|
I would shift this analogy. For your lunch you are having an apple. An apple which grows on a tree that you planted, but you ask someone else to pick for you, telling him you will share the apple with him, as you are both hungry. You cut a very small sliver of the apple for the worker, not enough to nourish him fully, and save the rest for yourself. Your argument is "hey, it' s MY tree"! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
