Is it also totally impossible liberals would begin to overstate pernicious effects in an effort to advance their own agenda?
This is kind of the problem, isn’t it? The paradigm is, left-wing sources* strive to be neutral and mainstream, right-wing sources strive to be partisan. And the latter keep succeeding at their goal of working the refs as what qualifies as “neutral” and “mainstream” gets dragged ever further right.
*There are a handful of noteworthy exceptions, but when people hear “left-wing sources” their first thought is not “OccupyDemocrats”.
Speaking as an experienced journalist: No, they don’t.
Look, I respect the solid work the Guardian does but they’re openly left-wing and run a lot of OpEd pieces and columns supporting some (IMHO) fairly unorthodox left-wing views.
What’s interesting is that people are always carrying on about the Australian media being super right-wing but the overwhelming majority of journos I’ve met or worked with have been on the leftward side of the political spectrum.
The usual view of trickle-down is tax businesses less and watch them use that money to hire/expand/etc. Unfortunately that is rarely the case; most often the money is pocketed/handed over to their investors who are themselves mostly wealthy to begin with so they in turn mostly pocket the extra money and invest in other companies and the cycle continues.
How about this for a real trickle-down concept: businesses only get the tax break if ALL the money freed up is used to hire/expand. Have no need to hire? Good for you - no tax break. I bet you don’t like that idea.
I forgot Downton Abbey. And Doctor Who. And All Creatures Great and Small. And Inspector Morse.
Probably racist to say that a Hispanic guy can’t be an Anglophile. Is it?
There was an earlier post listing other things. It vanished?
You are right, it was an slippery argument, but not as you think. That is WHAT.
The Telegraph was slippery like Reagan was in the 80’s, making a great anecdote that was in reality misleading as the article was ranting about how the University was training or teaching a generation of “snowflakes”. That was not the case. It was a note to staff members with no force for or it being a rule for the whole school.
ETA: This post should be read as immediately preceding #184.
I read, daily, Mother Jones, the NYT, the Washington Post, Dailykos, crooksandliars, diariolibre, and the Guardian. And of course the SDMB, no slouch in presenting the left view of events.
And I read the Daily Mail, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and the newsletter from the Ludwig van Mises Institute also.
But my use of it as an example did not rest on it being a rule for the whole school, and my use of it as an example did not rest on it being for students.
So why do you believe those distinctions invalidate it?
I’m not inclined to dismiss it, actually.
It was your explanation my dear solicitor. 
Now that was still silly, because I based my reply on yours, indeed it was a slippery slope argument.
And last time I checked those things they are like, well, still called a fallacy. Just saying.
It was the Telegraph and others blasting a fallacy that indeed was making a slippery slope argument, a mole hill turned into a mountain by the Telegraph and they even used a spritzer bottle to make it slippery.
It remained a fallacy and underwhelming to boot. Pointing at a news letter advice that had no authority nor applicable or teachable to the student body that was indeed just a mole hill. And yet this is a good teachable moment. It demonstrates how propaganda can misled many in ways that look natural and even causes the targets to believe that they are getting the whole truth when it is far away from it.
Check again.
When is a slippery-slope argument not a fallacy?
Hint: “Toulmin method.”
So liberals want to do something about global warming because they are pro-science, but only in ways that are anti-profit. And they are so anti-profit that they turn against the science when it comes to nuclear power.
Actually that seems like a fairly clear presentation of the attitude. “We can’t support nuclear energy, which has a chance of working, because someone might make a buck off it. We prefer solutions like solar and wind, that won’t work, because at least nobody benefits.”
And this shows how liberals support science. And it’s conservatives’ fault.
Regards,
Shodan
Like healthcare, many people forced to pay the market rate would go bankrupt from the cost of having sex with Helen Hunt. Unlike healthcare, the number of people likely to die from lack of access to sex with Helen Hunt is very, very small.
Do you think access to healthcare is extraordinary? Do you think it ought to be? Do you actually have any rationale for this comparison other than your personal admiration for Ms Hunt?
Back to the half of my post you didn’t respond to:
A perhaps more apt comparison to healthcare than sex with a celebrity (which is not an actual “need” in any meaningful sense of the word, and certainly not a societal one) is with fire departments. Time was that fires were dealt with directly by forces owned by the fire insurance companies; each company had its own brigades, and fire insurance was purchased on an individual basis. If you didn’t have it and couldn’t afford to pay an emergency fee, your house could be left to burn. If the force relating to your insurance company wasn’t the closest one, you still had to wait for them to turn up; the other forces would not necessarily help (and if they did, you got a separate bill for that too). If, when the force did turn up, you didn’t have the paperwork on hand to demonstrate you had a policy with that company (because the paperwork was INSIDE YOUR BURNING HOUSE), you were very likely SOL as well*. It was a system which was incredibly inefficient and inclined to poor outcomes - for example, if a row of houses caught on fire, different companies could be dealing with different individual houses and uninsured houses in the same row left to burn.
Eventually the flaws in this system (and popular demand due to those flaws) led to the evolution of universal coverage; many cities formed their own fire services as a civic function in the 19th century. This resulted in many private fire insurance companies going out of business, although others simply changed their business model.** I’m sure, even without researching, that there was a fair amount of opposition to civic fire departments by those with a vested interest in the status quo. Taxes had to be put up to pay to build and maintain these departments and related infrastructure (e.g. hydrants). And yet the change happened, because the alternative is worse.
Healthcare in the US is at the same place fire brigades used to be - ideally everyone would buy insurance and it all would go according to plan, but in practice sporadic coverage and costly and inefficient practices lead to overall poor outcomes. Of course people aren’t buildings, but they are a resource. And, like education, access to healthcare provides a wider economic benefit in that a healthy and educated workforce correlates strongly to greater business growth. Dealing with health issues before they reach a critical stage reduces sick days, and access to affordable doctors means that people with communicable diseases can get treated earlier, reducing spread. Furthermore, as endlessly hashed out in other threads, single-payer/provider systems tend to produce better individual outcomes for considerably lower per capita costs (and reduces medical bankruptcies to virtually nil).
To drag this back to the thread topic: there does seem to be a view amongst many conservatives that the liberal idea that public services provide a benefit that goes beyond the immediate beneficiaries is either delusional or a lie to cover up the real motive of wanting free stuff paid for by “hardworking taxpayers”. Nonetheless there are many examples of the wider social benefit of a public service actually existing, and healthcare is one area in which it does where it has been implemented. The same - alas! - cannot be said or assumed for the provision of sex with beautiful movie stars, no matter how fervently one may wish it to be so.
*Note that this issue was later solved by putting “badges” or “fire marks” on the outside of houses identifying the insurance company used.
**The Sun, one of the largest London fire insurers of the 18th century, lasted until the 1950s and following a series of mergers still exists as part of Royal Sun Alliance.
It’s certainly one conservative’s fault for creating a strawman that doesn’t remotely follow from the post quoted.
Bwana Bob wrote: "The usual view of trickle-down is tax businesses less and watch them use that money to hire/expand/etc. Unfortunately that is rarely the case; most often the money is pocketed/handed over to their investors who are themselves mostly wealthy to begin with so they in turn mostly pocket the extra money and invest in other companies and the cycle continues. "
It worked (mostly) in the eighties because that generation’s rich were, like Reagan himself, of the “greatest generation” and did have at least some sense of civic duty. Now, to paraphrase somebody or other, the rich are different. They don’t even think of themselves as Americans anymore. Oh, they’ll wave the flag and all that, mostly for the benefit of those watching, but they’ve voted with their dollars. The problem though is that if something works once, conservatives think it will work every time even when circumstances have changed.
Of course, liberals do this too as their typical response to economic downturns is pump-priming via public works projects. Fine when the dollars would bounce around eight or ten times as in the past, not so much now when the impact is blunted by the fact that after two or three times the dollars are on their way to China.
No, that’s not what I said. If you’re going to stick your hand up my backside to make my mouth move, buy me dinner first. 
Conservatives support nuclear energy because it makes a profit. Most liberals don’t mind making a profit, but they really get leary of toxic materials getting released into the environment, especially when it happens because some contractor decided to cut a corner to come in under his bid.
Cite, please.
Yes, I understand what you said. The question is, why do liberals oppose nuclear energy? It can’t be because liberals are pro-science - the science is pretty firmly on the side of nuclear energy. Could it be because, just like conservatives, they turn their commitment to science on and off when the science conflicts with their agenda?
If liberals want to give themselves airs about how pro-science they are, they need to be so consistently.
It’s like Algore and his energy-sucking house and his private jet flying around to global warming conferences. “We all need to change our thinking and our lifestyles to deal with the scourge of global warming. And by we all, I mean you.”
Regards,
Shodan
Was there advice given that not making eye contact could be racist? If the answer is yes, then that advice is asinine. It’s more casual accusations of racism that dilutes the word. It’s that type of dilution that makes me treat accusations of racism first with skepticism because the charge is so commonplace and often wrong.
Dismissing the example because it was from National Review or from a right wing source is a classic ad hominem.
It’s only a win-win if you get to define the success criteria.