magellan01 (and what a poor choice of name, the explorer *wanted *to learn new things), have you ever been exposed to the full context, or only the Fox version? Here ya go, champ:
Is there anything there you can disagree with? Or even understand?
In a similar vein…
So you laugh derisively at me for about the dumbest thing imaginable (i.e., poorly characterizing a relationship, when I used your own words to characterize it). I point it out and someone laughs derisively at you for being incredibly dumb. Your response, rather than manning up and admitting how dumb you were, is to mock them for derisive laughter.
Yeah, still not winning any Genius Awards there.
Where’s the part about it being all their fault that they’re simply inferior and less worthy?
Not all discussions about race are racist. Sometimes they’re about attempts to understand and fix problems, not cast blame. Can you understand that?
I see a huge difference. It’s the difference between my telling someone, “You owe me money because I built your body out of stardust and bubblegum,” and “You owe me money because you’re using a service I provide.”
The first is obviously false. The second may be true, and if it is, I have a very good case for asking for money from them. This isn’t a difference in degree, it’s a difference between something that’s false and something that may well be true.
Some of what credit–some of the entire freakin’ share of the credit? Then yes, absolutely. Some of the credit that they’re due and that non-Ayn-Randians generally give business owners? No, it’s not taking any of that credit.
Business owners get credit for taking extraordinary risks. They don’t get credit for creating businesses with zero help from society at large, because that’s inaccurate.
Where is that “simply inferior” and “less worthy” part in O’Reilly’s quote?
Is it?
The thing is: everyone that’s in the society has the same “help” – yes, society’s framework made it possible for roads to be built and police to be on-call in case of emergency. It’s certainly fair to point out that creating a successful business without roads and police would be highly problematic.
But at the same time, every single person in society also had the benefit of existing roads and existing police. Only the entrepreneur actually built the business. The roads and police weren’t enough to allow everyone to succeed in the business of business.
So mentioning the inarguable fact that society’s infrastructure was present seems to dilute the accomplishment of the business builder. Everyone had the benefits of the roads around Redmond. Only Bill Gates built Microsoft, though.
Except that IIRC he was pointing out these roads and infrastructure to counter some sort of John Galt anti-tax ideology.
Yes, everyone has that infrastructure–because taxes pay for them. You can’t make nonsense arguments about how we shouldn’t tax “job creators”, because those job creators couldn’t do their thang without the infrastructure built via taxes.
Had the Galtists not gotten on the soapbox, Obama wouldn’t even have had to point out the obvious. He was deflating their puffery, not denigrating business owners.
Besides everywhere?
He was not addressing the same point directly, he was looking to blame the “race hustlers” for attempting to explore the facts of race in America by saying they’re offering to “blame” everyone else *but *the “inner city” people themselves, where the blame belongs, having eliminated all other possibilities.
You really can’t see the racist appeal in referring to neck tattoos?
Yeah, how’s that job creation thing workin’ out? When’s that gonna start? The Bush tax cuts that were supposed to do that have been in place for longer than the entire Depression now, so it’s about damn time.
OK. I certainly agree that virtually everyone ought to be paying taxes at some level. I absolutely reject the John Galt idea that all taxes are evil.
And to the extent that THAT was the President’s message, I agree.
But you have to admit: “You didn’t build that,” has a very negative ring to it.
They’re different in some ways but they’re the same in the ways that count. Those being in the attitude/mindset and the end result. “We’re entitled to take your stuff because you owe us.”
And it never ends. It’s like they say about people who once get a favor from a mafia guy. You owe the guy forever, whatever he asks for, and the demands just keep on growing.
That was the context of Obama’s remarks (as I recall it and as evidenced from the first sentence in Elvis’ posted quote).
Slippery slope fallacy.
Of course, you know that.
Quote it. You just made it up.
Same “racist appeal” as “single-parent households”, “five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime”, “twice as likely as young white men to be ‘disconnected’—not in school, not working.”
And do tell why “neck tattoos” is some kind of racial thing? I type in “neck tattoos” in google image search and 90% of images that come up are of stupid white people with neck tattoos (yes, I think having a neck tattoo is stupid).
You’re hiding behind absolute literalism, huh? Your English teacher never told you about context? Or fair paraphrasing?
Pretty damn sad. Whiny loser tactic.
I think it is “whiny loser tactic” to assign to someone words that he didn’t say and that would require extremely biased interpretation to derive from his actual words.
Yep, pretty damn sad.
Yep, you are.
Not quite.
It’s like when the mafia guy informs you that as a result of what he’s done for you he’s a “partner” in your business, and deserves a bigger “share”.
Slippery slope, yes. Fallacy, no.
No he didn’t. There’s a thing called context, and in this context, Obama was talking about infrastructure like roads, bridges, education, etc.
Well-poisoning, as well as false. The people who helped you are *not *comparable to “the mafia”. :rolleyes:
But you know that, too.
Slippery slope is always a fallacy.
Now try being honest, if you can.