Depends on the road. Most are funded by county property tax, but there’s also such things as federal and state revenue-sharing. And practically every county has federally-funded U.S. highways in it.
Marley has not shown ONE fallacious error ridden statement / argument that i’ve made.
he has instead produced a rumour
Twice on this page, you’ve said people who disagree with you on any subject should move to collectivist North Korea. I could call that garbage and it’d be accurate, but it’s also excluding the middle: these posters don’t agree with your rather hysterical interpretation of current events (or fictional events), so you’ve concluded they are extremist collectivists who think North Korea is superior to the U.S.
No, jayjay is not bashing America’s heritage, see post #228.
Where are you getting these rules’n’things? Your own inventions?
See Gish Gallop.
You made the posts yourself. It’s not a rumor, it’s an observation of what’s been happening with this mess.
It was a game? I did not know, I thought it was a discussion. Silly me.
And that is, what? Who wrote all that?
It’s a “populist economics” website. I’ve been looking around but don’t have the skills or knowledge to dig into who runs it or what it’s affiliated with.
Apparently the “Disinformationalist” section was written by one H. Michael Sweeny (?) who, curiously, has his e-mail handled at a domain called proparanoid.com.
And while I don’t know the overall “who”, I can pretty safely say, from visual clues, the “when” and “where” was apparently sometime in 1998. On Angelfire.
some of us weren’t on the debate team obv.
If i believed in the nay-sayers position ITT, i could take that side and have done much better, too.
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/argument-from-repetition-ad-nauseam/
I would have liked to have a discussion, that’s why i started the thread;
My premise is pretty basic, and should’nt be blind-siding anyone. It’s common knowledge that the US is on an authoritarian slide which is reflected world-wide; a trend away from personal freedom, and the maintaining of the dignity of the individual. a trend in what people are willing to put up with, and a trend in their values (towards collective values, away from individualistic values.)
Instead what has unfolded is flat denials of this trend altogether in a tag team fashion, which is pretty shocking when you consider that just flys in the face of what is obviously going on right under our noses.
… and clique like junior high school like behavior ; ‘make fun of the new fat girl’…
I’ve listed a few fallacies like this, which is what educated people call these ‘helicopter’ and ‘unabomber’ comments out of courtesy.
From what i can tell, my detractors argument is essentially: ‘theres no trend in America towards collectivism’… actually theres no such thing whatsoever…
move along nothing to see here… OP is dis-credited, so w/e.
over and over…
>>>Please draw my attention to citations backing this up that i’ve overlooked, other than poster claiming toi be an authority him/herself.<<<
The funny thing is that even if the nay-sayers claims were in truth correct (which it’s not) ; that the values of America today = the values of America in the 50’s and are holding strong, it would still be a logically bad argument.
ie. trying in vain to establish a negative when there is no evidence to present of a negative.
I can keep producing ideas and opinions over and over, and keep citing things that are real, and if it’s the same across the board argument against each, these tacit denials void of any backing, it will just continue to go nowhere until the argument from repetition wears out the arguer employing it before it wears out the ones it is intended to wear out… and they vanish (25.)
so, none of this has any merit then: [?]
Logical fallacies
Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.
Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
“Ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument.”
Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy’s Law is based.
Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is not credible.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Correlative based fallacies
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
If-by-whiskey: An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis.
Is-ought problem: the inappropriate inference that because something is some way or other, so it ought to be that way.
Homunculus fallacy: where a “middle-man” is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
Red Herring: also called a “fallacy of relevance.” This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.
Informal fallacies:
Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: “The student has failed to prove that he didn’t cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test.”
Begging the question (petitio principii): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim
Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Etymological fallacy: which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
Fallacies of distribution
Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause (“joint effect”, or “causal oversimplification”): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning
False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct
Gambler’s fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
Historian’s fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
Loki’s Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. (ex: Thousands of experiments have conclusively proven that beating drums and clashing cymbals brings back the sun after a total eclipse.)
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium) (proof by intimidation): submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. see also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.
Prosecutor’s fallacy: a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist’s fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
Well travelled road effect: estimates of elapsed time is shorter for familiar routes as compared to unfamiliar routes which are of equal or lesser duration.
Wrong direction: where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
no, i’m saying that people who seem to favor the idea of collectivism should put their $ where their mouth is, that’a all.
if you like Sking, move to Vail, if you like Broadway plays, move to New York…
No, i’m exactly saying that the modern American unwitting collectivist is not an extreme.
the opposite; they are gradually becoming the mainstream…
I’m just trying to point out that it’s easy to cheerlead from the sidelines…
it’s easy to say collectivism is cool/ individualism is bad; individuals = unabombers.
but its not as easy to commit to it and go where the getting is good, if collectivism is what you like.
That’s one problem with Americans nowadays. they are so spoiled by the accomplishments of the past that they turn their backs on the values that got us here.
If they had ever visited a eastern block country in the hey day of communism there, and seen the conditions, the oppressive fearful atmosphere, the greyness of it, then they would probably think twice about supporting the idea of socialism.
If it hadn’t been glossed over in public schools that 5 million dies of starvation right after the triumph of the Bolshevik revolution, or of Mao presiding over the deaths of 80 million, making Hitler look small-time, then maybe it wouldn’t be as cool and trendy to be a ‘socialist’.
I see the glorification of socialism all over the place. occupy, ect…
coffee shops with hammer and sickle motifs, ect…
Obamas slogan ‘forward’, which is a recycled socialist one.
Out there in reality, it’s permeating American society on so many levels, and you are welcome to keep denying it; but i get the idea:
it’s NOT happening, and it’s my imagination.
good luck with that position. mountains of evidence suggest otherwise.
Yes, yes, yes. You’ll find GD Dopers know all about those, and we usually get them from more interesting and relevant sources.
N.B.: “Authoritarian” and “collectivist” are two different things.
The Moonie Times, orchid?! Really?
Since the U.S. is not on “an authoritarian slide,” it is pretty clear that it is not common knowledge. It may, indeed, be a common belief among a small sect of fairly ignorant people, but it is not “common knowledge.”
You have presented no evidence that the U.S. is trending away from personal freedom, (probably because you could not find any genuine examples of such a trend). Similarly, there is no effort in the U.S. to move away from the dignity of the individual. So far, I have seen you falsely link fascism and Marxism, provide (twice) an incorrect etymology of the word liberal connected to an utterly erroneous claim about the status of slaves and free men in ancient Rome. (And when you had been corrected on your error the first time, you still repeated it and have made no effort to acknowledge your error.) You have made the claim that the U.N. Agenda 21 would suppress individual home ownership and refused, for pages, to provide evidence for that spurious claim. (Again, the reason being that it did no such thing.)
Generally, when asked for evidence of your claims, you have presented nothing but opinion pieces by nutcases without providing any factual evidence to support their odd beliefs (aside from remarks such as the one about home ownership that are demonstrably in error).
It is for these and similar statements that I deem that you have not provided a single reason for anyone on any of your several threads to view you as anything other than a crank who really has no idea what he is talking about. So, while it may make you feel good to rant about the abuse to which you believe you have been subjected, any objective observer would note that you have brought it all on yourself with your histrionic claims for an imaginary history and a projected future that bears no resemblance to the real world.