I agree, which is why I wish the progressives would not keep pitching their ideas as benefitting the POOR. The poor, for the most part, are not active politically and do not read this message board. Most of the benefits of progressive ideas apply equally to most members of the middle class as they do the poor, and the middle class ARE active politically and DO read this message board. Fluffy bunny “let’s help the poor downtrodden poor people” does not have NEARLY the same appeal as “let me show you what progressive ideas can do for YOU!”
It’s just shame that nobody has done that.
The issue here isn’t that the OP has only shown that his ideas will help poor people.
The issue is that he hasn’t shown any way that his ideas can work. They are all based upon a gross ignorance of economic and social and a total failure to comprehend the obvious consequences of little things like making it illegal to ask other people to write to their congressman.
It doesn’t actually matter at this stage who these ideas might benefit. the problem is that they are utterly unworkable.
No they are not. Many are good, commonsense ideas. He has not explained how to make them work to YOUR satisfaction, but given your political leanings, it is unlikely that any progressive could.
Blake, what would you call this if not an appeal to the wisdom of elders? Your post comes very close to it, as well. Some of the stupidest political constituencies are composed largely of elders, see “Tea Partiers.”
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
No they are not. Many are good, commonsense ideas.
[/QUOTE]
It might help if you started with specifics. Which ones do you consider good ideas…and why do you think they are good ideas? Why do you consider them commonsense, and why do you think commonsense is important?
And yet Blake has at least gone to the trouble, fairly extensive actually, in pointing out WHY he thought the ideas were bad, ill-advised, impractical or otherwise flawed…something you have not bothered to do, merely attempted to cloud the waters by pointing out politics. So, why don’t YOU input something into the discussion and point out what you think is good in the OP and why you think it’s good and practical…or, hell, that you think it’s good, even if it’s totally impractical?
So, take the bull by the horns (rather than what comes out the other end) and show us all what progressive ideas can do for the average Joe American, not just for the poor. Step up and help the OP out by participating in more than some one liners and political snipes. Lets seem some meat to go with the potatoes.
-XT
It’s an appeal to experience. Like when you learned there was no Tooth Fairy. And when examined, these idealistic broad-stroke Freshman rants stand on as much substance.
[quote=“XT, post:286, topic:618444”]
It might help if you started with specifics. Which ones do you consider good ideas…and why do you think they are good ideas? Why do you consider them commonsense, and why do you think commonsense is important?</quote>
Fair enough. Don’t have time enough to do them all at once. But we can go one at a time.
An unregulated free market, as history proves again and again, is a fricking NIGHTMARE. The excesses of the early days of the industrial age, with people working literally for starvation wages, children working long hours in dangerous conditions, etc. etc. are proof of that. The stagnant wages of the middle class for the last few decades, with the wealthy grabbing all the economic gains, is further proof. The Great Depression proved that banks must be regulated to keep them from gambling all our money away on dubious financial instruments. The Crash of 2008 and the resulting Bush Depression proved the same thing … again. It happened because too many people bought that line about free, unregulated markets being good. they are not good, they are bad. They crash. The wealthy grab all the economic gains while the middle class and the poor just limp along, or things get worse.
We need regulation and a strong social safety net to keep our economy healthy, not the outright theft and greed characterized by the “free market.”
It’s just a variant on argumentum ad hominem. Sad, really. Find another leg to stand on.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Fair enough. Don’t have time enough to do them all at once. But we can go one at a time.
[/QUOTE]
That’s fair. I totally understand about RL impacting posting. I’ve been lucky this week and have had more time than usual to post and read through threads, which has been a real treat.
Well, whether that’s true or not true seems, to me at least, to be irrelevant, since we don’t have an unregulated free market. We have a highly regulated free market, but the regulation is spotty in places (several iterations of regulation, deregulation, new regulation, modified regulation, etc etc) and inconsistent…and not always rationally applied OR enforced.
Actually, I agree, but the devil would be in the details. Just saying we need regulation doesn’t really mean anything, since we HAVE regulation already. We don’t HAVE an unregulated free market system, and in truth we’ve never had one…in fact, I’m unsure if, historically, such a beast ever existed anywhere in the world. There have ALWAYS been some regulation or impact by the government on any economic system or market. Same with the social safety net…pointing out that we should have one is ignoring the fact that we DO have one. Now, specifically, you might put forth that we need a better one, with more straps on the net, and I might or might not agree with you. It all comes down to details. In THEORY what you are asking for here is something that most people would agree on, while pointing out that we already have it. The devil would be in the details.
-XT
Guess you need to look up “ad hominem” then.
Oh, right, mean argument to authority. Oops.
No problem. But it’s not an Appel to Authority either. In an Appeal to Authority, the person with Authority in subject A, say physics, makes a claim in a field having nothing to do with his expertise, say… opera.
Now if you insist on categorizing it as a fallacy, might I suggest: an Appeal to Knowing What The Fuck One Is Talking About.
No, an appeal to authority is exactly what it sounds like, “You must accept what this man or woman says because they are learned and wise” without any regard for what is being said. It does not matter if he or she is speaking in their field or not. It is simply an appeal to the authority of the source of the assertions, without reference to the assertions themselves. Which is definitely what your claims were. In an honest debate, you examine the claims themselves.
If enough ordinary people are willing to pay for a “change for the better”, then actually giving them what they want is a good way to make a profit.
Your argument is essentially that the government should “prod” the car companies into building cars that no one wants to buy.
Merely a hiccup in their ongoing project, which is not so much to “comport with reality” (per magellan) as to buy the rights to it.
It doesn’t work; it often does not.
Industries in the national interest need to be prodded. What individuals want is not a good guide to what we all NEED. We need to switch off of fossil fuels, and we need to do it fast. Waiting for the market will not work. It hasn’t worked for 40 years. Time is up for your misguided method. what you are asking is that the people continue to pay for this rotten system, with no alternative, until many are priced off the road and our planet no longer supports us.
Baloney. People failed to require them to develop and make them.
Electric cars work great. Test drive a Tesla and see. We’ve always had electric cars. It was just more convenient to use oil. I’ve heard all this nonsense before; don’t think I haven’t. They didn’t want to spend the money on it. They could have done so. If they can do it now, they could have done it then; and did. They needed to put out more of them so the price could come down; decades ago.
You didn’t see the Heat documentary I linked here earlier, did you?
Electric cars are not a fantasy. Tell that to Ford who advertised on this very page for their green car. Fantasy? These cars exist now for sure, and the car companies need to be forced to make nothing else BUT. Progress on that forcing, is being made in spite of your reactionary extreme-right-wing politicians, and those you would like to elect (Romney) or re-elect (the dopey tea party congress) this November. The only obstacles are, and ever were, political obstacles put up by free-market believers and corporatist shrills.
They for sure sat on it. “Leaps” are made because time and money is put into the research. It wasn’t. Just like the oil companies don’t invest in alternatives either. If you think they do, you have been hoodwinked by ads. And you look to Eastern Europe and Asia for advanced tech 3 decades ago? Look again. Computer thingees have little or nothing to do with electric car batteries, which can be built in a mechanic’s garage. And in any case they would not exist without the government space program. If you had been in charge in the 60s, with your ideology, we wouldn’t even have computer thingees like we have today. Not to mention no highways for your precious gas guzzlers to drive on.
Right, there was no conspiracy; market forces were allowed to rule, meaning the convenience of the CEOs instead of what is in the interest of the people, and this allowed GM to kill the electric car; and the result is the polluted and endangered planet and overpriced transportation methods that we’ve got. Thanks to you guys, and ONLY you guys.
Is it possible magellan recognizes appeals to one’s own authority in an unrelated field as fallacious, but is ok with appeals to outside authority in a relevant field?
Great idea, since a “test drive” is about all that 90% of Americans can afford.
Why wasn’t this dream car of yours produced in any of the numerous “progressive” countries out there in past decades? Where’s the Swedish Volt from 1970 or the French of German version?
Sure, it’s possible but it’s still an appeal to authority.