I already said that I’m not in favor of this, and for me to justify this any further is insulting. I said that the majority of Latinos and blacks vote for more government, which they do. There’s nothing racist about this. Only a white guilt-ridden apologist could possibly draw that conclusion. You’re the one throwing out the non-sequitor and then you use straw man argumentation yourself (all while falsely accusing me of this). Unbelievable.
I really think that you still misunderstand Caplan’s rationale behind that somewhat. He only wants to improve the current situation even if it is with welfare. And as a side product, if he would succeed, then this would mean that people start thinking more like economists and with less prejudices about this issues, which is an important step in convincing them of anarcho capitalism.
Finally I guess we agree on the overall theme, but differ on the emphasizes. That’s fine for me.
That’s our strength not our weakness. The best ideas will prevail even with no strategy to push them, albeit it might take longer.. And I really wouldn’t say that we are still getting nowhere. Compare Mise’s situation in the 1930ies with ours now.
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand what I wrote. You accused FunkedUp of making a veiled implication of “racial suicide”. I responded that I don’t think he was necessarily making that implication - that is, I was reserving judgement on that accusation. If you think “racial suicide” is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote, then you’ll need to demonstrate that. Otherwise, I see no reason for you to continue to say that FunkedUp’s statements necessarily implied the notion of “racial suicide”. Aside from logic, the implication only exists if he made it on purpose.
You accused FunkedUp of making a veiled implication of “racial suicide”.
No, I noted a similarity in rhetoric between what he was saying and the rhetoric of those 20th century progressives who proclaimed “racial suicide” were saying.
If you think “racial suicide” is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote…
Sheesh, two people who wish not to do basic research. Before you accuse others of faulty logic, please make sure your own logic is sound in advance.
…the implication only exists if he made it on purpose.
People imply things they didn’t mean to (or think they didn’t mean to) all the time. Language and its usage has an interesting way of revealing things about people.
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand what I wrote.
Likewise.
I said that the majority of Latinos and blacks vote for more government, which they do. There’s nothing racist about this.
I never said there was. You created that argument out of thin air, attributed it to me and disproved your own argument as if it were mine. Try arguing something I actually said.
Only a white guilt-ridden apologist could possibly draw that conclusion.
If you’re trying to convince me that you harbor no racist sentiments, this statement does not speak well in your defense.
This is what you wrote earlier:
Now would you say that the part I bolded above is an accusation or not?
Do you or do you not think that the notion of “racial suicide” is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no? I have no idea what “doing basic research” has to do with this. There’s no need for me to make sure my own logic is sound in advance because I’ve advanced no argument in asking you a rather simple question.
I’m assuming you’re using the word “imply” here to mean the same thing as “insinuate”. Would you agree that insinuation is a necessarily intentional action? Am I necessarily responsible for any and all interpretations you make of something I say to you?
Basically, it seems clear to me that you accused FunkedUp of insinuating - i.e. hinting at - the notion of “racial suicide”. I see no reason to make that accusation, as the possibility exists that he didn’t mean to do so, in spite of you interpreting his words otherwise. Do you see what I mean now?
Now would you say that the part I bolded above is an accusation or not?
An accusation of what? An accusation of an insinuation of an implication? Are you reading these logical pretzels of yours?
Do you or do you not think that the notion of “racial suicide” is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no?
You still don’t understand the term, and now you’re asking me to answer a question that misrepresents its use. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
There’s no need for me to make sure my own logic is sound in advance because I’ve advanced no argument in asking you a rather simple question.
You didn’t ask a question the last time, you did exactly as FunkedUp did and levelled a charge without understanding why you were doing it.
I’m assuming you’re using the word “imply” here to mean the same thing as “insinuate”
Not only was I not using “imply” in the same way as “insinuate,” it was quite apparent that I was not doing so.
Basically, on this issue, the real problem is your fetish in word and thought with the word “accuse” (and variations thereof) based upon your faulty assumptions.
Straw man if I ever saw one.
Let’s look at the definitions of imply and insinuate.
Imply:
-
(transitive, of a proposition) to have as a necessary consequence
-
(transitive, of a person) to suggest by logical inference
-
(transitive, of a person or proposition) to express in a suggestive manner rather than as a direct statement; to state tacitly
Insinuate:
-
To make a way for or introduce something by subtle, crafty or artful means.
-
To enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly, as into crevices.
-
To ingratiate oneself; to obtain access or favor by flattery or cunning.
-
To hint at (something); to suggest or express an idea indirectly.
Let’s look at what Autolykos said.
Based on context, it seems that Autolykos is using the definition of imply that means “necessary consequence”. Note how he then goes on to say that it seems that you are using the the word imply to mean “insinuate”, which of course means “to suggest or express an idea indirectly”.
I’m sorry, but it is not apparent at all that this is the case. Please explain.
So, the questions remain, because you chose to not answer them:
and
Straw man if I ever saw one.
If you believe that to be a straw man then I believe you haven’t been reading autolykos’ statements very thoroughly.
Let’s look at the definitions of imply and insinuate.
No, let’s look at the definitions of “imply” and “insinuate” autolykos put forth, since it is those defintions that are at issue in how I answered the question.
You’re trying to justify an argument built upon a faulty premise, or perhaps more pointedly a faulty presupposition. The sentiments made by FunkedUp absolutely imply agreement with certain sentiments set forth by the early 20th century progressives who used the phrase “racial suicide” as a rallying cry against immigrants and immigration (and if anyone had bothered to read what was contained within the link I posted, the similarities are quite obvious). I did not, however, read anything deeper into it, much less insinuate that he had some larger range of agreement with them. Indeed, I took autolykos’ word for it when he said that FunkedUp was not racist nor of racist sentiment.
Unfortunately FunkedUp didn’t wish to heed my advice about exercising caution with words, and in continuing to talk he made statements which would validate such an insinuation were it to be made. He dug himself a hole in misinterpreting criticism of his position and continued to dig a deeper hole in subsequent discussion.
He also stated:
You stated:
Where did Autolykos talk about an “accusation of an insinuation of an implication”? He did not make this argument. You are creating a straw man here. Just admit it and move on.
Okay. Let’s look at his definitions. Oh, wait, you don’t provide what you think he meant by them. So what am I supposed to be looking at? I guess we’ll just have to wait for Autolykos to clear it up for us.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am under the impression that race suicide has to do with the shrinking of a particular race, but not through violence but from a decrease in children born.
What FunkedUp said:
How does this statement imply race suicide of whites? It looks to me like he is saying that as the other groups grow, so will government. This is not the same.
I suppose the irony of the bolded statements will be lost on you.
No, an accusation that FunkedUp insinuated (i.e. intentionally) the notion of “racial suicide” in what he wrote. How exactly do you think this is a “logical pretzel”?
Which term do you think I don’t understand? “Racial suicide”? Or “imply”?
Sorry, I didn’t ask a direct question. The question was implied by the following:
So the implied question there is, “Do you think ‘racial suicide’ is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote?” You’ll also note that I asked this question directly in my last post.
Now then, what charge do you think I levelled?
Not to me. So let’s be clear now. In what sense would you say you were using “imply”?
And which assumptions of mine are faulty, would you say?
I consider “imply” to be commonly used in two different ways. One is strictly logical and denotes entailment. The other is used in the same way as “insinuate”, namely “to hint at or indirectly introduce an idea”. I thought I explained this before, but maybe I was wrong.
The alleged implication isn’t about the racial suicide of the “white race” - it’s about the racial suicide of the “non-white races”. Nevermind, looks like I was mistaken there.
Where did Autolykos talk about an “accusation of an insinuation of an implication”? He did not make this argument. You are creating a straw man here. Just admit it and move on.
So, to recap, you’re incapable of recognizing a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased, and in your world misunderstood humor is tantamount to logical error of the most egregious kind. Gotcha.
Okay. Let’s look at his definitions. Oh, wait, you don’t provide what you think he meant by them. So what am I supposed to be looking at? I guess we’ll just have to wait for Autolykos to clear it up for us.
So does acting flippant because you didn’t follow the argument a valid counterpoint?
How does this statement imply race suicide of whites?
Did I reply to only that sentence in my initial post?
I suppose the irony of the bolded statements will be lost on you.
Only to the extent that the irony of your misuse of the word ‘irony’ will be lost on you, I suppose.
Which term do you think I don’t understand? “Racial suicide”? Or “imply”?
Thanks to your subsequent post I now know that 1) you don’t understand the reference behind “racial suicide” and 2) you never bothered to even glance at the link I provided before you began to argue the point (something I mave made note of repeatedly throughout this discussion):
The alleged implication isn’t about the racial suicide of the “white race” - it’s about the racial suicide of the “non-white races”.
From the very first sentence of my link:
Francis Amasa Walker, president of M.I.T., first declared in 1891 what was soon to become an upper-class mantra: Anglo-Saxons were quietly committing “racial suicide.”
May we please put this faulty argument to rest now?
I will gladly stand corrected on your reference to “racial suicide”. I didn’t bother to glance at the link you provided, because honestly it wasn’t relevant to my argument, which was entirely about your accusation against FunkedUp.
No. First you need to put your red herrings away and respond to the rest of my last post.
But you previously stated:
You just stated that it was “a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased”. But it was not an accurate representation of Autolykos’ argument. That is why it is a straw man. So, you deny it was a straw man, but then you state it was a humorous representation…so, which is it? If it is not an accurate representation, then it is a straw man. And now I’m supposed to think it was funny? I think you should just admit that it was a straw man and just move on.
It’s great that I was flippant, but it doesn’t change the fact that you did not supply what you believed to be Autolyko’s definitons. I attempted to do so based on context and providing the dictionary definitions. You did not attempt to do so. So yes, in this case, I made a valid counterpoint. I pointed out, flippantly, that you made a baseless assertion.
No, so I will requote your original post:
Well, it seems that I quoted the only relevant part of your initial post. So, why did you bring it up? Do you feel that the other stuff has to do with racial suicide? I don’t see it.
You advise someone to be cautious with words, and then, after bitching about how you did not use imply to mean insinuate, you then procede to replace imply with insinuate. See situational irony.
I thought you had explained it well enough before.
Oh, okay. It sounded like that wasn’t the case, since earlier you talked about waiting for me to clear it up. No worries though.
I just didn’t want to go in circles about you meant when we could just ask you!
I didn’t bother to glance at the link you provided, because honestly it wasn’t relevant to my argument, which was entirely about your accusation against FunkedUp.
What part of “your entire argument is flawed” have you failed to grasp at this point? You continue to toss the word ‘accusation’ around willy-nilly without any regard for the fact that the only leg your accusation argument stood upon was a complete misunderstanding of what was being said, which you now acknowledge you misunderstood.
The issue propping up the argument is gone, thus the argument is gone. Again, please let the (non) argument rest.