JOBLESS COUPLE HAVE 12 KIDS AND GET A $1,000,000 FREE HOME

by Mary 204 Replies latest social current

John Doe

So, are you saying that nazi's support or lack thereof of an argument is irrelevant and an ad hominem then? ;-)
John Doe

Lots of people have supported gun control, but fewer people advocate eugenics!
Here you are using the fallacious argument of argument ad populum, and also strawman. I was not advocating eugenics. Being a college grad, surely you're familiar with these textbook examples of fallacious arguments, aren't you? Or, are you just being intellectually dishonest?
Littledreamfaery

If I remember righty, eugenics consisted partly of the sterilisation of those who were considered to be undesirable breeders, so yes suggesting sterilisation of 'people on benefit' (ie: undesirable breeders) is an encouragement of eugenics.

As a Psychology graduate I know a lot about debating, arguing a point, and discussing topics, I spent three years doing so. It had to be done and still does :).

I don't see what I said being a fallacy, so no, what I've said is not a fallacious argument, what I've said is actually fact based generally, although I know that America and the UK in turn had their own eugenics programs, the only Eugenics program which was comparable with that of the Nazis was the American one. I remember covering this several times during my History classes when I was at college before I attended university.

Whereas Gun control is something that has a lot more support than the whole idea of sterilisation.

Faery
Gill

How unfortunat that so many people cannot see that taking care of other people who are unable to take care of themselves for whatever reason, (and by this I mean the children of this infamous family and NOT the parents) is a reward for those who do it.....ie the tax payers, us etc.
In the UK we all have a safety net and we are all capable of falling into such problems in our lives that other people have to take care of them.....ON THIS POINT I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU THINK, simply because any of us can lose everything in an instant and need others to help us.
Caring for others is what makes us human and a 'superior' species. Caring for others improves the very people who do the caring if they too are supported.
'Getting rid of people' because they do not have enough money, means, health or whatever is just inhuman and beyond comprehension and belongs to the emotionally and spiritually weak and perhaps even the 'jealous'.
I have been in a situation where a JW relative was dying and in need of support of everyone else to do everything. Some 'failed' in what would have made them stronger human beings. Those who did not fail, become stronger, better and even more empathetic human beings.
The failiures were weakened even more because they would NOT even give freely but complained bitterly.
I say that giving to the weakest makes us stronger. Those who complain about this perhaps aught to look deep into their own souls and search for what is missing and try to replace it......before it's too late for their own growth to take place!!
OUTLAW

There was a family with 10 children..I took 4 of them into my home..They are now grown with familys of their own,living a good life..The rest are messed up or,in and out of jail..And..Of no use to society.....How and where your raised makes a difference...OUTLAW
John Doe
If I remember righty, eugenics consisted partly of the sterilisation of those who were considered to be undesirable breeders, so yes suggesting sterilisation of 'people on benefit' (ie: undesirable breeders) is an encouragement of eugenics.
Well here, you don't have to remember when we have things called "dictionaries."
Main Entry: eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: yü-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
What I propose has nothing to do with improving hereditary qualities. What it has to do with is preventing having more kids the state has to take care of. Taking care of your offspring should be a mandatory factor before having kids. This has nothing to do with changing hereditary qualities. Therfore, your argument is a strawman.
As a Psychology graduate I know a lot about debating, arguing a point, and discussing topics, I spent three years doing so. It had to be done and still does :).

I don't see what I said being a fallacy, so no, what I've said is not a fallacious argument, what I've said is actually fact based generally, although I know that America and the UK in turn had their own eugenics programs, the only Eugenics program which was comparable with that of the Nazis was the American one. I remember covering this several times during my History classes when I was at college before I attended university.
Just because you don't see the fallacy behind your arguements has no bearing that they are indeed fallacious and it certainly doesn't speak well for your education. Here, let me provide you with some of your quotes crossreferenced with the definition of the fallacy that fits them. You said:
Really your comment is not worth responding to, the whole idea is reministant of the idea behind eugenics, the idea which fueled the Nazi Empire. No I don't think such a comment is even worthy of a response.
This is an example of two--ad homimen and strawman. The ad hominem comes in because you use Nazis as a reason my proposal can't be correct.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
The strawman comes in because you attack eugenics, however, as I've demonstrated, eugenics is not what I was putting forth.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
You said:
Lots of people have supported gun control, but fewer people advocate eugenics!
This is an example of argument ad populum, or bandwagon. The number of supporters for a particular cause or claim have no bearing on it's accuracy or lack thereof.
Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

"Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

Person L says statement p or argument A.
Person L is in the elite.Statement p is true or argument A is good.
"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.Statement p is true.
~
While you may not see the fallacies, I can assure you they are there and blatant. Where did you receive your eduation?
funkyderek

Littledreamfaery:
I can assume Funkyderek that you disagree with everything I have said just about. [sic]
No need to assume. You can tell what I disagree with by the point-by-point post I made about your comments. I thought I was quite clear but if there's something you're in doubt about, let me know exactly what and once again, I will attempt to communicate my feelings through the magic of words.
You really shouldn't assume I disagree with everything you've written in this thread if I haven't commented on it specifically - although to be honest it's actually a pretty accurate assumption, ironically about the only thing you have got right so far.
I'd even go as far as saying that I'm likely to disagree with pretty much everything you'll ever post on this board, if what we've been subjected to so far is likely to be a representative sample. Even if I do find myself in agreement with you on some issue, I'll no doubt be appalled by the utter incompetence with which you will defend your argument.
Oh well, you know just about [sic] you disagree with it doesn't mean that it is nonsense, I think if you actually bothered to do some research you might find that it wasn't!
That's what I'll do then. Instead of pointing out where and exactly in what way I think you are wrong and why, I'll toddle off and "do some research". Or perhaps you could quote something I've written that you disagree with and explain what you think is wrong with it. That's what normally happens on discussion boards.
I have to say I know it doesn't cost £100 a week to look after one child let alone one family!
Doesn't that depend on how well you look after the child?
I don't really expect an intelligent or productive reply from you, given that much of what you've written on this thread involves you declaring how important your opinion is to you (again ironic as you don't really seem to have formed any coherent opinions of your own). But I hope to be surprised!
Rosalee

Littledreamfaery
Hope you have a tough hide :)
I thought all the venom was reserved for me ... don't take this site too seriously ... Rosie
jgnat

I thought this thread was about freeloaders. How did it end up being a discussion on abortion?
This is an admin's warning to keep on topic and try not to get personal.
Littledreamfaery

Rosalee

:) thank you, I've learnt a lot over the years, and one being that most people are rather cruel. Best not to take things too seriously. *hugs rosie* thank you. :)

Thats funny really John Doe, Part of the Eugenics movement consisted of sterilisation of individuals who were 'not seen as fit for breeding' ... ie: those who were not earning money or who were seen as 'bad' stock.

Wow aren't dictionarys brilliant, but it doesn't tell you what the eugenics movement in America and Germany consisted of, oh what a pity, you need an encylopedia for that I'm afraid. You have not demonstrated that you are not suggesting eugenics:

You Said "What it has to do with is preventing having more kids the state has to take care of."

As shown in an article on Wikipedia, eugenics was used "to save society's resources" and also "Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable." Now that shows that what you are referring to is classed as eugenics.

Now you may want to dismiss what I have said, but what I have said seems to say more than your little clip of a dictionary. My education is perfectly good, I went to an English University, but if I told you where it wouldn't be right as it happens to be in my home town which I choose to keep secret for the benefit of myself as well as others. Of course its normal to want to defend yourself when someone suggests what you have said relates to eugenics :).

Well having lived in and been brought up in a family who had very little money I know it costs as little as £100 a week to feed, and pay the bills of a family of five, yes of five, you don't need to spend loads on fancy holidays and such.

Its a good thing I'm not easierly wounded by the things people say otherwise I might feel a little more than annoyed right now, but hey its funny how you learn to drown out other peoples arrogant put downs.

I still say that this family are better off living on benefits, it is not in their interest to have a job as this does not pay well enough for the entire family to be looked after, firstly considering they would have to pay rent if not on benefits, then for food, then bills such as water, electric etc, and finally for clothing, this wouldn't work out considering he was only earning £300 a week. Imagine how much a weekly food bill would cost. That doesn't mean I think they are right in not working, it just means I can see why they don't. If you were in the same situation you wouldn't either.

I wouldn't expect people who are arrogant and self obsessed to understand what another person thinks, thats what a person who has a heart does, someone who cares about caring for others. The majority of the people in the world think badly of those who take benefits, I know, and I can see why you might think like that. I don't see how making out another person is unintelligent is a good argument, it just shows that you are unwilling to debate a point in a reasonable manner.

Its only a pity that the government is unable to provide work programs for those who are out of work, do you think that might solve the problem, make you feel a little better about them receiving tax payers money? Its not the fault of the people who take advantage of the system, its the fault of the system.

Faery

JOBLESS COUPLE HAVE 12 KIDS AND GET A $1,000,000 FREE HOME

Example of Ad Hominem

Description of Straw Man

Examples of Straw Man

You said:

Lots of people have supported gun control, but fewer people advocate eugenics!

This is an example of argument ad populum, or bandwagon. The number of supporters for a particular cause or claim have no bearing on it's accuracy or lack thereof.

While you may not see the fallacies, I can assure you they are there and blatant. Where did you receive your eduation?

Share this