Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay
Looks like you two haven't a brain between ya
|
Here we go with that ad hominem garbage again .... one of the most common fallacies for those on here with the "13 years etc" mantra as their only argument
The fallacy is: Say, person A, let's call him "c'mon" makes a statement; person B, let's say "jaysay", makes an attack on "c'mon". Therefore, "c'mon's" argument is false.
But in most cases, the character, circumstances etc of a person making an argument do not usually have a bearing on the validity of that argument. Whatever arguments he brings to support his position, whatever weight of evidence he brings to bear, are ignored: "He/she must be wrong because of who he/she is".
I can't say I agree with all the pro-socialist arguments. I believe that socialism has to change to recognize changes that have occured in society ... a no-brainer really. To use decades old rhetoric is not all that useful in the twenty-first century. But some things have not changed. Let's use a Hyndburn MP's number: 95% of folks are nibbling on crumbs that 5% let fall while they are munching on the cake. The exercise of political power is in the hands of the 5%. But the source of that power is with the 95%. It is the task of some form of socialism to mobilize this power, and begin the process of redistributing a nation's wealth.
Another thing that is bugging me is the continual use of simplistic analogies to describe how we can get out of economic messes ... believe me, we get this garbage over here too. A household budget is not a national economy in a complex economic world. I have no doubt that governments manipulate figures, and indulge in some dubious accounting practices, in order to present a picture of the economy that conforms to their ideologies.