On February 12 2012 09:31 Dapper_Cad wrote: The wealthy are hard working and the poor are lazy. Non-whites are disproportionately poor. Therefore non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
I don't think it's a straw man, it's a conclusion which is difficult to escape given his initial assumptions. I was really looking forward to watching him try, or not.
In deference to Stealth Blue and the thread itself...
I disagree, just because A = B and B = C, does not mean that A = C.
On February 12 2012 09:31 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On February 12 2012 08:25 Yongwang wrote: Ron Paul is actually winning the GOP race! Take a look at this:
Is this accurate, or is this just spin?
It seems legit, especially coming from a source that is ideologically opposite to that of Ron Paul.
A doesnt = B and B doesnt = C. It requires all 3 statements to be true. If you only take the first 2 premises, you prove nothing, if you take the second premise and the conclusion you prove nothing, but if you put the three together you do. For some people its easier to understand in a statement, because logic is not their strongsuit, so here you go.
If you believe that rich people are only rich because they work hard, and poor people are only poor because they are lazy, and you believe that non-whites are disproportionnately poor, you believe it is because non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
I remember learning back in 2007 in a Political Science class that Asians were the wealthiest Americans. So this whole white vs non-white argument has a flaw. That is of course if Asians being the wealthiest still holds true.
While i am sure the exact definition of hard working and the existance of the american dream is fun to discuss it has little to no bearing on this actual topic of this thread.
I understand the concept in the vid (we sort of have the same system for some political positions in the Netherlands but is this actualy what is going on? Considering the bias from american news depending on who funds there pocket one video doesnt seem like a lot to go on.
While i am sure the exact definition of hard working and the existance of the american dream is fun to discuss it has little to no bearing on this actual topic of this thread.
I understand the concept in the vid (we sort of have the same system for some political positions in the Netherlands but is this actualy what is going on? Considering the bias from american news depending on who funds there pocket one video doesnt seem like a lot to go on.
I'd say theoretically it is POSSIBLE that Ron Paul could win the most delegates, because it's not really possible to quantify at this point who is winning what delegates. But I would say the likelihood is extremely unlikely. The Ron Paul camp is simply using the uncertainty of the delegate percentages as a campaign point. I'd say Ron Paul probably will have a higher percentage of delegates relative to the caucus votes, but not enough to actually beat Romney.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't LOVE to see RP pull this stunt off and actually win. Talk about drama on an international scale!
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
Well, some states have updated to a winner take all system so it doesn't make a difference at the convention. However, caucuses have existed before 1800s and some continue in today's time. However, the source actually does seem legit. If Paul supporters stay, then they do get spots at the convention. Although they "promise" to vote for the candidate that won, they are not required to break that promise and can vote for whoever they like at the national convention where it counts. It does not happen often, heck never, but it can and seems like a slim possibility in this year's election.
See, the media estimates the delegates through a proportional method and relies on the promise that I talked about earlier. However, like I said before, the promise can be broken and then the method that the media uses is screwed. Their method is not screwed since it's worked many times before but this may be one of the few elections it does not.
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
Well, some states have updated to a winner take all system so it doesn't make a difference at the convention. However, caucuses have existed before 1800s and some continue in today's time. However, the source actually does seem legit. If Paul supporters stay, then they do get spots at the convention. Although they "promise" to vote for the candidate that won, they are not required to break that promise and can vote for whoever they like at the national convention where it counts. It does not happen often, heck never, but it can and seems like a slim possibility in this year's election.
See, the media estimates the delegates through a proportional method and relies on the promise that I talked about earlier. However, like I said before, the promise can be broken and then the method that the media uses is screwed. Their method is not screwed since it's worked many times before but this may be one of the few elections it does not.
There is a possibility RP is bluffing but that remains to been seen. If they do have the majority of delegates, it's going to be a great show! :D
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
Well it really has nothing to do with the US election system. It's simply what the two major political parties choose to do. Each political party can choose it's own means of selecting a candidate, the government has nothing to do with it.
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
We're a republican and representative democracy, not a direct democracy. While many changes (amendments 12 and 17 mostly) have been heading towards direct democracy, our traditions and the way the original constitution was framed was to be a republic "group" that was governed from bottom up instead of from top down.
It's not so much a "flaw" as it is an actual representation of how our government actually works.
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
Well, some states have updated to a winner take all system so it doesn't make a difference at the convention. However, caucuses have existed before 1800s and some continue in today's time. However, the source actually does seem legit. If Paul supporters stay, then they do get spots at the convention. Although they "promise" to vote for the candidate that won, they are not required to break that promise and can vote for whoever they like at the national convention where it counts. It does not happen often, heck never, but it can and seems like a slim possibility in this year's election.
See, the media estimates the delegates through a proportional method and relies on the promise that I talked about earlier. However, like I said before, the promise can be broken and then the method that the media uses is screwed. Their method is not screwed since it's worked many times before but this may be one of the few elections it does not.
There is a possibility RP is bluffing but that remains to been seen. If they do have the majority of delegates, it's going to be a great show! :D
Well, he's not exactly flat out lying or telling the absolute truth. He's never claimed that he will win the majority of the delegates, he has just said that they are chances that he might. The chances are actually pretty high compared to past elections because he has such a loyal following.
The thing is that he's using Obama's strategy in 2008. Focus on caucus states. There, you have to be able to organize (something that Ron Paul does extremely well) and when you organize, you get delegates. Most candidates just encourage voters to vote and leave. However, Ron Paul encourages them to vote and stay so they can be elected to the convention and that strategy has worked out for him. So yea, while other candidates are trying to win, they are not playing it exactly right. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is trying to win both the state and the delegates from it. And in the end, it's the delegates that count, so Paul is playing it exactly right.
That's also a reason why he isn't dropping out of the race so early unlike Bachmann and Perry.
Coming from a background in debate, this argument about how hard people work is kind of silly. First off, all you people need to define what "hard work" is as Roe has been calling for. Is it defined by your salary? The value added to the product? Happiness? Pick one, or make up your own dammit. If you are debating over something and you don't even define it, you're pretty much swinging and missing each other.
For example, let me argue from a Confucian perspective. Hard work is defined as value added. Farmers are good because they turn seeds and dirt into food, clearing adding value to the product. Artists/scribes turn paper and ink into pretty pictures and writings. Merchants take goods from the artist or the farmer and sell it for more (that is a definition, btw). They are leechers. They don't actually contribute anything to society.
What we have come to refer to as "the 1%" of the richest Americans is a diverse group, but many of the ultra-wealthy are essentially "merchants" because of the way they make money-- investments, etc. Theerefore, as merchants, they do not add value. Therefore, they don't work hard. They are lazy.
There are probably flaws in this argument, as I hashed it out in about five minutes and didn't bother checking it very thoroughly. But, the point is that all arguments have flaws or points you can argue, and that is what you should be doing rather than just herpderping around.
On February 12 2012 13:11 ticklishmusic wrote: Coming from a background in debate, this argument about how hard people work is kind of silly. First off, all you people need to define what "hard work" is as Roe has been calling for. Is it defined by your salary? The value added to the product? Happiness? Pick one, or make up your own dammit. If you are debating over something and you don't even define it, you're pretty much swinging and missing each other.
For example, let me argue from a Confucian perspective. Hard work is defined as value added. Farmers are good because they turn seeds and dirt into food, clearing adding value to the product. Artists/scribes turn paper and ink into pretty pictures and writings. Merchants take goods from the artist or the farmer and sell it for more (that is a definition, btw). They are leechers. They don't actually contribute anything to society.
What we have come to refer to as "the 1%" of the richest Americans is a diverse group, but many of the ultra-wealthy are essentially "merchants" because of the way they make money-- investments, etc. Theerefore, as merchants, they do not add value. Therefore, they don't work hard. They are lazy.
There are probably flaws in this argument, as I hashed it out in about five minutes and didn't bother checking it very thoroughly. But, the point is that all arguments have flaws or points you can argue, and that is what you should be doing rather than just herpderping around.
You fail to acknowledge that making the marketplace more efficient isn't a value addition in it's own right. It's a HUGE flaw.
On February 12 2012 13:11 ticklishmusic wrote: Coming from a background in debate, this argument about how hard people work is kind of silly. First off, all you people need to define what "hard work" is as Roe has been calling for. Is it defined by your salary? The value added to the product? Happiness? Pick one, or make up your own dammit. If you are debating over something and you don't even define it, you're pretty much swinging and missing each other.
For example, let me argue from a Confucian perspective. Hard work is defined as value added. Farmers are good because they turn seeds and dirt into food, clearing adding value to the product. Artists/scribes turn paper and ink into pretty pictures and writings. Merchants take goods from the artist or the farmer and sell it for more (that is a definition, btw). They are leechers. They don't actually contribute anything to society.
What we have come to refer to as "the 1%" of the richest Americans is a diverse group, but many of the ultra-wealthy are essentially "merchants" because of the way they make money-- investments, etc. Theerefore, as merchants, they do not add value. Therefore, they don't work hard. They are lazy.
There are probably flaws in this argument, as I hashed it out in about five minutes and didn't bother checking it very thoroughly. But, the point is that all arguments have flaws or points you can argue, and that is what you should be doing rather than just herpderping around.
You fail to acknowledge that making the marketplace more efficient isn't a value addition in it's own right. It's a HUGE flaw.
There we go, that's exactly what I mean. Point out a flaw in the argument.
And just about something posted earlier... The actual income of any particular "race" can be statistically attributed to their edcuation level. There is only ONE group this does not apply to, and that is black women. And they exceed earning expectation based on education.
On February 12 2012 09:31 Dapper_Cad wrote: The wealthy are hard working and the poor are lazy. Non-whites are disproportionately poor. Therefore non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
I don't think it's a straw man, it's a conclusion which is difficult to escape given his initial assumptions. I was really looking forward to watching him try, or not.
In deference to Stealth Blue and the thread itself...
I disagree, just because A = B and B = C, does not mean that A = C.
It seems legit, especially coming from a source that is ideologically opposite to that of Ron Paul.
A doesnt = B and B doesnt = C. It requires all 3 statements to be true. If you only take the first 2 premises, you prove nothing, if you take the second premise and the conclusion you prove nothing, but if you put the three together you do. For some people its easier to understand in a statement, because logic is not their strongsuit, so here you go.
If you believe that rich people are only rich because they work hard, and poor people are only poor because they are lazy, and you believe that non-whites are disproportionnately poor, you believe it is because non-whites are disproportionately lazy.
Wealthy people are hard working. Bob isn't wealthy. Therefore, Bob isn't hard working.
Just thought I'd interject something here.
1. No one said "ONLY wealthy people are hard working". It just said that wealthy people tend to be hard working. There are also hard working people elsewhere. So no. Your A=B, B=C, so A=C doesn't work in this situation.
2. This is much more important: Wealthy people ARE hard working, but they generally worked hard in a different way than others who work hard. Namely, they tend to be able to defer instant satisfaction now for greater satisfaction later. One example of this is education. Working hard in school, getting good grades and scholarships and studying in college are all examples of putting off instant gratification for hope of future reward. Education is the single greatest determinant of income in the US (and almost surely the world). I don't think anything else even comes close. So ya, there can be a poor guy who is working super hard, but if you looked at him in High School and saw that he chose not to apply himself then, unfortunately, working hard later as a handyman or whatever, is not going to help him rise out of his station.
So its not really about how hard you work. But whether or not you applied yourself early for the abstract idea of future rewards later. Personality, family, life circumstances, and many other factors I am sure will help determine if you are able to defer instant gratification, although I do think there is a lot of research that shows that most of this aspect of your personality is determined by around the age of 5. Will try to find the study I am talking about and post it here.
While i am sure the exact definition of hard working and the existance of the american dream is fun to discuss it has little to no bearing on this actual topic of this thread.
I understand the concept in the vid (we sort of have the same system for some political positions in the Netherlands but is this actualy what is going on? Considering the bias from american news depending on who funds there pocket one video doesnt seem like a lot to go on.
I'd say theoretically it is POSSIBLE that Ron Paul could win the most delegates,
I didn't watch the video, but no, I don't think Ron Paul will win the most delegates. Romney already has more delegates than all of his opponents combined. At least at the time of this writing. And he is much better prepared to take the campaign national and compete in dozens of states simultaneously than any of his opponents so his delegate count is gonna start skyrocketing.
This nomination will easily go to Romney. The media doesn't want you to think that because close elections get them money cause that is more interesting than a dull, "yup he's gonna win". So they try to make it exciting.
EDIT: Also, could someone summarize the video pls. I'm definitely not gonna watch 12 minutes of that to find out what the deal is. Especially since it sounds flaky.
On February 12 2012 14:47 Savio wrote: EDIT: Also, could someone summarize the video pls. I'm definitely not gonna watch 12 minutes of that to find out what the deal is. Especially since it sounds flaky.
In non-binding caucuses, the actual votes don't matter. The delegates are chosen in a separate process afterwards. Ron Paul supporters are very involved in the delegate selection process and are thus collecting way more delegates than the percentage of votes indicate. RCP and other sites are just assuming the delegate percentages match the percentage of votes, but this isn't the case.
Ron Paul's strategy is therefore to collect delegates in the caucus states and hope that the proportional primaries split between the candidates to an extent that Mitt Romney can't get enough delegates at the convention to secure the nomination. This probably won't happen since the Republican Party leaders will do everything in their power to ensure it doesn't.
For the most part, the only wealthy people who do not work hard are those who get their wealth through inheritance. Most people who are wealthy work their asses off to earn it. No one gets wealthy on a simple 9 to 5 schedule.
On February 12 2012 16:00 xDaunt wrote: For the most part, the only wealthy people who do not work hard are those who get their wealth through inheritance. Most people who are wealthy work their asses off to earn it. No one gets wealthy on a simple 9 to 5 schedule.
Eh, there are plenty of jobs which will get you into the top 1%--- professors, researchers, engineers, doctors and the like easily make 6 figures on a more or less "standard" work schedule. But past that, you need some serious mojo.
On February 12 2012 16:00 xDaunt wrote: For the most part, the only wealthy people who do not work hard are those who get their wealth through inheritance. Most people who are wealthy work their asses off to earn it. No one gets wealthy on a simple 9 to 5 schedule.
Eh, there are plenty of jobs which will get you into the top 1%--- professors, researchers, engineers, doctors and the like easily make 6 figures on a more or less "standard" work schedule. But past that, you need some serious mojo.
Getting to six figures isn't the same as wealthy. In fact, it is surprising how little six figures actually gets you, especially when you factor kids into the equation.
EPT
