Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox News Argues Billionaires Are Victims" video.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bunceman4613 , easy. Take healthcare for example. Kyle and Bernie are two people on the far left. Now both sides will use emotions and both sides will use facts. But when you push to the core the left bases their ideas on emotions. For example. Kyle points to the 45,000 who die a year due to lack of access to healthcare in the US. He then goes on a pure emotional rant on how that is terrible, and how it doesn't happen in other nations, and how we need to do something and that M4A is the solution. That is how the far left acts.
Now, someone on the right will proceed like this. They will explain how in every nation someone dies due from "preventable" cases due to lack of access, it is referred to as amenable mortality. It happens in all nations. But there are shortcomings in how amenable mortality is measure making that number difficult to obtain and compared. But Kyle saying the number of deaths in other nations due to lack of healthcare is zero is factually incorrect because he is making an emotional argument. Also, you have to consider the lifestyle of those 45,000. As Katherine Baicker put it, those 45,000 a poor and bad health is associated with being poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of access or due to being in bad health to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. There is also the limitation so resources. Kyle and Bernie will claim healthcare should be a right. But consider this, you have 4 people on a deserted island with three sandwiches. They decide to make a sandwich a right. That still leaves them with only 3. Making something a right does not produce more of it. But calling it a right is purely an emotional argument. Resources are limited, that is a fact that one must realize.
There are other examples but some sound bites by a far leftists, Bernie. He says "living wage", "fair share", "milllionaires and billionaires", "wealth inequality" etc. But he doesn't provide an actual logic argument. He only stirs emotions.
There is value in having emotions. We are human. It is the whole subjective vs objective part of the issue. Consider a small example. Say I were to buy one of my friends a drink at the bar. Was that a wise investment? Objectively no as I gained nothing of material value. But subjectively it is as I enjoy buying drinks for my friends. That is based on my personal feeling. Now expand that to the large scale. Should we find a way to get access to those 45,000? Sure. But we have to see the whole picture. What is their overall health? What is their lifestyle? What diseases do they actually have? What is their chance of survival? We have to consider all of that and it becomes complex. The problem is that the emotional argument is the easiest one to make thus the left over takes the media with their appeal to emotion arguments where the factual and logical one takes a long time to explain and break down.
Again, this does not mean one side is greater than the other. We need both.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , I did. Kyle takes some small data point and makes an emotional argument on it without digging deeper. To give another example, Kyle will say that 50% of wage earners earn $30,000 or less. He will push that on a purely emotional rant. The logical side will dig deeper and look at cost of living, household income, etc. Kyle will saying something like 76% live paycheck to paycheck and then go on an emotional rant. The logical side will dig deeper and think how many of them are simply bad at managing money.
The left will take a bit of information and make an emotional argument on it. Going back to the 45,000 number. You did it yourself saying " the point was that the number is so large there is a very very good chance that a significant number of them didn't need to die." What do you base that off of? Pure emotions. How is that number large? Compare to what? And if you give them access to healthcare what is their chances of survival? In the book "Being Mortal" the author there writes that people seek modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years when really they will only live another 5 or 10 months. So if you give those 45,000 care and they live only 5 more months, is that a success?
That is the problem with the far left, they refuse to ask these questions. They refuse to dig deeper. They take one piece of information and then run with it on an emotional rant.
"no it's an ethical argument. also, what resource shortage are you referring to? lol."
Ethical as in emotional. And resources are limited. Did you even read my scenario? The same applies in healthcare. Doctors, nurses, beds, medication, etc. are limited. That is why rationing exists to begin with.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415127/
"in the first place, talking points aren't a bias; they are a means of communicating; you just don't understand the arguments."
Taking points are designed to stir emotions.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205
"You don't know what an emotional claim or stance is - what you describe here is an ethical position. Everyone has their reasons for an ethical position. Those are what can be emotional or not."
Ethical as in emotional. You are proving my point.
"Fyi, this is the opposite of logos. People's lives have improved for thousands of years in the absence of liquid currency, so any correlation between free market, bettering people's lives even at the bottom, is vapid - uninformed - and while intuitive, also emotional. Also, kind of the nail in the coffin: free markets don't exist. Corollary: There is good evidence that in absence of regulation a 'free market' quickly becomes authoritarian and tyrannical. This is easily observed if you know anything about the world, so I won't waste my time explaining why."
What? What evidence do you have? The free market is authoritarian? You refuse to waste your time as you don't have evidence. That is you making an emotional argument there. When you say things like "waste my time" or "look it up" or "common sense" you are really saying that you don't have an actual rebuttal, that your emotions are getting the best of you and instead of a logical argument you just dismiss the discussion.
The free market leads to investment. In competition you want to beat your competitors. To do that you have to invest.
To grow the stock price they have to actually sell to the consumers.
We have a lot of scarcity in this nation. You bring up food and buildings, which I agree. But we have scarcity in skilled labor. We have scarcity in proper technology. I work in science. I am a researcher in that field. We have a ton of projects to do and so do many other groups. Why? To start we are good at what we do. Next, it is because of lack of skilled labor. There is so much to uncover in science but few people can actually do what we do. Relatively speaking only a handful of people can do what I do. Thus I am given a lot of projects. If we had more skilled labor we can get those projects done.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 The date point is small when you don't factor in everything. To give another example, Kyle talks about wage stagnation. There is data on that, but only if you use CPI inflation. If you use PCE inflation or GDP deflator or Boskin Commission adjustment wages have not been stagnate. There is an argument on both sides of that issue, but to really progress you need to look at the full story and meet in the middle.
You say it isn't small to someone else, which is true. But that is the subjective point of the issue. Again with wage stagnation. The far right point of view is looking at every data point and realizing that wages have not been stagnant. The far left point is to look at one data, CPI inflation alone, and say wages have been stagnant. The middle is realizing that wages have not been stagnant based on many data points, but there is always room for improvement.
You saying "common sense" is an emotional argument. You are dismissing the argument simply based on feeling as opposed to an actual rebuttal.
"You're being emotional. Some do ask more questions than others. Like in any other group of people."
How am I being emotional? I am simply stating a fact. The far left will take a point and go on a purely emotional rant about it without digging deeper.
My scenario is legit. I expanded it to healthcare and gave a study related to it. You are now dismissing it. How are resources not scarce?
Yes, both sides use talking points. The issue is that on the far left, when pushed, they don't have anything else besides talking points. Look at Bernie, he is the far left. He has been pushed many times and he only has talking points. Look at how he reacted to that hair saloon owner. He had no desire to understand her business, her profit margins, how many long term vs temporary employees she had, etc. He only saw a business that must pay more. That is the radical, far left point of view. He was not looking at the issue objectively. And no, not every argument is designed to evoke emotions. Many arguments are there to look at something purely objectively with no emotions at all.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , ethical is subjective thus it is emotional. What is ethical to you may not be ethical to someone else. It is ethical to keep old people alive who don't produce anything? There is an example.
How do free markets not exist?
You refuse to give a rebuttal because you don't have one. You just went on a rant dismissing the argument as opposed to giving a rebuttal. It isn't me being emotional but me being logical. Dismissing the argument is being emotional. Being logical is breaking down an argument and giving an actual rebuttal. In your long rant on why you refuse to give a rebuttal you could have actually given on.
The free market leads to investment. Proof? Look at Amazon. They worked in the free market and invested. The invested to allow for streaming, to do next day delivery, to expand. That forced competitors like Walmart to compete to do Walmart pickup. Now compare that to a government ran system where they have no actual incentive to serve the consumer, at least not the federal government (local ones are different). Look at the many failed federal governments systems such as the Community Mental Health Act or how Medicare took nearly 40 years to finally cover prescription benefits.
Again, a company has to actually serve the consumer, period. You talk about trade, which is true. But for the company to see their stock prices go up they have to have a consumer. You are, again, dismissing the argument.
Yes, we have a scarcity in medicine, doctors, nurses, etc.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , there is a ton of data to suggest that wages have not been stagnant
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=162s
The far left viewpoint is to pull out that one data point that suggests wages have been stagnant, run on it as if things are bad, stir emotions, and present an over simplified solution. Fore example, Kyle will take that point, claim things are bad, and either provide no solution or say that we need to raise the min. wage, which is an over simplified solution.
The far right will look at all the data and dig deeper and see that wages are not stagnant based on all the data presented as more data shows it isn't, and claim there isn't a problem and offer zero solution. Both extremes are not good as one wants a grossly over simplified solution that really creates more problems and the far right wants to do nothing. The situation can be reversed but that is typically how it falls out. The solution is really in the middle. Yes, most data shows that wages have not been stagnant. But that doesn't mean things can't be better nor that we should try to change things as some people are still struggling.
Most people who are not informed typically make emotional arguments, such as Kyle.
"Especially when you call a group of people less rational than another when all you have are anecdotes."
I am giving solid examples based on policy ideas. Ideas like min. wage, M4A, living wage, vilifying rich people, ripping on corporations like Amazon are all being pushed on emotional arguments by the far left. Bernie Sanders is the best example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bapp45Vx0UE&t=2138s
Fast forward to the 35 minute mark. Bernie had no desire to try to understand her profit margins, how much was spent on payroll, the number of long term vs short term employees, etc. Later he simply pulled the argument of "what if your employees get sick?" , a purely emotional take. When pushed to the corner he pulls emotions.
Now compare that to Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ&t=18s
Bill was a centrist democrat. Notice how he at least understood the other side's position? He showed he knew how a business operates and the challenges they faced. He was willing to discuss the numbers and facts.
Clinton understood the complexity of the issue, Bernie doesn't. Bernie just feels that we can magically give people healthcare and ignores the complexity involved.
"So far the only scarcity you've demonstrated is a scarcity of time | time to train people | time to engineer people perhaps."
It isn't time but lack of people willing to become doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. There is plenty of time, people just don't want be trained. That brings up another point. The far left pushes the Green New Deal and one point is that they can re-train people for new jobs. Again, a grossly over simplified solution to a very complex issue as if people are going to be willing to change careers.
The far left either has no solutions or grossly over simplify them. Typically the far left has over simplified excuses where the far right has none. A great point on the left's easy solutions is outlined in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsmUw5FMxH0&t=76s
"Also it occurs to me your analogy is a little inaccurate.
The right isn't a free sandwich. The right is to partake in a food called sandwich, when it becomes available and according to need."
If you want to go with that than we have that right already with healthcare.
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 "When one makes an ethical claim, it's usually based on some other ethic, which hopefully both parties agree on.
It need not be subjective, and the process of the argument need not be emotional - depending on what is discussed and how passionate each side is.
"
Being ethical is subjective. Is it ethical to have the death penalty? It is ethical to limit how many kids parents can have? That varies by nations. It is purely subjective.
"look up what a free market is and try to find one."
Easy, all across the US. All throughout history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
If you want to go to the extreme of free market means zero government then sure. But to me free markets means limited government. If you want I can go farther but the best growth we have in this nation when the federal government is hands off and allows the states and individuals to be free in the market.
"Sure, you're right.
It's not cause this is a tangent, and way too deep a topic for a forum.
"
I love discussing these issues, I am all for a discussion. So at this point I will just pass this off as you have not argument. You are making an emotional argument at that point.
"When you assume you know why I refuse to debate in the way you want ~ you are not using any evidence because you have none available to you."
Well, as I said in my earlier comment, the far left typically offers over simplified solutions as they refuse to dig deeper and understand the complexity of the issue. Thus they make an over simplified claim and move one which is what you are doing. You can't go farther beyond the emotions.
"Look, I don't disagree, so I'm not sure if you know you're going on a tangent, but...
you need to prove that free market implies investment, so you need to prove that a free market can't exist if it doesn't lead to investment."
In order to succeed in competition you have to invest. The evidence is clear, in a free market you need to invest. If you don't than your competitors will beat you. It leads to economic dynamism. Consider this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e00tPtBRUg&t=2s
Why is it that the cabbing company wants to restrict Uber? Because Uber is investing to grow and are a competitor in a free market. The cabbing industry wants to restrict that. The free market leads to investment.
That wasn't a tall order at all.
"Don't disagree, except look at all the companies that have failed. They aren't countable."
Companies fail because they made poor investments and a competitor over powered them. Companies fail all the time. That is not a bad thing. That happens in a free market. What doesn't happen in the free market is companies failing but using government to keep alive. Case in point in that video, the cabbing companies trying to use government to restrict the growth of Uber.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205
"You can't really have anything close to a free market if government is subsidizing education, transportation, food and water, and communication."
If you are talking about free markets as in zero government than I agree. But what I am talking about is limited government that serves the best interest of the people. Even people on the far right understand the need for government. In the US the federal government is limited to dealing with foreign affairs and handling commerce between states. All the rest of the duties are left to the states and local governments but they are restricted by the Constitution. Watch that Milton Friedman video I sent you. He said there is a desire to have money spent by government, but it should be local to see if people are getting their money's worth. The more local the government is the more it serves the people. So on the issues you brought up, they are mostly ran and funded locally. Only 8% of all money in education is federal, the rest are private, state and local. States set up their own curriculum. Water is ran locally. At the local level government works for the people and the people are free from and overbearing, oppressing central force.
"About making simplified claims, what is it you think you are doing when you say lefties tend to make simplified claims? "
I didn't say all lefties. I have you an example of Bill Clinton. I am talking about the radical left. That is because when you go to the core the political left bases their ideas on emotions. Doesn't mean they can't use facts and doesn't mean they always make simplified claims. The right can be guilty of it as well. But when you interact with a person on the far left, like Kyle here, you get grossly over simplified claims. On the far right you get basically get zero solutions. The answer, once again, is in the middle. You can be a leftist and still realize the complexity of an issue. Same that someone on the right can understand the subjective point of view and emotions.
"You are hardly being nuanced, trying to find out why it is you have come to that opinion. You are stating it as a fact and using dubious anecdotes where people behave like people."
What anecdotes? I am giving you clear example of policies being pushed and how they are being pushed. Wanting to tax the rich more is going off of people's jealousy and greed. Pushing for a higher min. wage on the idea that people are poor to help the poor single mother is picking on emotions. Saying wages are stagnant by using one data point and pushing the idea that we need to change something is playing with emotions. Saying people are dying and pushing it to change our healthcare system is using emotions. Using a mass shooting to push for gun control is playing with emotions. I can give you a lot of claims.
"How about whenever someone on the right says abortion is murder because mothers speak of them like they're a person. Is this an objective claim?"
Abortion is essentially the one issue that is mainly subjective on both sides. That is why I am pointing to economic issues.
"but also you didn't show a free market implies investment since you didn't show competition leads to investment. you said if there isn't investment they lose to people who do invest more ~ but that's not exactly true a lot of the time. often it is the company that invests more wisely that does better. in addition, if no one tries to compete in the way you suggest - that is if they don't throw money at the problem, there are still ways they can compete with each other, and so there are ways it can be a free market in an important way."
You can have competition without the a free market, but typically it doesn't happen because there is little to no reward and the risk is too high.
"so why assume government failing is a bad thing?"
Government can use force and the ignorance of voters to get what they want, especially the larger the government is. How many businesses have been open for over 200 years and is over $20 trillion in debt?
"Also, you can't effectively argue government is the only kind of organization with longlasting failures when the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful in America. If that market isn't a complete fail I don't know what it is lol."
The healthcare industry is a problem because of the federal government.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
In healthcare we don't have a free market system. We have a heavily regulated and subsidized system that the government is highly involved it.
1
-
1
-
@originalsinquirls1205 , the right does have solutions, but I am saying that the far right doesn't. The radical right has no solution, typically where the radical left has grossly over simplified solutions.
One each point, this is my take on these points.
Gay Rights: Name one right that gays lack. You can't. They have the exact same rights as anyone else. If you bring up marriage their is no right to marriage. Gay marriage was never illegal, it just wasn't recognized by the government. If you feel it should than that is another discussion on the government's role in marriage. But "gay rights" is an emotionally filled argument as you making it sound like that gays are lacking rights where they aren't. If you want to talk about defense against discrimination that is not a right either. Now should there be laws against it? That is another discussion in itself as well. But as whole gays did not lack any rights that straight people had.
Church rights: I don't know where you are going with this so I will punt.
Religion: There is freedom of religion. Government cannot establish anything based on religion. The Constitution is clear on that.
American imperialism: American has done many things well in a short amount of time.
Gun rights: We have a right to bear arms. It is there because it is about personal defense.
Freedom of speech: It is important as it allows for the exchange of ideas
Left leaning ideologies: I don't know where you are going with this?
Death penalty: Some people are for it, some are against it. It is all about culture. I am personally opposed to it. I can see why others are for it.
Immigration: We need to control it. Not opposed to immigrants, but we can't just allow people to come and go on their own free will.
Corporate socialism: The right is against it, and so am I.
Free markets: We discussed this
Flat earth: Who is a flat earther? I have never met one.
Climate change: A complex issue. I feel the left are alarmists. On climate change the issues are
1. How much does man play a role?
2. Is it even a threat?
3. If it is what is the solution?
Prof. Mike Hulme wrote the book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change", a very good book on the issue and why there a discussion to begin with. The far left will use emotions by being alarmists saying the earth is on fire and we are going to die unless we act now. The far right will say it is all natural and we don't need to do anything. The answer is really in the middle. There is a lot of doubt that climate change is a major threat. But like anything we should look into it and change in some way.
You say my position is difficult to defend but I can do so very easily, it just takes me going into great detail as these issues are complex. Climate change, though, is another example of the far left using emotions as opposed to facts and logic. Being alarmists on the issue is going off of pure emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1