Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is that equivalent that is lacking in your original argument. You lack the transition premise between, "Mican thinks people should earn $X" to "there should be a law applying to everyone that prevents them from accepting work at less than $X."
    Well, I'll concede that point. I've never bridged that premise to that conclusion because I've never made an argument that starts with that premise nor made an argument with that conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, not really. An opinion is an unsupported, personal conclusion or premise. An argument is a structured set of premises and conclusion.
    Okay, but so what? The premise is a subjective opinion and it leads, via an argument that is based on that premise, to a conclusion that is likewise subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "There should be a law against murder" isn't an argument. It is an unsupported conclusion.

    P1: All human beings have a right to life.
    P2: No individual has the right to override that right deliberately.
    P3: The state has a right in ensuring P1.
    C: There should be a law against murder.

    That is an argument.
    And both the premise and the conclusion are subjective.

    Have we lost the thread here? I thought you were arguing that I was providing an objective conclusion based on a subjective premise. I'm not. My conclusion is subjective just like your murder conclusion is subjective.

    So we have a subjective premise leading to a subjective conclusion in a subjective argument. What's the problem?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, we can see this extremely clearly. Do you agree with the statement, "no one should be allowed to schlorp?"
    Of course the answer is that I can't answer that question since I don't know what "Shlorping" is but as far as I can tell, this issue does not apply to any of our issues. We definitely know what murder is. We also know what a Living Wage is (an acceptable standard of living). You can argue that we don't know where the bar of "acceptable" is, but you can't say that we have no idea what the term means.

    So I don't see what "shlorp" makes clear. There are no concepts in the debate that we have no clue to what they mean.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because the definition of the term murder contains terms about its practical application. Murder is a pre-meditated homicide. The fact that it is homicide (so we apply it to killing people) and pre-meditated (intentional) defines how it is applied.
    Support or retract that the definition of murder (pre-meditated homicide) defines how it's applied.

    As far as I know, how we apply it is up to the people (so we can even do nothing at all if someone is murdered) and therefore there is nothing in the definition of murder that requires any particular application.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is why it is relevant to your argument. You have no such tangible definition. We have no idea what a living wage is in anything beyond a talking point. An "acceptable living standard" isn't a criteria (by itself) I can measure against.


    For example, I can take a scenario and apply it against the definition of murder and come to a definitive conclusion.

    Steve hated Mike for sleeping with his wife, so he developed and executed a plan to lure him into the woods and shoot him.

    That is murder. It is homicide and it was pre-meditated.
    I acknowledge the difference but I don't see the relevance to the debate.

    I agree that the term "murder" is more sharply defined than the term "Living Wage" (since the definition of LW contains a subjective concept) but so what?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, so premise three was supported. 1 and 2 still haven't been.

    Please support or retract that the term "dire poverty" used in your article is the same as living wage.
    First off, I didn't claim that dire poverty is the same as a living wage so I have no need to support this claim

    Nor was my support based on the three positions in your argument. My support stands on its own and since I see no rebuttal to it, I will repeat it and it stand until it is rebutted.

    "Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-...illion-a-year/

    If they need to receive government aid to avoid dire poverty, then the wages they are earning is not enough to avoid dire poverty.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It absolutely is relevant if I'm relying on (as you are here) the fact that I am giving you money means you are trying to avoid dire poverty.
    But then we aren't relying on whether or not you give me money. The only relevant issue in this scenario is that I need $!00 to avoid dire poverty and therefore my wages are inadequate. How I respond to the shortfall (and therefore whether I go to you for money or not) is irrelevant. The issue is that there's a shortfall (and the only way that you are involved is that you learn of the shortfall when I ask you for money - how you respond is completely irrelevant to whether there's a shortfall).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please support or retract that the definition of "dire poverty" used in your article has been shown to be below a consensus opinion of an acceptable living wage.
    Since I never made such a claim I have no burden to support this claim. If you want to attack my argument with this issue, the burden is originally yours so you will need to provide an argument regarding this, not ask me to support the opposing conclusion. So I do not consider this a valid challenge to any point in my argument so I will repeat it.

    PREMISE 1 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This section kind of reads as "I don't like the conclusion, so I'm ignoring a valid definition."
    If that's how it reads to you, then you don't understand what I'm saying.

    Let me forward the logic chain that, to me, leads to a conclusion that "governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily"

    1. The definition of "arbitrary" is "based on randomness or whim"
    2. Governmental decisions should not be made based on randomness of a whim
    3. Therefore governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily.

    And you are free A DIFFERENT valid definition of "arbitrary" in your argument. But in doing so, you are rejecting premise 1 and when premise 1 is discarded so is the conclusion.

    So I'm not saying you can't use a different valid definition of "arbitrary" but that if you do, then I do not necessarily accept the position that governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily and therefore calling a decisions "arbitrary" does not necessarily mean that it's invalid.

    And I should say that at this point I don't really know what you mean by "arbitrary" (since you apparently reject the most common definition that refers exclusively to random/whim). So maybe you should find the ONE definition that you are using and we'll take it from there.
    Last edited by mican333; June 22nd, 2017 at 12:48 PM.

  2. #42
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I'll concede that point. I've never bridged that premise to that conclusion because I've never made an argument that starts with that premise nor made an argument with that conclusion.
    Well you initially entered the argument into a thread on the MW, which is what that argument is, and put forward that the MW is not enough to support an "acceptable life style." But be that as it may; you've defended the moral premise that each of us must be forced, under penalty of law, to contribute to others' incomes, which is essentially the same category of conclusion.

    If it makes the point a bit clearer, I'll rephrase my last statement to:

    "In order to tie an objective statement that is true regardless of who is evaluating it to a subjective one you need a transition premise that adds universality. In your example, it is Premise 2. Premise 2 is the basis for the moral obligation that allows the conclusion to follow in this argument.

    It is that equivalent that is lacking in your original argument. You lack the transition premise between, "Mican thinks people should earn $X" to "there should be a law that everyone must contribute to the incomes of a selected group of people."

    The specific details of the conclusion are irrelevant to the error. The error, as I think we agree now, is that in order to make the subjective to objective leap, we need a transition premise, which your argument lacks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Okay, but so what? The premise is a subjective opinion and it leads, via an argument that is based on that premise, to a conclusion that is likewise subjective.
    Well there are a couple of conclusions from that distinction, one of which is relevant here, one of which is more macro relevant. The local relevant one is that debate forums aren't for expression of personal opinions, but rather supported and evidenced arguments.

    The macro point is that if the premise is a subjective opinion, the conclusion (via the argument) is unsupported since there is no evaluation of the truth value of an opinion. The argument becomes a dressed up opinion as well, which is great, but not relevant here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And both the premise and the conclusion are subjective.
    None of those premises were subjective.


    P1: All human beings have a right to life. This is an objective statement, Mike's right to life is unrelated to whether Steve or Sally or whomever is making this claim.

    P2: No individual has the right to override that right deliberately. Again, clearly objective. The prohibition here is irrelevant to whether the argument is made by, or applied to, Rob or Susan, etc.

    P3: The state has a right in ensuring P1. Finally, also an objective premise. The state retains that right (or not) if I make that argument, or you make the argument, or the argument is randomly generated. The premise here is objectively true or false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Of course the answer is that I can't answer that question since I don't know what "Shlorping" is but as far as I can tell, this issue does not apply to any of our issues. We definitely know what murder is. We also know what a Living Wage is (an acceptable standard of living). You can argue that we don't know where the bar of "acceptable" is, but you can't say that we have no idea what the term means.
    We do? We know it's definition, but we have no idea what it means as an action. Just as you can't answer "was Steve Shlorping when it went to work yesterday?" You, likewise can't answer the question, "was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?"

    Can you answer that question? Was $25k an "acceptable standard of living?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Support or retract that the definition of murder (pre-meditated homicide) defines how it's applied.

    As far as I know, how we apply it is up to the people (so we can even do nothing at all if someone is murdered) and therefore there is nothing in the definition of murder that requires any particular application.
    What you are asking me to support is related to the argument, not the premise. When we apply the word to the act, we use the definition to clearly say, "yes when steve killed mike it was murder" or "no when sally shot George it wasn't murder." That application is based on the definition of those words and is something that can be evaluated objectively.

    You are arguing that the definition doesn't drive a different premise (that the state has a right to prevent murder). That is absolutely correct. But it is also unrelated to whether the definition of the word drives which situations it is applied to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I agree that the term "murder" is more sharply defined than the term "Living Wage" (since the definition of LW contains a subjective concept) but so what?
    It matters in this case because if we can't precisely apply the term, a second premise of yours loses its truth value. The premise that we have a moral obligation to ensure a LW is earned is unknowable if we have no idea of what it means in real life. Go back to the second half of my last response.

    Steve earns $25K.

    Does MT have an obligation to supplement that income from his earnings?

    I might say no, you might say yes, MT might say yes, Steve might say no. The answer to the question (which is 1/300 millionth of your premise in question form) is completely individual and unknowable as a general fact. We can't even answer that individual question, let alone conglomerate that into 300M different questions into a premise we can put forward as part of your argument.

    I can't say "we all have an obligation to do X" if what "doing x" really means isn't defined.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    First off, I didn't claim that dire poverty is the same as a living wage so I have no need to support this claim

    Nor was my support based on the three positions in your argument.
    There are a couple of ways to respond to this argument. I could point out that you did make the two premises at issue in post 35 (bracketed comments are mine):

    [indent]As I said and apparently have to repeat, it doesn't matter who they are seeking help from so it doesn't matter what the governmental policy is. If one is seeking help from the government, their family, a bank, a loan shark, or wherever, the fact is that they are seeking help because they aren't earning enough from their job to avoid dire poverty [PREMISE 1] which means they aren't earning a living wage [PREMISE 2](given that we agree that dire poverty falls below the line of "acceptable" as the term is applied to the definition of Living Wage.)


    The second way to rebut this would be to challenge you to support where the article says that the minimum wage is below a living wage. As far as I'm aware, you are making that connection by equating dire poverty with earning below a living wage. (You do exactly that in post 35). Unless you can quote exactly where it makes the connection you are saying here, the link doesn't support your contention.


    You can pick either avenue to defending your position, but until that connection is make explicit either through argument (method 1) or evidence (method 2) it is, by definition, unsupported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The only relevant issue in this scenario is that I need $!00 to avoid dire poverty and therefore my wages are inadequate.
    And how are we determining that you "need" $100? In your argument you are relying on the fact that I gave you $100, right? That is a circular argument. Until you can provide an independent source to defend that need, you don't have evidence that they "needed" it that isn't relying on the fact that they got it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Since I never made such a claim I have no burden to support this claim. If you want to attack my argument with this issue, the burden is originally yours so you will need to provide an argument regarding this, not ask me to support the opposing conclusion. So I do not consider this a valid challenge to any point in my argument so I will repeat it.

    PREMISE 1 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW
    Please see the above response where I quote you from post 35. Or, you can review your premise 1 here. Please support or retract that the definition of dire poverty used in the article has been shown to be accepted by consensus opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Let me forward the logic chain that, to me, leads to a conclusion that "governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily"

    1. The definition of "arbitrary" is "based on randomness or whim"
    2. Governmental decisions should not be made based on randomness of a whim
    3. Therefore governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily.

    And you are free A DIFFERENT valid definition of "arbitrary" in your argument. But in doing so, you are rejecting premise 1 and when premise 1 is discarded so is the conclusion.
    This seems an odd thing to forward given that it was I who originally forwarded the term arbitrary in the debate. You challenged me to support it, which we now both agree I did. Your rebuttal here is "that isn't how I would use the term in a different argument." Great, no one cares. The argument was about how I used the term originally, and that is correct.

    The most interesting part is that your argument still applies if we actually uses the definition of the word rather than your truncation.

    1. The definition of "arbitrary" is "based on randomness or whim, rather than any reason or system"
    1a. Oxford Dictionary offers as an example of the definition: "‘It has been said more than once that 10 seems a rather arbitrary number, and it has not been clear how the authors of the law arrived at it.’"
    2. Governmental decisions should not be made based on randomness of a whim, but rather should be based on reason or a system.
    3. Therefore governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily.

    We can put this to bed with a simple answer to a simple question. Did I use the word correctly or not?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well you initially entered the argument into a thread on the MW, which is what that argument is, and put forward that the MW is not enough to support an "acceptable life style." But be that as it may; you've defended the moral premise that each of us must be forced, under penalty of law, to contribute to others' incomes, which is essentially the same category of conclusion.
    No I didn't. While I floated a certain option for remedying the problem (UBI), the only thing I've actually argued is that there's a problem with the price of labor being so low that some people can't earn enough to make ends meet even though they are employed. And what I specifically said about MW is that raising it or lowering it won't solve the problem so a different approach, such as UBI, is warranted. Once it's settled that there is indeed a problem, and we certainly haven't gotten there yet, is when a discussion on how to solve the problem is warranted. Until then, I am NOT directly advocating any particular solution and therefore am not directly advocating UBI or raising the minimum wage.

    If I ever said anything before now that contradicts what's above, I retract it as of now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If it makes the point a bit clearer, I'll rephrase my last statement to:

    "In order to tie an objective statement that is true regardless of who is evaluating it to a subjective one you need a transition premise that adds universality. In your example, it is Premise 2. Premise 2 is the basis for the moral obligation that allows the conclusion to follow in this argument.

    It is that equivalent that is lacking in your original argument. You lack the transition premise between, "Mican thinks people should earn $X" to "there should be a law that everyone must contribute to the incomes of a selected group of people."

    The specific details of the conclusion are irrelevant to the error. The error, as I think we agree now, is that in order to make the subjective to objective leap, we need a transition premise, which your argument lacks.
    First off, the conclusion is subjective, not objective. Saying that something SHOULD apply to everyone is a subjective statement. But I think that might be an irrelevant quibble (the disagreement seems to be over semantics here) so I will respond despite that.

    And if we are discussing MY argument, then the details are important. Attacking an argument that I did not actually make is to engage in the straw-man fallacy. But regardless, I do think that I need to fully bridge my premise and conclusion so let me state them.

    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living
    CONCLUSION - We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    So I will plug in a logic chain I provided earlier and add a bit more.

    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living
    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW
    6. Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living
    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    I'm sure you can mount an attack on what's above but now I have bridged my premise to my conclusion. I would like you to acknowledge this so we can put this issue to rest and move on. I have bridged my premise and conclusion, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well there are a couple of conclusions from that distinction, one of which is relevant here, one of which is more macro relevant. The local relevant one is that debate forums aren't for expression of personal opinions, but rather supported and evidenced arguments.

    The macro point is that if the premise is a subjective opinion, the conclusion (via the argument) is unsupported since there is no evaluation of the truth value of an opinion.
    But a premise being based on an opinion does not mean that it should be rejected. If the opponent agrees with the opinion, then he should accept the premise and therefore is becomes an ACCEPTED PREMISE and is valid and so is any conclusion that follows it.

    The law against murder is based on the ACCEPTED PREMISE that people have the right to life. The fact that the position that people have the right to life is an opinion doesn't change that.

    And I have assumed that the premise that everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living is likewise an accepted premise, as in you agree with it. Was I wrong? If so, then we should cease the rest of the debate (as all of my arguments flow from this premise) and debate the premise itself. So do you accept this premise or do we need to debate it's validity?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    None of those premises were subjective.


    P1: All human beings have a right to life. This is an objective statement, Mike's right to life is unrelated to whether Steve or Sally or whomever is making this claim.
    If by "whomever" you mean any and all human beings, you are incorrect. The "right to life" is a human-created concept so without a human saying that a right to life exists, there is no such thing as a right to life (unless one wants to invoke a deity but let's not go there).

    Or let me put it another way, if I disagree with the notion that people have the right to life, you have no way of supporting that it is without appealing to what another human being thinks. If you think I'm wrong, then please support the position that humans have the right to life without appealing to what another human being thinks. It's pretty clear that this is an impossible task.


    And what's below is not presented as support for any particular point of mine but I think it might be helpful in hashing out what the terms mean.

    "An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable.

    A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc."


    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...and-subjective

    The notion that people have the right to life is an opinion and therefore subjective. There is no amount of objective evidence that, on its own, can lead one to that conclusion.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We do? We know it's definition, but we have no idea what it means as an action.
    Yes we do. If we are going to apply it as an action, we just need to determine what people generally think is an acceptable standard of living and then set a policy so that people can attain that standard. If you are saying that you and I, within this debate, have not determined what that standard actually is, I won't disagree. But the notion that the concept is so vague that it's unworkable in a practical application is not true. There are definitely ways to get a workable handle on what is "acceptable". For example, we could take a national poll and use the data to get an idea of what people generally consider acceptable.

    So we know what the terms means. We know that there is a way to create a workable standard of "acceptable". So it is workable. It is NOT shlorping (where we don't even have a definition at all).



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What you are asking me to support is related to the argument, not the premise. When we apply the word to the act, we use the definition to clearly say, "yes when steve killed mike it was murder" or "no when sally shot George it wasn't murder." That application is based on the definition of those words and is something that can be evaluated objectively.
    But there's nothing in the definition of murder that requires any particular application. Once someone is murdered, the definition of the term "murder" does not inherently require any particular action from the state or any other person. Based on the definition alone, one is just as justified in doing nothing at all as they are justified to giving the harshest legal penalty there is.

    If you are arguing otherwise, then I repeat my challenge to support or retract your assertion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It matters in this case because if we can't precisely apply the term, a second premise of yours loses its truth value. The premise that we have a moral obligation to ensure a LW is earned is unknowable if we have no idea of what it means in real life.
    But we DO know what it means in real life. We also know of methods to figure out a workable practical number to apply. Again, we can poll people to find out what people actually think is an acceptable standard of living.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Go back to the second half of my last response.

    Steve earns $25K.

    Does MT have an obligation to supplement that income from his earnings?

    I might say no, you might say yes, MT might say yes, Steve might say no. The answer to the question (which is 1/300 millionth of your premise in question form) is completely individual and unknowable as a general fact. We can't even answer that individual question, let alone conglomerate that into 300M different questions into a premise we can put forward as part of your argument.
    But this is a straw-man argument. My argument does not say any of this. My argument, if accepted and practically applied, does not necessarily involve taking any money from MT.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are a couple of ways to respond to this argument. I could point out that you did make the two premises at issue in post 35 (bracketed comments are mine):

    [indent]As I said and apparently have to repeat, it doesn't matter who they are seeking help from so it doesn't matter what the governmental policy is. If one is seeking help from the government, their family, a bank, a loan shark, or wherever, the fact is that they are seeking help because they aren't earning enough from their job to avoid dire poverty [PREMISE 1] which means they aren't earning a living wage [PREMISE 2](given that we agree that dire poverty falls below the line of "acceptable" as the term is applied to the definition of Living Wage.)
    But nowhere did I say that that the dire poverty is the same thing as a LW. I'm saying that dire poverty is below a living wage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The second way to rebut this would be to challenge you to support where the article says that the minimum wage is below a living wage. As far as I'm aware, you are making that connection by equating dire poverty with earning below a living wage. (You do exactly that in post 35). Unless you can quote exactly where it makes the connection you are saying here, the link doesn't support your contention.
    I'm not using the article to support that dire poverty is below a living wage. I kind of assume that that is an accepted premise. But maybe I'm wrong about that so I'll ask.

    Do you SINCERELY believe that not earning enough to avoid dire poverty is living below a Living Wage? If yes, then I do not need to support this premise since you accept it. If not, then you should morally support your position that dire poverty is an acceptable living wage.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And how are we determining that you "need" $100? In your argument you are relying on the fact that I gave you $100, right?
    Wrong. I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that whether you gave me money or not is irrelevant to whether I needed it.

    Does it make any logical sense to say that if you didn't give me the money, then I didn't need it? Of course not.

    AGAIN, whether money is given is irrelevant to the issue of whether money is needed.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please see the above response where I quote you from post 35. Or, you can review your premise 1 here. Please support or retract that the definition of dire poverty used in the article has been shown to be accepted by consensus opinion.
    Okay. Here's my logic chain and I'm looking at Premise 1.

    PREMISE 1 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW

    Nowhere in any of the premises does it state that the definition of dire poverty used in the article has been shown to be accepted by consensus opinion.

    "Support or Retract" is used to get one to either back up claims that they made (support) or cease forwarding that claim (retract). I don't need to support a claim that I did not make. And besides that, even if I had made it, I just need to not repeat it again in order to comply with the "Support or Retract" rule. So at this point, I won't repeat (well, state for the first time) this particular claim. So I have responded to your Support or Retract challenge.

    In the meantime, you have provided no challenges to any of my points. Asking me to support or retract something that is not one of the premises does not effectively challenge any of the premises.

    So at this point my logic chain holds up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1. The definition of "arbitrary" is "based on randomness or whim, rather than any reason or system"
    1a. Oxford Dictionary offers as an example of the definition: "‘It has been said more than once that 10 seems a rather arbitrary number, and it has not been clear how the authors of the law arrived at it.’"
    2. Governmental decisions should not be made based on randomness of a whim, but rather should be based on reason or a system.
    3. Therefore governmental decisions should not be made arbitrarily.

    We can put this to bed with a simple answer to a simple question. Did I use the word correctly or not?
    Yes you did. I was, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that you were using a different definition than what you quoted i #1. Assuming you are using that definition exclusively, then I accept that usage of the word and would concede that if no reason or system was used in the decision is question, it would be arbitrary and therefore invalid.

    But you've already said that they did use a system and said that is was an incorrect system. So what happened does not fit the definition of arbitrary. Likewise you have not supported that no reasoning was used. If ten men come up with an idea of what the LW wage should be based on data, morality, and logic then they are using reasoning even if when they gather the system they use to find a compromise is a bad system. So by the definition of arbitrary that we are using, you have not supported that the system was arbitrary.

    And btw, "‘It has been said more than once that 10 seems a rather arbitrary number, and it has not been clear how the authors of the law arrived at it’" is not a scenario of proven arbitrariness but a scenario where one thinks the number is arbitrary. He does not know how the author arrived at the number and therefore thinks the number seems arbitrary.
    Last edited by mican333; June 23rd, 2017 at 07:19 PM.

  5. #44
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, the conclusion is subjective, not objective. Saying that something SHOULD apply to everyone is a subjective statement.
    If the premises are all subjective and the conclusion subjective, this isn't an argument, its just an explanation of your personal opinion. Your entire OP, in that scenario, changes from defending that there is a problem to defending why Mican thinks there is a problem.

    If, as you just said we need to "settle that there is indeed a problem" in fact, then we need to actually propose an objective premise and conclusion, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So I will plug in a logic chain I provided earlier and add a bit more.
    Thank you for laying out the argument a bit more formally, let's review your premises. My comments are in Blue

    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living

    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. Do you have evidence of this? Specifically, evidence that shows the definition of "dire poverty" from whatever source you choose to use is shared by the poll you are using to show it is "unacceptable?" For bonus points, something beyond a survey that uses an emotionally charged, but factually empty term like "dire poverty" would be helpful. I'm sure if we polled people, "are bad things undesirable" we'd get a great consensus, but we both know such a consensus is meaningless.


    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided) This is supported, though we need to be a bit careful. The article (well the study linked from the article) has a very specific term for what it means by "dire poverty." When you use that term in other contexts, you need to ensure it is the same, precise, definition, otherwise you are engaging in an equivocation fallacy.


    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. Many is undefined here. Some for sure. Again, as above, "Dire Poverty" has a very precise meaning here.

    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage This premise is unsupported. Where have you shown that the technical definition of "Dire Poverty" used in the paper has been defined as below what "people accept as a standard of living."

    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW This would be a valid conclusion if the premises were supported.


    6. Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living This would be a valid conclusion if the premises were supported.


    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living. This is not a valid conclusion given your premises. Where do you make the transition here between some people earning below a certain amount to the need for a law binding all citizens in some manner? People generally find adultery and lying unacceptable too, it doesn't mean we have massive legal structures for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'm sure you can mount an attack on what's above but now I have bridged my premise to my conclusion. I would like you to acknowledge this so we can put this issue to rest and move on. I have bridged my premise and conclusion, right?
    With the above structure? No. You are good up to your second conclusion, but there is no bridging premise between those premises (and two conclusions) with the final conclusion. There is no necessity to have a national policy in the argument you laid out. Rather, your argument shows that some people don't like a specific fact (that hasn't been supported), nothing about that logically necessitates even a personal action, let alone a federal law.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But a premise being based on an opinion does not mean that it should be rejected. If the opponent agrees with the opinion, then he should accept the premise and therefore is becomes an ACCEPTED PREMISE and is valid and so is any conclusion that follows it.
    You are correct that it doesn't mean it should be rejected. It just means it is unsupported.

    Your second statement is incorrect. The other party shouldn't accept the premise because he agrees with it, that is the worst kind of confirmation bias. All he is doing is accepting an argument because it agrees with his biases.

    And when he does so it doesn't create a valid conclusion (and certainly not a sound argument), it just creates an opinion two people share. Maybe everyone shares that opinion. Great. Then we have an appeal to popularity fallacy. A lot of people believing something doesn't make it either valid or true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The law against murder is based on the ACCEPTED PREMISE that people have the right to life. The fact that the position that people have the right to life is an opinion doesn't change that.
    But it isn't, traditionally, based on that premise as an opinion. It is based on it's supposition as an objective fact. It is a God given right in the original contexts, thus not based on anyones' personal opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If by "whomever" you mean any and all human beings, you are incorrect. The "right to life" is a human-created concept so without a human saying that a right to life exists, there is no such thing as a right to life (unless one wants to invoke a deity but let's not go there).
    Which of course, is how that premise was initially developed. We don't however, have to invoke a deity for it to be an objective statement here though. If the right to life is inherent in our quality of being human, which is the humanist version of the principle, it is just as objective.

    The statement only becomes subjective if it is framed in such a way that it's truth value is dependent on who is making the claim. When we say "all people have a right to life due to their nature as people" we aren't relying on any person's views for that statement. It might be true, or it might be false. Steve might accept it, while Mike rejects it. None of that makes it subjective. It would only be subjective if we changed the reasoning to "all people have a right to life based on my belief that they do." We need to be careful here in not confusing individual warrants for belief with the structure of the underlying premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes we do. If we are going to apply it as an action, we just need to determine what people generally think is an acceptable standard of living and then set a policy so that people can attain that standard. If you are saying that you and I, within this debate, have not determined what that standard actually is, I won't disagree.
    I would recommend re-reading that a bit. You are implying that you "know" there is a problem before you've been able to determine if there is a problem. If we have not determined what the actual standard is, in what sense do you know there is an actual problem?

    We still can't answer the question "was Steve Shlorping when it went to work yesterday?" If I define Schlorping as "moving slower than is generally accepted."

    Alternatively, we likewise can't answer the question, "was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?"

    Can you answer that question? Was $25k an "acceptable standard of living?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But there's nothing in the definition of murder that requires any particular application.
    This is an equivocation fallacy. You are using the term "application" when you mean to say "conclusion." You are correct, the definition of murder does not necessitate there being a retributive law by some state government. But then that isn't what I said either. I said that it's application as a term is definitive based on its terms. An act is objectively murder or it isn't. It isn't murder if you ask Steve, but equally valid not murder if you ask Mike.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But we DO know what it means in real life. We also know of methods to figure out a workable practical number to apply. Again, we can poll people to find out what people actually think is an acceptable standard of living.
    These three statement contradict each other. You both say "we do know what it means" and "we could figure it out." Which is it? Do we know what people think the acceptable standard of living is and thus determine if this is an objectively true statement or are you simply arguing that there exists a mechanism that could in theory determine if it is true?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But this is a straw-man argument. My argument does not say any of this. My argument, if accepted and practically applied, does not necessarily involve taking any money from MT.
    Wait, what?

    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    Unless you are going to imply that a standard of living can magically be improved with no cost to anyone, you are, in fact, proposing we take money from MT, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But nowhere did I say that that the dire poverty is the same thing as a LW. I'm saying that dire poverty is below a living wage.
    Fine, then support or retract that the term "dire poverty" as defined in the study is below the living wage as you've defined it here as the consensus on an acceptable standard of living.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Do you SINCERELY believe that not earning enough to avoid dire poverty is living below a Living Wage?
    As I pointed out when you initially offered the article. Dire Poverty isn't an economics term, it is an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action. "Dire Poverty" as defined in the study includes:



    •80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    •92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
    •Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
    •Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
    •Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
    •Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
    •More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
    •43 percent have Internet access.
    •One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
    •One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.


    Likewise, the term Living Wage is almost exclusive used in that kind of squishy, emotive manner as well (well except when it was being defined as part of the eugenics movement, they were eerily precise), so I'm not really sure, aside from the clear implication of what I am supposed to feel, what is actually going on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Wrong. I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that whether you gave me money or not is irrelevant to whether I needed it.
    Well, I know you've said that, but I think that is because you didn't actually read the study in your article. The study used the determination of need by the qualification for a set of listed programs. IE, people were "needy" because they qualified for transfer payments under a government program.

    If you are going to argue that there was some other basis for that determination, please present it or retract this statement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    PREMISE 1 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    ...
    Nowhere in any of the premises does it state that the definition of dire poverty used in the article has been shown to be accepted by consensus opinion.

    That is literally what Premise 1 is saying. That there is a consensus opinion (appeal to popularity fallacy) that "dire poverty" as used in the study is below what people accept as an acceptable standard of living.

    I'm asking you to support or retract that statement as you've made it on two pages now without any clear evidence to back it up. If you are retracting Premise 1, I'm ok with that, just let me know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes you did...But you've already said that they did use a system and said that is was an incorrect system. So what happened does not fit the definition of arbitrary. ...
    And btw, "‘It has been said more than once that 10 seems a rather arbitrary number, and it has not been clear how the authors of the law arrived at it’" is not a scenario of proven arbitrariness but a scenario where one thinks the number is arbitrary. He does not know how the author arrived at the number and therefore thinks the number seems arbitrary.
    No, it was an example of using the term correctly. As is;


    ‘The numbering of years is a cultural artifact based on some rather arbitrary decisions made along the way.’
    [Obviously these decisions weren't done by dice, but were made via a series of thought out reasons, but reasons unrelated to the metric being discussed, year numbering]

    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’
    [Again, those punishments wouldn't have been arrived at necessarily through dice or snap judgements, but their lack of a coherent systematic approach related to justice earns them the label arbitrary.]

    ‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’
    [Here we see that there clearly is a system in place that has a set of criteria, but the use of irrelevant or inappropriate criteria earns it the label arbitrary. It is the inappropriateness of the method used that applies in the author's and editors' mind.]

    ‘This numbering system is an arbitrary designation based on small amino acid sequence differences.’
    [Finally, again there is a system that was designed, and clearly designed with a lot of work, that is arbitrary because its reasoning wasn't tied to the subject at hand.]

    The Marriage Act certainly employed arbitrary and draconian means. It forced all couples to marry between 8 am and 12 noon, according to the rites of the established Church of England, in one of their respective local parish churches. —David Johnson, History Today, November 2003
    [Very similar to my usage and argument, this example clearly doesn't indicate the means were done via random dice throwing, but that the means were unrelated to the goals of the Act or to a sense of fairness or justice one would expect from a legal bill.]

    Darwin's emphasis on how populations gradually change gave the notion of species a more arbitrary quality: Species had whatever boundaries taxonomists chose. The idea of a species as a population of individuals that breed mostly with each other comes from 20th-century theorists. —S. Milius, Science News, 25 Mar. 2006
    [Again, obviously taxonomists aren't creating their boundaries based on spur of the moment decisions or on dice, but on clear methods appropriate and accepted by their field. But, they are arbitrary in this context because they are unrelated to the use Darwin was offering.]

    Two days after President Lincoln issued the first version of his Emancipation Proclamation, he suspended the right of habeas corpus for anyone accused of resisting the draft or discouraging enlistment. Hundreds of civilians were arrested, some for good reasons, some for entirely arbitrary and personal ones. —Michael Lesy, Double Take, Spring 2001
    [Here the author clearly indicates that there were reasons, they were personal ones. But those reasons, being unrelated to the actual law made the arrest arbitrary. So the Merriam editors here are pointing out that a reason itself isn't good enough, it has to be a relevant reason.]



    So in all of the examples I listed, we have a system being used, but the term arbitrary is still being referenced as correctly used under the definition we agree to because the system wasn't related to the goal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  7. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If the premises are all subjective and the conclusion subjective, this isn't an argument, its just an explanation of your personal opinion. Your entire OP, in that scenario, changes from defending that there is a problem to defending why Mican thinks there is a problem.

    If, as you just said we need to "settle that there is indeed a problem" in fact, then we need to actually propose an objective premise and conclusion, right?
    Not if it's a moral problem.

    Let's go back to murder. A valid reason for someone to think that it's a problem that a serial killer is out there killing people is because they hold the SUBJECTIVE moral position that "murder is wrong" which leads them to the conclusion that a serial killer is a problem. If one rejects the subjective moral premise that murder is wrong (and there is nothing preventing one from having this contrary subjective position), then that person will not think that a serial killer is necessarily a problem.

    So whether a serial killer is to be considered a problem is entirely based on subjective moral premises and likewise the conclusion is subjective.

    So unless you are taking the position that a serial killer should not be considered a problem, then it should stand that identified problems can be based on subjective criteria and likewise a problem is subjective.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Thank you for laying out the argument a bit more formally, let's review your premises. My comments are in Blue
    Okay. But keep in mind that comments are not necessarily challenges. Unless I see an actual challenge to any of my points - as in an argument from you that says that a premise is actually incorrect (or asking me to support or retract a premise), the premise is not challenged and therefore stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living

    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. Do you have evidence of this? Specifically, evidence that shows the definition of "dire poverty" from whatever source you choose to use is shared by the poll you are using to show it is "unacceptable?" For bonus points, something beyond a survey that uses an emotionally charged, but factually empty term like "dire poverty" would be helpful. I'm sure if we polled people, "are bad things undesirable" we'd get a great consensus, but we both know such a consensus is meaningless.
    This is not a challenge. You are asking some questions about how I came up with this premise but you aren't saying that this premise is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided) This is supported, though we need to be a bit careful. The article (well the study linked from the article) has a very specific term for what it means by "dire poverty." When you use that term in other contexts, you need to ensure it is the same, precise, definition, otherwise you are engaging in an equivocation fallacy.
    Since no reason has been forwarded to think that the term means significantly different things (emphasis on significantly) when used in different contexts, I do not consider this a valid concern.

    So this point is not challenged either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. Many is undefined here. Some for sure. Again, as above, "Dire Poverty" has a very precise meaning here.
    Okay. So I will provide something more precise.

    Latest figures show that 43 million are on food stamps

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-food-stamps/

    Between 42 to 58 percent of recipients work.

    "Lee said 60 percent of people receiving food stamps are working. She should’ve specified that she meant 60 percent of the pool of recipients expected to work. Her figure’s a little high, but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...od-assistance/

    So I'm going to average the 42-58 number and say 50%.

    So 21.5 million working people are on food stamps. 21.5 million qualifies as "many". Even if we cut that number in half, it's still "many".

    So this point is supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage This premise is unsupported. Where have you shown that the technical definition of "Dire Poverty" used in the paper has been defined as below what "people accept as a standard of living."
    The premise is supported as it follows the prior three supported premises (which counts as support).

    As far as whether I have shown that the technical definition of "Dire Poverty" used in the paper has been defined as below what "people accept as a standard of living, I never claimed that I have shown that. I'm not making a comment regarding this either way so I don't claim that the definition in the paper is or is not the same as the dictionary definition (which is where we get "what people accept"). The issue of these two definitions being equivalent has been introduced into the debate by you which means the original burden regarding this issue is your burden, not mine. I currently am making no statement regarding this issue. If you have a statement, then present it. If you don't have a statement regarding this, then neither of us have a statement regarding this and this issue is not up for discussion.

    So either present an argument regarding this or drop the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW This would be a valid conclusion if the premises were supported.
    Since this conclusion logically flows from the prior premises and you have not successfully challenged any of them, the conclusion is currently valid.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    6. Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living This would be a valid conclusion if the premises were supported.
    Same response as above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living. This is not a valid conclusion given your premises. Where do you make the transition here between some people earning below a certain amount to the need for a law binding all citizens in some manner? People generally find adultery and lying unacceptable too, it doesn't mean we have massive legal structures for them.
    Since I'm addressing this below (and editing the conclusion), I won't address it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    With the above structure? No. You are good up to your second conclusion, but there is no bridging premise between those premises (and two conclusions) with the final conclusion. There is no necessity to have a national policy in the argument you laid out. Rather, your argument shows that some people don't like a specific fact (that hasn't been supported), nothing about that logically necessitates even a personal action, let alone a federal law.
    Fair enough. So I altered the conclusion a bit. Added a couple of premises regarding "problems need solutions" and made the conclusion a bit broader (so national action is not necessarily needed).

    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living
    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW
    6. Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living.
    7. Therefore we have a problem with people not being able to attain an acceptable standard of living through labor
    8. This problem should be solved.
    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We should have policy(s) to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living in order to solve the problem mentioned in point 7.

    Now does it follow?

    And I will point out that any potential problem with such policies is currently irrelevant to whether the conclusion follows. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that while we can create policies that will solve the problem of working people living in dire poverty, such would create even bigger problems (like an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties) and therefore overall, these policies would be a bad idea (again, this is a hypothetical - I am in no way agreeing that this would be the case). So even if that were true, it does not change the fact that the policy would solve the problem and therefore does not change the fact that the premise follows the conclusion. In other words, this would not a be a "no" but instead a "yeah, but" and a "yeah, but" is still a "yeah".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct that it doesn't mean it should be rejected. It just means it is unsupported.

    Your second statement is incorrect. The other party shouldn't accept the premise because he agrees with it, that is the worst kind of confirmation bias.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that confirmation bias in regards to a subjective premise that one sincerely agrees with is an invalid reason to accept the premise. And I request (but not demand) that you use a logic chain if you seek to support this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But it isn't, traditionally, based on that premise as an opinion. It is based on it's supposition as an objective fact. It is a God given right in the original contexts, thus not based on anyones' personal opinions.
    But that only matters if these people are correct that God gave us these rights. In other words, if God didn't do it, then it's still just human-created (subjective) morality and someone mistakenly attributed to God so the position is subjective.

    I've been operating on the premise that morality is a human construct and from what I can see, you have been operating on the same premise as in you have been stating/agreeing that my premises are subjective as opposed to objectively correct or incorrect (which would be the case if there was an external moral authority). Really, if we are to accept that morality is objective instead of subjective, then my argument changes entirely (for then I am making objective moral claims that lead to an objective conclusion). So for the sake of not derailing a whole lot of what's gone on before, let's stick with the premise that morality is subjective.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which of course, is how that premise was initially developed. We don't however, have to invoke a deity for it to be an objective statement here though. If the right to life is inherent in our quality of being human, which is the humanist version of the principle, it is just as objective.

    The statement only becomes subjective if it is framed in such a way that it's truth value is dependent on who is making the claim. When we say "all people have a right to life due to their nature as people" we aren't relying on any person's views for that statement.
    That's not necessarily true. What is the "nature of people" and where did the concept come from? If it came from a person's view then it is subjective.

    So I will challenge that argument and ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that all people have a right to life due to their nature as people. This is not so much a challenge as it is an exercise to see if you are argument is or is not rooted in human belief. And of course whatever you deem "nature of people", "the right to life" has to logically follow.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would recommend re-reading that a bit. You are implying that you "know" there is a problem before you've been able to determine if there is a problem. If we have not determined what the actual standard is, in what sense do you know there is an actual problem?
    You don't have to know exactly what X and Y is to know if X is less than Y. For example if X+100=Y, then we know that X is less than Y even though we don't know what specific numbers X and Y is. And my logic chains shows pretty much that (MW+assistance = LW so therefore MW

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is an equivocation fallacy. You are using the term "application" when you mean to say "conclusion." You are correct, the definition of murder does not necessitate there being a retributive law by some state government. But then that isn't what I said either. I said that it's application as a term is definitive based on its terms. An act is objectively murder or it isn't. It isn't murder if you ask Steve, but equally valid not murder if you ask Mike.
    Then I misunderstood because I definitely meant "applying" as in taking the position and doing something with it (like making a law).

    And I agree that whether an act is or is not murder is objective. But whether it's moral or immoral is subjective. Whether there should be a law punishing murder is subjective.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    These three statement contradict each other. You both say "we do know what it means" and "we could figure it out." Which is it? Do we know what people think the acceptable standard of living is and thus determine if this is an objectively true statement or are you simply arguing that there exists a mechanism that could in theory determine if it is true?
    They aren't contradictory. We have a definition of "LW" but that in an of itself does not generate an workable number that we can use in applying a a system that promotes everyone having a LW. But we are capable of generating that number. So I am referring to two different things - the definition and the number.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Wait, what?

    CONCLUSION - Therefore, We need to institute a national policy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    Unless you are going to imply that a standard of living can magically be improved with no cost to anyone, you are, in fact, proposing we take money from MT, right?
    "anyone" and "MT" are not the same thing. I know you aren't necessarily referring to MT as the very person he is but I thought you were referring to him as an example of a working middle-or-lower class kind of guy, pretty much like you and me. I'm sure we can implement such programs without taking money from people like MT.

    If you are referring to something else when you said "MT", then you need to be more clear on what you are saying.

    But I'm not sure this would amount to a defeater anyway. There is nothing in my argument that refers to the cost of any program because I have not gotten to the point where such a discussion is even warranted. I'm still at the "we have a problem that we need to fix" stage right now. If you accept that there is a problem that we need to fix, THEN the issue of the cost becomes a valid concern.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fine, then support or retract that the term "dire poverty" as defined in the study is below the living wage as you've defined it here as the consensus on an acceptable standard of living.
    No comment.

    For the record, "no comment" is a valid response to a support or retract challenge. A means of retraction is not repeating the claim that's been challenged so refraining from commenting at all is a retraction. I only have the obligation to support a claim if I repeat it. I can pretty much guarantee you that I will not be repeating the comment you are challenging, especially since I never made it in the first place.

    Or to put another way, "Support or Retract" is essentially the same thing as saying "Don't repeat that statement again unless you are going to support it". So I won't repeat that statement again without supporting it (although I'd have to say it once before I could repeat it but regardless, I won't be saying it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I pointed out when you initially offered the article. Dire Poverty isn't an economics term, it is an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action.
    Support or retract this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "Dire Poverty" as defined in the study includes:

    [indent]

    •80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    Support or retract this assertion. I acknowledge the rest of the list but didn't think it was necessary to quote it all.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, the term Living Wage is almost exclusive used in that kind of squishy, emotive manner as well (well except when it was being defined as part of the eugenics movement, they were eerily precise), so I'm not really sure, aside from the clear implication of what I am supposed to feel, what is actually going on.
    Your feelings are irrelevant to whether I have supported my position. I have provided, with a link, the definition of a "Living Wage" so the term is precise enough to be included in the dictionary. So your dissatisfaction with the specificity of the term seem like a personal view, not something that qualifies as support against the term being useful.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I know you've said that, but I think that is because you didn't actually read the study in your article. The study used the determination of need by the qualification for a set of listed programs. IE, people were "needy" because they qualified for transfer payments under a government program.
    I don't see any of that in the link I provided for support. Here is the support again:

    "Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-...illion-a-year/

    I see nothing there regarding whether these people qualified for assistance. The point is that they sought assistance and I've repeated this over and over again you seem to keep attacking something I'm not saying. If you seek help because you aren't earning enough money, that is support that you aren't earning enough money.

    Bringing up what the reaction or policy of those who are in a position to give such help is completely, utterly irrelevant to whether you need that money.

    I have repeated this in the last several post and I apparently have to repeat it again and I would really like to not have to repeat it in my next post. If you want to attack my position, at least attack the argument I'm actually making here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is literally what Premise 1 is saying. That there is a consensus opinion (appeal to popularity fallacy) that "dire poverty" as used in the study is below what people accept as an acceptable standard of living.
    Appealing to popular opinion is not inherently an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are times when something is determined by what the popular opinion is. A clear example is voting. Likewise the "acceptable" in regards to an "acceptable standard of living" is based on what people generally think is acceptable. If you refuse to accept "acceptable" on that basis then you likewise reject the very concept of a Living Wage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm asking you to support or retract that statement as you've made it on two pages now without any clear evidence to back it up. If you are retracting Premise 1, I'm ok with that, just let me know.
    I'm not retracting Premise 1. I hold that it's true that People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.

    And if you want to challenge it, I need to know what specific aspect are you challenging. Do you not believe that people generally think that dire poverty is not an acceptable for a working person to live?

    So please be specific in what you are asking me to support or retract.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, it was an example of using the term correctly.
    I'm not saying that you aren't using the term correctly. I'm saying that going by the correct usage, the governmental decision we were discussing does not qualify as arbitrary. Again, they used a system and you have not supported that they used on reasoning at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ‘The numbering of years is a cultural artifact based on some rather arbitrary decisions made along the way.’
    [Obviously these decisions weren't done by dice, but were made via a series of thought out reasons, but reasons unrelated to the metric being discussed, year numbering]
    If you are correct in your assessment, then they did use reason and therefore it does not fit the definition that we are using which SPECIFICALLY says that reasons is NOT used. Let's look at it again.

    "based on randomness or whim, rather than any reason or system"

    So it seems pretty contradictory to say that they did use reason and yet their decision was arbitrary. I would explain it by saying that your assessment is incorrect. He said "some rather arbitrary reasons" which couches the term arbitrary. The word "some" means that not all decisions were arbitrary and the word "rather" means that the decisions were not necessarily completely arbitrary. So he was using the word "arbitrary" to refer to randomness but since he didn't say "all decisions were completely arbitrary" he is saying that there is a factor of arbitrariness in the system which likewise allows for some order as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’
    [Again, those punishments wouldn't have been arrived at necessarily through dice or snap judgements, but their lack of a coherent systematic approach related to justice earns them the label arbitrary.]
    I disagree with your assessment. I would say that he was comparing a valid justice system to something that doesn't work, which would be arbitrary punishment.

    I'm not going to go through the rest of them but in each instance, I disagree with your assessment. I do think in every instance, their use of the word "arbitrary" was in line with the dictionary definition which excludes all reasons and systems.


    And the difference between my assessment and yours is that mine is not contradictory. It is completely contradictory to say that one is correctly using a word that refers to no system or reason to describe something that actually has reason and/or a system. How do you explain your contradictory interpretation of what these people are saying? My answer is that your interpretation is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So in all of the examples I listed, we have a system being used, but the term arbitrary is still being referenced as correctly used under the definition we agree to because the system wasn't related to the goal.
    But the definition of arbitrary says that NO system is used. So either these people did not use the word correctly (used "arbitrary" to reference something that actually did have a system) or you are incorrect that they were referring to a system. I hold it's the latter option.
    Last edited by mican333; June 25th, 2017 at 12:51 PM.

  8. #46
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So whether a serial killer is to be considered a problem is entirely based on subjective moral premises and likewise the conclusion is subjective.
    And if the argument here was "someone thinks it is a moral problem that people make less than a living wage" we'd be fine (well except that it is in a debate forum). But the problem is that that isn't the conclusion you drew here. To continue your analogy;

    1) SUBJECTIVE moral position that "murder is wrong"...
    2) A serial killer is a problem.
    3) Everyone must be subject to a law about murder.

    There is clearly a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion there. Likewise, in your argument there is a huge gap between, "I think this is a problem" and "everyone has a moral obligation to fix it."



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Fair enough. So I altered the conclusion a bit. Added a couple of premises regarding "problems need solutions" and made the conclusion a bit broader (so national action is not necessarily needed).

    Makes sense. I've moved this above the comments about your last iteration since this somewhat supercedes that argument. Again, my comments are in blue. (I've also relabeled them a bit to distinguish premises from conclusions)

    P1 - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living - Ok, I'm assuming you mean this premise subjectively. IE a more appropriate phrasing might be "Mican holds that everyone should have the means..."

    P2 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. - Please support or retract this premise. And given its structure in the argument a la P3, please show that the two definitions of dire poverty are the same.

    P3 - Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided) - So looking back over the actual study, I can't find anywhere where it references the MW or Dire Poverty. Can you show where those terms were used? http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...-of-low-wages/

    C1 - Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. - This appears to be a valid conclusion at first blush, though not a sound one until the premises are supported.

    C2 - Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage - This also appears to be a valid conclusion, though not a sound one.

    C3 - Therefore MW is lower than LW Ibid.

    C4 - Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living. - This is simply a restatement of C3 as currently defined. I would delete it as it offers no additional clarification. Same as C3, valid, but not sound.

    C5 - Therefore we have a problem with people not being able to attain an acceptable standard of living through labor - This is not a valid conclusion. It does not follow from P1 that because Mican finds issue with it that we have a problem. You would need to tie you subjective view of this issue to us as a whole.

    P4 - This problem should be solved. - Please support or retract this premise.

    C6 -Therefore, We should have policy(s) to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living in order to solve the problem mentioned in point 7. - This conclusion does not follow from C3 and P4. Because a problem should be solved does not necessitate a policy. You need to offer a separate premise and support it relating why this problem must be solved via policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Okay. But keep in mind that comments are not necessarily challenges.
    From the Rules: All claims, both positive and negative, must be supported if an opponent requests it (generally, but not exclusively with the challenge tags, Challenge to support a claim.).

    If the tags make you feel better, I'm happy to apply them, but several members have found challenge tags off putting in the past. I'll apply them now to help you identify what is required, but I should point out that I've been asking for support in accordance with the rules for several posts now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    This is not a challenge. You are asking some questions about how I came up with this premise but you aren't saying that this premise is wrong.
    Hmm, the Rules don't say anything about needing to maintain the premise is wrong, only that I request support. I am clearly requesting support in this section.

    To clarify, your premise:

    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.

    This premise has not been supported. Challenge to support a claim. Please provide evidence that shows the definition of "dire poverty" from whatever source you choose to use is shared by the poll you are using to show it is "unacceptable." For bonus points, something beyond a survey that uses an emotionally charged, but factually empty term like "dire poverty" would be helpful. I'm sure if we polled people, "are bad things undesirable" we'd get a great consensus, but we both know such a consensus is meaningless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Since no reason has been forwarded to think that the term means significantly different things (emphasis on significantly) when used in different contexts, I do not consider this a valid concern.
    You are correct that your premise:

    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)

    has been supported within the very limited confines of the specific and technical use of the term Dire Poverty used in the original study. If you wish to apply the term Dire Poverty more broadly, you would need to offer support of that usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So 21.5 million working people are on food stamps. 21.5 million qualifies as "many". Even if we cut that number in half, it's still "many".

    So this point is supported.
    Well, not really. This point has the same flaw as your initial support. You are substituting "qualifying for a government transfer payment" for "earning below a living wage."

    Do the 21.5M work and qualify for government transfer payments? Sure. Bill Gates also qualifies for transfer payments.

    The unstated and unsupported premise is that qualifying for transfer payments implies living below a living wage in this case. Please support or retract that qualifying for transfer payments means you are earning below a living wage.


    [I'm sure this is frustrating and seems pedantic, but it is a legitimate concern. The government does not necessarily use need as its base metric for who qualifies for transfer payments. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise to say that the government also uses political concerns for its bills.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As far as whether I have shown that the technical definition of "Dire Poverty" used in the paper has been defined as below what "people accept as a standard of living, I never claimed that I have shown that. I'm not making a comment regarding this either way so I don't claim that the definition in the paper is or is not the same as the dictionary definition (which is where we get "what people accept").
    Your initial support that MW < LW was to offer up an article about a study that said that X% of people earning a MW were living at or below Dire Poverty. The article did show they were earning at a level that constituted "Dire Poverty" (with their definition of the term."

    But Dire Poverty is not literally the same thing as earning below a living wage. That connection is what I've been asking for you to support.

    If you argue you are maintaining no such connection, that is fine, but then that link becomes spam because its evidence isn't linked to your premise.

    You can either make that connection, with support, or the premise MW
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that confirmation bias in regards to a subjective premise that one sincerely agrees with is an invalid reason to accept the premise. And I request (but not demand) that you use a logic chain if you seek to support this.
    I'm a bit surprised by this challenge. Confirmation bias, the mental heuristic noted by psychologists as an impediment to critical and objective thinking is a flaw in one's rational processes. It is specifically noted as a stumbling block towards objective thought.

    What's more, the fact that you believe something (and the consequent that the premise agrees with your belief), is not a valid reason to accept it because your belief has no relational bearing on whether or not it is true. That you believe, or don't believe that 2+2=4 is irrelevant to the fact that 2+2=4. This is just the single individual circumstance of the Appeal to Belief fallacy.

    If we were to accept the premise you forwarded, Copernicus was acting irrationally because he didn't accept the geocentric model of the universe which he had believed growing up.

    Let's see if we can apply this in a manner that shows why we should reject it.

    1) Mike says that the existence of the NWO means he should kill minorities.

    2) Steve believes personally that the NWO also means he should kill minorities.

    C) It is true that the NWO means we should kill minorities.

    Under your framework this is a valid and sound argument.

    Obviously, this conclusion is problematic, and it arises from two related fallacies. Applying a subjective premise to an objective conclusion (we all should kill them) and accepting the premises based purely on confirmation bias. That Steve also believes in the NWO is absolutely unrelated to whether he really should kill minorities. But accepting a premise because he sincerely believes it is exactly why that kind of poor thinking persists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But that only matters if these people are correct that God gave us these rights.
    No, the factual existence of God only matters to whether their premise was correct or incorrect, not its objectivity. That we have God given inalienable rights is either a true or false statement. If God doesn't exist, it is false, regardless of who you are.

    But His existence is irrelevant to whether the statement is objective or not. "You have God given inalienable rights" is false (if God does not exist) regardless of who you are. It is just as false for the theist as the atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That's not necessarily true. What is the "nature of people" and where did the concept come from? If it came from a person's view then it is subjective. So I will challenge that argument and ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that all people have a right to life due to their nature as people.
    You realize I didn't make that argument, right? I was using it as an example of how one could formulate an argument objectively.

    Your critique is a form of genetic fallacy. It actually doesn't matter where the idea came from. 1+1=2 came from a human mind, that doesn't make it subjective. The origin of an idea is irrelevant to its formulation as objective.

    What matters, and I think what you're missing here, is whether the truth value of the statement is predicated on who is evaluating it. Humans having rights because they are people is true or false regardless of who is evaluating it. Some people might reject it, sure, but that doesn't make is subjective any more than the earth being round is subjective because of flat earthers.

    We don't evaluate subjectivity based on who accepts or doesn't accept a premise, but whether the premise's truth value fundamentally depends on who is evaluating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Then I misunderstood because I definitely meant "applying" as in taking the position and doing something with it (like making a law).

    And I agree that whether an act is or is not murder is objective. But whether it's moral or immoral is subjective. Whether there should be a law punishing murder is subjective.
    Well it doesn't have to be subjective, it depends on how the argument is formulated.

    Let's return to the original point. Can you apply your definition of LW that way? IE can you answer the question:

    Was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    They aren't contradictory. We have a definition of "LW" but that in an of itself does not generate an workable number that we can use in applying a a system that promotes everyone having a LW. But we are capable of generating that number. So I am referring to two different things - the definition and the number.
    Ok, but your conclusion is based on the number. There is a problem. Not there could be a problem if we figured it out.

    If we can't even answer "was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?" There seems no warrant to accept that we can evaluate the problem globally.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I know you aren't necessarily referring to MT as the very person he is but I thought you were referring to him as an example of a working middle-or-lower class kind of guy, pretty much like you and me. I'm sure we can implement such programs without taking money from people like MT.
    No really, I was referring to MT as a sovereign person. Taking something from him, regardless of his race, socio-economic condition, age, etc, requires some kind of defense.

    If your final conclusion rests on their being a national policy to ensure that people earn more (as it is currently stated) it necessitates taking from someone. Attempting to kick the can down the road doesn't work here either, as the answer to this question directly affects the truth value of one of your premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No comment.

    [I]For the record, "no comment" is a valid response to a support or retract challenge.
    Unfortunately, that isn't what the rules say. Can you point to where they explicitly offer you the choice of not repeating the claim?

    Regardless, we can take that claim as retracted, which means that the article posted cannot be used as support to the premise MW
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Support or retract this assertion.
    Certainly.

    Dire Poverty does not exist any Economics dictionary or textbook that I am familiar with. The Economist has no definition for it. Nor does it exist in the Library of Economics and Liberty (a well respected source out of George Mason). The Oxford Dictionary of Economics has no entry for Dire Poverty.

    The NYT uses the term in its headlines, as do many news articles. But when we look to the actual articles and the sources they use, no such term is offered.

    Poverty is a well defined term. "Dire Poverty" resides almost exclusively in Headline bait.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Support or retract this assertion.
    I'm not 100% sure what you would like me to support from that link. I see there being two options and will offer support for both. If neither is what you were looking for, let me know.

    1) The facts behind the assertions, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.. Those are sourced when they were initially offered back in post 12.


    2) That Dire Poverty includes those conditions. I'll actually happily retract this version of the claim. So far, I can't find anywhere the actual report mentions poverty or dire poverty.

    The report actually never mentions the MW either. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...-of-low-wages/


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I see nothing there regarding whether these people qualified for assistance.
    Like I said, it is because you didn't actually read the study. The study is entirely about the amount spent as part of the qualification for assistance by working families (not MW workers).

    To calculate the cost to state governments of public assistance programs for working families (defined as having at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week), we mainly rely on two sources of data: the March Supplement of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data from the Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, EITC, and food stamp programs. Medicaid figures exclude aged, blind, and disabled enrollees. The March Supplement, also known as the Annual Demographic Supplement, asks respondents about receipts of cash and non-cash transfer payments during the past year and includes questions about the programs we examined in this analysis.

    To create the cost and enrollment estimates for Medicaid, CHIP, and TANF we use the CPS to calculate the share of program expenditures and the share of individual program enrollees who live in working families. We then apply those shares to the state-by-state individual enrollment and program cost totals provided in the administrative data to obtain the number of enrollees and total expenditure on enrollees from working families. For Medicaid and CHIP, we calculate each state government’s share of expenditures by applying the state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The TANF administrative data break out each state’s TANF expenditures.

    To create the cost and enrollment estimates for EITC and SNAP, we reweight the CPS so that its cost and enrollment totals match the administrative data. We then sum the number of enrolled families (defined as having at least one family member participating in a program) and the cost of their benefits to obtain the total program enrollment and cost. We then repeat this process using only working families (defined as above) to obtain our total enrollment and cost for working families. For further detail see the earlier report Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry.16


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'm not retracting Premise 1. I hold that it's true that People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    Ok, prove it. Challenge to support a claim.. Please provide support for the unsupported premises in your statement.

    1) People generally think Dire Poverty is not an acceptable standard of living.

    2) That that definition of Dire Poverty comports with the definition used in the article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'm not saying that you aren't using the term correctly. I'm saying that going by the correct usage, the governmental decision we were discussing does not qualify as arbitrary. Again, they used a system and you have not supported that they used on reasoning at all.
    This is incorrect. Again, please note the examples of correct term usage. The editors at both Oxford and Merriam noted correct usages of the term arbitrary where a system was applied, but where the system was unrelated to the stated conclusions.

    ‘The numbering of years is a cultural artifact based on some rather arbitrary decisions made along the way.’
    [Obviously these decisions weren't done by dice, but were made via a series of thought out reasons, but reasons unrelated to the metric being discussed, year numbering]

    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’
    [Again, those punishments wouldn't have been arrived at necessarily through dice or snap judgements, but their lack of a coherent systematic approach related to justice earns them the label arbitrary.]

    ‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’
    [Here we see that there clearly is a system in place that has a set of criteria, but the use of irrelevant or inappropriate criteria earns it the label arbitrary. It is the inappropriateness of the method used that applies in the author's and editors' mind.]

    ‘This numbering system is an arbitrary designation based on small amino acid sequence differences.’
    [Finally, again there is a system that was designed, and clearly designed with a lot of work, that is arbitrary because its reasoning wasn't tied to the subject at hand.]

    The Marriage Act certainly employed arbitrary and draconian means. It forced all couples to marry between 8 am and 12 noon, according to the rites of the established Church of England, in one of their respective local parish churches. —David Johnson, History Today, November 2003
    [Very similar to my usage and argument, this example clearly doesn't indicate the means were done via random dice throwing, but that the means were unrelated to the goals of the Act or to a sense of fairness or justice one would expect from a legal bill.]

    Darwin's emphasis on how populations gradually change gave the notion of species a more arbitrary quality: Species had whatever boundaries taxonomists chose. The idea of a species as a population of individuals that breed mostly with each other comes from 20th-century theorists. —S. Milius, Science News, 25 Mar. 2006
    [Again, obviously taxonomists aren't creating their boundaries based on spur of the moment decisions or on dice, but on clear methods appropriate and accepted by their field. But, they are arbitrary in this context because they are unrelated to the use Darwin was offering.]

    Two days after President Lincoln issued the first version of his Emancipation Proclamation, he suspended the right of habeas corpus for anyone accused of resisting the draft or discouraging enlistment. Hundreds of civilians were arrested, some for good reasons, some for entirely arbitrary and personal ones. —Michael Lesy, Double Take, Spring 2001
    [Here the author clearly indicates that there were reasons, they were personal ones. But those reasons, being unrelated to the actual law made the arrest arbitrary. So the Merriam editors here are pointing out that a reason itself isn't good enough, it has to be a relevant reason.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If you are correct in your assessment, then they did use reason and therefore it does not fit the definition that we are using which SPECIFICALLY says that reasons is NOT used. Let's look at it again.
    So just to be absolutely clear, you are now maintaining that you, Mican, understand the usage of this term better than the editors at Oxford and Merriam?

    Before I respond to it, I think we need to seriously take a step back and realize the implications of your argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And if the argument here was "someone thinks it is a moral problem that people make less than a living wage" we'd be fine (well except that it is in a debate forum). But the problem is that that isn't the conclusion you drew here. To continue your analogy;

    1) SUBJECTIVE moral position that "murder is wrong"...
    2) A serial killer is a problem.
    3) Everyone must be subject to a law about murder.

    There is clearly a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion there. Likewise, in your argument there is a huge gap between, "I think this is a problem" and "everyone has a moral obligation to fix it."
    Straw man. I make no arguments that contain the premise "I think this is a problem" nor has the conclusion "Everyone has a moral obligation to fix it". Considering that I've directly stated every premise of my argument, there's no excuse for attacking premises that i didn't directly state when attacking my argument. The ONLY premises I stand behind are the ones I made in my logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P1 - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living - Ok, I'm assuming you mean this premise subjectively. IE a more appropriate phrasing might be "Mican holds that everyone should have the means..."
    No. Absolutely not. This is forwarded as an ACCEPTED PREMISE which means that every relevant person to the discussion, which in this case is both me and YOU, accept it. So it's not "Mican holds" but "Mican and Squatch agree that...". Yes, that does make the assumption that you agree with this premise. So do you agree with it? If yes, then the premise is valid. If no, then this premise is where the debate of the logic chain begins (for the rest of the chain is invalid if this premise is not accepted). Anyway, I will proceed on the assumption that you do agree with it and respond to the rest of your comments regarding the logic chain. But if you don't agree, PLEASE directly state that you don't agree. Otherwise I will proceed with my original assumption that the premise, as worded, is accepted.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. - Please support or retract this premise. And given its structure in the argument a la P3, please show that the two definitions of dire poverty are the same.
    While you can ask that I support a premise, you do not get to tell me how to support it. Any means of valid support qualifies as support. So here is my support.

    LW is based on what people think is acceptable (per the definition). A person who works a full-time job will certainly think that he's entitled to living an acceptable lifestyle, therefore a working person will think that he himself deserves a Living Wage for his work. Given that most people have a reasonable sense of justice, a person who thinks that his labor entitles him to a living will think that that principle applies to everyone else as well.

    Therefore since People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.

    Premise 2 has been supported per your challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P3 - Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided) - So looking back over the actual study, I can't find anywhere where it references the MW or Dire Poverty. Can you show where those terms were used? http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...-of-low-wages/
    I didn't claim that the study that you linked used those terms. Nor have I used that study for my support.

    My support for this premise is in this article.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-...illion-a-year/

    If you can't find the specific terms in the study that was mentioned in the article that I am using as support, then there's a good chance that it's the author's interpretation of the study. But regardless, the article I linked counts as a valid basis of support at ODN. If you want to attack the article's accuracy, then you need to make an argument that it's incorrect. Just saying that you don't enough information to confirm that it's accurate enough for your satisfaction will not suffice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    C1 - Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. - This appears to be a valid conclusion at first blush, though not a sound one until the premises are supported.
    Every premise is either supported on its own or logically flows from a prior supported premise. At this point, I've only seen one challenge to a premise via a Support or Retract Challenge and I provided support in regards to that challenge. So at this point, all prior premises as well as this one are supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    C2 - Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage - This also appears to be a valid conclusion, though not a sound one.
    Same response as above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    C3 - Therefore MW is lower than LW Ibid.

    C4 - Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living. - This is simply a restatement of C3 as currently defined. I would delete it as it offers no additional clarification. Same as C3, valid, but not sound.
    Same response as above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    C5 - Therefore we have a problem with people not being able to attain an acceptable standard of living through labor - This is not a valid conclusion. It does not follow from P1 that because Mican finds issue with it that we have a problem. You would need to tie you subjective view of this issue to us as a whole.
    Straw man. P1 does not appeal to my personal views so your statement is not relevant to the P1. You wanting P1 to say something other than what it says does not change it. Either accept P1 as it is written or reject it (with reason) but you can't change it and likewise be addressing the argument that I am making.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P4 - This problem should be solved. - Please support or retract this premise.
    I forward the truism that "Problems should be solved" as support. Yes, there are occasions where a problem should not be solved (as in there's no way to fix a problem without creating a bigger problem) but GENERALLY problems should be solved. So occasional exceptions does not invalidate the statement. GENERALLY it's a valid truism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    C6 -Therefore, We should have policy(s) to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living in order to solve the problem mentioned in point 7. - This conclusion does not follow from C3 and P4. Because a problem should be solved does not necessitate a policy. You need to offer a separate premise and support it relating why this problem must be solved via policy.
    Okay. Change out "policy" with "remedy" and we're set. So My conclusion is now

    C6 -Therefore, We should have a remedy(s) to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living in order to solve the problem mentioned in point 7.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    From the Rules: All claims, both positive and negative, must be supported if an opponent requests it (generally, but not exclusively with the challenge tags, Challenge to support a claim.).

    If the tags make you feel better, I'm happy to apply them, but several members have found challenge tags off putting in the past. I'll apply them now to help you identify what is required, but I should point out that I've been asking for support in accordance with the rules for several posts now.
    You don't have to Challenge to support a claim. but please say "support or retract" if you want me to support or retract a claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To clarify, your premise:

    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    This premise has not been supported.
    Yes it has. I supported it above when you asked me to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide evidence that shows the definition of "dire poverty" from whatever source you choose to use is shared by the poll you are using to show it is "unacceptable."
    Let me forward the pertinent rule again. All claims, both positive and negative, must be supported A claim is something that someone directly states as being true or valid. I never claimed that the definition of "dire poverty" from the source I used is shared by the poll I am using to show it is "unacceptable". You essentially have challenged me to support a straw-man instead of a claim.

    I ask that in the future, if you are going to challenge me to support something, please copy and paste what I said into your challenge. If you want to challenge me to support a claim that, for example, the sky is blue, then please find the portion of my post where I say "the sky is blue" and copy and paste that into your challenge. And I suppose I'm fine if you say "support or retract that assertion" following a simple statement from me as that will clearly be addressing a claim I directly made.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct that your premise:

    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)

    has been supported within the very limited confines of the specific and technical use of the term Dire Poverty used in the original study. If you wish to apply the term Dire Poverty more broadly, you would need to offer support of that usage.
    Because you say so? I see no rationale for accepting this claim beyond your personal opinion that I must do this.

    And PLEASE use the word "support" only for claims that one makes. If I didn't specifically claim X, then don't ask me to support X. That's not to say that you can't address X at all but "support" should be reserved for asking one to support claims that he made.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, not really. This point has the same flaw as your initial support. You are substituting "qualifying for a government transfer payment" for "earning below a living wage."

    Do the 21.5M work and qualify for government transfer payments? Sure. Bill Gates also qualifies for transfer payments.
    The article does not say that 21.5 million qualify for food stamps. It says 21.5 million receive food stamps. Bill Gates does not receive food stamps even if he does qualify.

    The article makes no mention of how many people qualify for food stamps. It shows how many working people SEEK food stamps (and seekers could be higher that 21.5 million since some seekers might not qualify).

    So I have supported that that at least 21.5 million people SOUGHT ADDITIONAL HELP from the government to help attain food. This supports that MANY people are looking for help to attain one of the necessities of life (food).

    So I claim, with support, that many people need help getting food in this country.

    And I should say that I seem to continually correcting you on this issue. "Qualifying for support" =/= "seeking support". In the future if I make an argument regarding people seeking support, please don't change the argument to qualifying for support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your initial support that MW < LW was to offer up an article about a study that said that X% of people earning a MW were living at or below Dire Poverty. The article did show they were earning at a level that constituted "Dire Poverty" (with their definition of the term."

    But Dire Poverty is not literally the same thing as earning below a living wage. That connection is what I've been asking for you to support.
    I think you are asking for greater precision than I've offered. But I don't need to provide greater precision in order to support my argument. If what I provided qualifies as support on ODN, then I've provided support. Maybe I could provide even better support than I already have but that doesn't change the fact that:

    PREMISE - Everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living
    1. People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.
    2. Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty (supported by the article I provided)
    3. Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty.
    4. Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage
    5. Therefore MW is lower than LW

    qualifies as support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you argue you are maintaining no such connection, that is fine, but then that link becomes spam because its evidence isn't linked to your premise.
    I make no claim regarding the connection either way. Whoever takes the initiative to make an ACTUAL CLAIM regarding the connection is the one who has the burden of support regarding a claim about the the connection. If neither of us make a claim regarding this, then no claim is offered and the issue of the connection becomes irrelevant to whether the claim that MW is less than LW is supported or not.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm a bit surprised by this challenge. Confirmation bias, the mental heuristic noted by psychologists as an impediment to critical and objective thinking is a flaw in one's rational processes. It is specifically noted as a stumbling block towards objective thought.

    What's more, the fact that you believe something (and the consequent that the premise agrees with your belief), is not a valid reason to accept it because your belief has no relational bearing on whether or not it is true. That you believe, or don't believe that 2+2=4 is irrelevant to the fact that 2+2=4. This is just the single individual circumstance of the Appeal to Belief fallacy.

    If we were to accept the premise you forwarded, Copernicus was acting irrationally because he didn't accept the geocentric model of the universe which he had believed growing up.

    Let's see if we can apply this in a manner that shows why we should reject it.

    1) Mike says that the existence of the NWO means he should kill minorities.

    2) Steve believes personally that the NWO also means he should kill minorities.

    C) It is true that the NWO means we should kill minorities.

    Under your framework this is a valid and sound argument.

    Obviously, this conclusion is problematic, and it arises from two related fallacies. Applying a subjective premise to an objective conclusion (we all should kill them) and accepting the premises based purely on confirmation bias. That Steve also believes in the NWO is absolutely unrelated to whether he really should kill minorities. But accepting a premise because he sincerely believes it is exactly why that kind of poor thinking persists.
    First off, the conclusion of my argument is subjective, not objective so your whole argument here is invalid to my argument. My argument forwards a subjective premise to lead to a subjective conclusion.

    So the logic of my argument would be more like

    1. Mike likes Hamburgers (bias towards hamburgers)
    2. Squatch likes hamburgers (also a bias)
    3. Therefore when there's a cook out, hamburgers would a good thing to put on the grill.

    My argument follows this kind of logic. We start with the subjective premise that working people should earn a LW and ends with the subjective recommendation that we do something to ensure that this happens.

    So I will restate my challenge to make sure that it's clear that we are talking about subjective conclusions. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that SUPPORT OR RETRACT that confirmation bias in regards to a subjective premise that one sincerely agrees with is an invalid reason to accept the premise for an argument where the conclusion is likewise subjective.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, the factual existence of God only matters to whether their premise was correct or incorrect, not its objectivity. That we have God given inalienable rights is either a true or false statement. If God doesn't exist, it is false, regardless of who you are.
    But if God does not exist then the only place that the concept of ineligible rights could have come from is from a human mind. In other words, it's just someone's opinion that we have inalienable rights and therefore it is a subjective position. Even if someone thinks that the concept came from God and believe it based on that, they are still really just believing a subjective position that was created by a human and mistaking it for something objective. Mistaking the subjective or objective still means it's subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But His existence is irrelevant to whether the statement is objective or not. "You have God given inalienable rights" is false (if God does not exist) regardless of who you are. It is just as false for the theist as the atheist.
    One can be objectively wrong that God is the source of the moral premise that humans have the right to life. But if there is no God, whether there is or is not a right to life is a subjective position. Atheists generally believe in a right to life and don't need to think God exists in order to hold that position so God is not necessary for this belief.

    So again, if we don't forward the God is the source of the Right to Life, THEN the belief that there is a right to life is a subjective position (even if one mistakenly believes that it's not).



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your critique is a form of genetic fallacy. It actually doesn't matter where the idea came from. 1+1=2 came from a human mind, that doesn't make it subjective.

    The origin of an idea is irrelevant to its formulation as objective.

    What matters, and I think what you're missing here, is whether the truth value of the statement is predicated on who is evaluating it. Humans having rights because they are people is true or false regardless of who is evaluating it.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that Humans having rights because they are people is true or false regardless of who is evaluating it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Some people might reject it, sure, but that doesn't make is subjective any more than the earth being round is subjective because of flat earthers.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the Earth is round. Okay, you don't actually have to support that. I will concede that you are capable of giving me some hard evidence to show that the earth is indeed round. The Earth being round is an objective, supportable position so I will pretend that you did so.

    But I hold that "humans have rights" is a subjective statement and therefore is not supportable unless I agree with a subjective premise (and by doing so, the argument becomes subjective). So again, I'd like you to support this and keep in mind that I will reject any and all subjective premises.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well it doesn't have to be subjective, it depends on how the argument is formulated.

    Let's return to the original point. Can you apply your definition of LW that way? IE can you answer the question:

    Was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?"
    I don't have enough information to answer that question. It depends on what kind of salary Steve needs in order to provide an acceptable standard of living for himself and his dependents.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, but your conclusion is based on the number. There is a problem. Not there could be a problem if we figured it out.

    If we can't even answer "was Steve earning a Living Wage when he got a $25,000/year salary?" There seems no warrant to accept that we can evaluate the problem globally.
    But we don't necessarily need to identify the number to know if there's a problem (although I'm sure we do if we are going to implement solutions). We don't necessarily need to see Steve's salary to know if there's a problem with what he's earning. If we see that he works full-time but cannot afford to pay his bills, then we can conclude that he's not earning enough to pay his bills and we have a problem. And in that situation, I would say that his salary, whatever the exact number is, is inadequate. So in other words, whether $25,000 is a LW depends entirely on what Steve's expenses are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No really, I was referring to MT as a sovereign person. Taking something from him, regardless of his race, socio-economic condition, age, etc, requires some kind of defense.

    If your final conclusion rests on their being a national policy to ensure that people earn more (as it is currently stated) it necessitates taking from someone. Attempting to kick the can down the road doesn't work here either, as the answer to this question directly affects the truth value of one of your premises.
    But this is kind of irrelevant to my support. There is no need to discuss the ramifications of implementing a "solution" to the "problem" until we settle whether there is a problem that should be solved. So until you do concede my logic chain, discussing the ramifications of that acceptance is premature.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unfortunately, that isn't what the rules say. Can you point to where they explicitly offer you the choice of not repeating the claim?
    Sure:

    "If support is not offered (or if the support is irrelevant to the claim) the staff will, at its discretion, strike through the text and post a red letter in the post to the effect that the claim has not been supported and cannot be further used without support."

    Now, I've never seen us strike an unsupported claim but the rule says "the claim has not been supported and cannot be further used without support."

    So basically it says that one cannot repeat his claim without supporting it. So if one does just that - not repeat his claim - then he has obeyed the rule.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, we can take that claim as retracted, which means that the article posted cannot be used as support to the premise MW
    Nope. You challenge me to "support or retract that the term "dire poverty" as defined in the study is below the living wage as you've defined it here as the consensus on an acceptable standard of living."

    So the ONLY thing that I cannot repeat is that the term "dire poverty" as defined in the study is below the living wage as I've defined it here as the consensus on an acceptable standard of living. So I will not repeat that claim (of course I never made it in the first place). I do not agree that that in any way obliges me to refrain from using that article as support.

    In fact, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I can't use that article as support my premises.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Regardless, we can take that claim as retracted, which means that the article posted cannot be used as support to the premise MW
    That statement is based on the premise that I needed to provide such a connection in order to continue to use the article as support. I disagree with that premise and therefore reject the claim that I can't use the article.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Certainly.

    Dire Poverty does not exist any Economics dictionary or textbook that I am familiar with. The Economist has no definition for it. Nor does it exist in the Library of Economics and Liberty (a well respected source out of George Mason). The Oxford Dictionary of Economics has no entry for Dire Poverty.

    The NYT uses the term in its headlines, as do many news articles. But when we look to the actual articles and the sources they use, no such term is offered.

    Poverty is a well defined term. "Dire Poverty" resides almost exclusively in Headline bait.
    Your evidence does not bridge to your conclusion. I challenged you to support or retract that "Dire Poverty isn't an economics term, it is an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action." I'll agree that the term "dire poverty" isn't in any of those books your mentioned but that does not mean that it's "an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action" or, as you now also claim, "headline bait".

    So again SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the term "dire poverty" an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action as well as "headline bait".

    And will point out that the article that I linked did not use "Dire poverty" in the headline so in that instance it was not used as headline bait.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not 100% sure what you would like me to support from that link.

    That any of that constitutes "dire poverty".

    I see there being two options and will offer support for both. If neither is what you were looking for, let me know. 0

    1) The facts behind the assertions, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.. Those are sourced when they were initially offered back in post 12.


    2) That Dire Poverty includes those conditions. I'll actually happily retract this version of the claim. So far, I can't find anywhere the actual report mentions poverty or dire poverty.

    The report actually never mentions the MW either. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-...-of-low-wages/
    I was referring to #2 and you've retracted it. So moving on...





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Like I said, it is because you didn't actually read the study. The study is entirely about the amount spent as part of the qualification for assistance by working families (not MW workers).
    But my support is not that study. My support is the article which directly states that many people sought assistance. And as I've said numerous times, it doesn't matter whether they qualified or not.

    Going back to our scenario, the fact that I asked you for $100 shows that I needed $!00. Your policy regarding giving money to people who ask for it is irrelevant to whether I needed the money.

    So I'm not saying that you are incorrect about any particular assertion regarding qualifying for assistance but that the issue is irrelevant to whether people need help.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, prove it. Challenge to support a claim.. Please provide support for the unsupported premises in your statement.

    1) People generally think Dire Poverty is not an acceptable standard of living.
    Okay.

    PREMISE - Generally speaking, no one wants to live in a state of dire poverty.
    THEREFORE - People generally think Dire Poverty is not an acceptable standard of living.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) That that definition of Dire Poverty comports with the definition used in the article.
    That is not a premise in my argument so I have no need to support it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is incorrect. Again, please note the examples of correct term usage. The editors at both Oxford and Merriam noted correct usages of the term arbitrary where a system was applied, but where the system was unrelated to the stated conclusions.
    One CAN use the word "arbitrary" to in reference to something where a system is in place and yet stick with the definition of "no system" when using the word. I will pick your first example to demonstrate this.

    "The numbering of years is a cultural artifact based on some rather arbitrary decisions made along the way."

    "some rather arbitrary decisions" means that SOME of the decisions were "rather" arbitrary. So this indicates that there was an element of randomness (arbitrariness) in the system but does not claim that the system was entirely arbitrary. So yes, a governmental system can have some arbitrariness to it but to say the entire system was arbitrary is to say that there was no system at all and this is not what the quote is saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’
    [Again, those punishments wouldn't have been arrived at necessarily through dice or snap judgements, but their lack of a coherent systematic approach related to justice earns them the label arbitrary.]
    That's not necessarily true. Plus the person seems to talking in an abstract sense as opposed to referring to an actual existing system that had arbitrary punishment.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’
    [Here we see that there clearly is a system in place that has a set of criteria, but the use of irrelevant or inappropriate criteria earns it the label arbitrary. It is the inappropriateness of the method used that applies in the author's and editors' mind.]
    A system was in place but was apparently abandoned when someone made arbitrary decisions. So "arbitrary" was not referring to a system but a breakdown of a system

    I'm not going to go through the rest of them. My argument is pretty much the same for all of these examples. I say that you are incorrect that the word "arbitrary" was being used to define a system. In all cases, it was referring to a deviation from the system. There is a system of punishment but some decisions were made arbitrarily (did not adhere to the system).

    And we can argue over whose use of arbitrary is correct but I will point out that MY use corresponds to the dictionary. So when we are debating over whether the use of the word arbitrary was intended to mean a system, I can point that the dictionary agrees with my assessment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So just to be absolutely clear, you are now maintaining that you, Mican, understand the usage of this term better than the editors at Oxford and Merriam?

    Before I respond to it, I think we need to seriously take a step back and realize the implications of your argument.
    No, I'm saying that you are mistaken in your assessment of your examples when you say that they are using the term arbitrary to indicate a system. That directly contradicts the actual Oxford definition.

    The dictionary I accept. It's your interpretation of the examples that I challenge and again, I have the actual Oxford definition on my side.

    Seriously, how do you square the fact that the definition CLEARLY says that there's no system with your interpretation that the Oxford usage indicates that "arbitrary" means that there is a system of sort? Either the dictionary is contradicting itself or your interpretation is incorrect. I hold it's the latter option.
    Last edited by mican333; June 27th, 2017 at 01:13 PM.

  10. #48
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw man. I make no arguments that contain the premise "I think this is a problem" nor has the conclusion "Everyone has a moral obligation to fix it".
    You explain your premise as subjective. That is what a subjective premise means, that it relates to you. You see it as a problem, not that it is an objective problem, right?

    And the conclusion is "we have a problem with people" and "we should have a policy" Unless you are using "we" in some odd just you and me manner, that would seem to apply to everyone right? And in the latter you offer that we need a policy. Given that polices apply to everyone if you aren't making a claim that everyone has a moral obligation, you would need to show why would should institute an objective policy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    This is forwarded as an ACCEPTED PREMISE which means that every relevant person to the discussion, which in this case is both me and YOU, accept it. So it's not "Mican holds" but "Mican and Squatch agree that...".
    Hmm, then I don't think that really gets you where you think it does. If the premise is more correctly stated as: "P1 - Squatch and Mican agree that everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living" then I'm not sure I can concur until you define what an "acceptable standard of living" means. There is a wide gulf between what you and I probably view as an "acceptable standard of living." Can you define that term?

    Additionally, even if we were both to agree to that premise, I'm not sure why you and I agreeing means anything to your later conclusions about us having a policy. Do you mean just Mican and Squatch, or a larger group?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    While you can ask that I support a premise, you do not get to tell me how to support it. Any means of valid support qualifies as support. So here is my support.

    LW is based on what people think is acceptable (per the definition). A person who works a full-time job will certainly think that he's entitled to living an acceptable lifestyle, therefore a working person will think that he himself deserves a Living Wage for his work. Given that most people have a reasonable sense of justice, a person who thinks that his labor entitles him to a living will think that that principle applies to everyone else as well.

    Therefore since People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage.

    Premise 2 has been supported per your challenge.
    You are correct that the manner of support is yours to decide...within the framework of the rules. The support must be related to the claim in question with a clear explanation. Given that, let's look at your support.

    P1) LW is based on what people think is acceptable (per the definition). - Agreed.


    P2) A person who works a full-time job will certainly think that he's entitled to living an acceptable lifestyle, Naturally, of course that person might define that acceptable lifestyle artificially high, right? It seems an odd metric to say that a person should have everything they personally think they are entitled to, right? Hell, lots of people think they are entitled to boats after all.

    P3) Given that most people have a reasonable sense of justice, a person who thinks that his labor entitles him to a living will think that that principle applies to everyone else as well. - I don't really see any reason to accept this premise, people make self-preferring choices all the time, especially when it comes to them actually having to do something to effect the justice. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? That people generally think the standard of living that applies to them should also apply to everyone else?

    C1) Therefore since People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. I missed where you tied dire poverty into your argument at all. It isn't in any of your premises. Where did you show that "people generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way..."


    One final note, this argument doesn't really form a coherent conclusion either. Steve might think everyone is entitled to standard of living A, while Mike thinks B. What you get is some kind of amorphous blob of possible standards of living that span a large range from the amish to the spoiled. So, in effect, your argument ends up being a bit fallacious. You treat "acceptable standard of living" as a defined term, when it really is just a mash up of 300M definitions, many of which don't overlap at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Nor have I used that study for my support...If you can't find the specific terms in the study that was mentioned in the article that I am using as support, then there's a good chance that it's the author's interpretation of the study.
    So, if we are confining your support to the article, and not the underlying study, this is a appeal to authority fallacy. There is no reason to think that a journalist is an appropriate authority on economic matters, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Straw man. P1 does not appeal to my personal views so your statement is not relevant to the P1.
    As you've explained the meaning of P1 in the above, this conclusion still might not follow. It depends on who you meant as 'we.' Just Mican and Squatch or we more broadly? If the latter, it does not follow from P1 that because Mican and Squatch finds issue with it that we have a problem. You would need to tie our perception (assuming you could support the premise that you and I do have an issue) to the larger definition of we.

    If a more constrained version of we (Mican and Squatch), then C6 does not follow (explained below.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I forward the truism that "Problems should be solved" as support.
    Hmm, that is an interesting point. I think a more valid truism would be that "problems should be reviewed." Obviously there are multiple times when a problem shouldn't be solved (which makes it not much of a truism), but it does make sense that a problem should be addressed or reviewed, if not necessarily solved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Okay. Change out "policy" with "remedy" and we're set. So My conclusion is now

    C6 -Therefore, We should have a remedy(s) to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living in order to solve the problem mentioned in point 7.
    Once we define "we" as referenced above, this would mitigate many of the problems with the argument, yes.

    Assuming the we makes sense, this would make the argument valid, though not sound until the premises are supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You don't have to Challenge to support a claim. but please say "support or retract" if you want me to support or retract a claim.
    If you wish. As I noted, a lot of debaters find it off putting, so I've been attempting to limit my usage, but I'll add the language as requested. I, of course, could forget occasionally, sufficed to say a request for support is relatively clear and I think it is generally obvious what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes it has....
    At this point we are re-addressing premises you've superseded above. To avoid confusion, I think we should generally confine ourselves to the premises above, which I'll restate here with my understanding of their current status.


    P1 - Squatch and Mican think that everyone should have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living - Updated, contested, currently debating what an "acceptable standard of living means"

    P2 - People generally think dire poverty is not an acceptable way for a working person to live, therefore dire poverty is below what people accept as a living wage. - Contested, the premises used in support of this argument require support themselves.

    P3 - Many who earn minimum wage need additional financial support to avoid dire poverty - Contested, support relies on appeal to authority fallacy.

    C1 - Therefore many who earn minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. - Valid Conclusion, Unsound until premises supported.

    C2 - Since MW is often not enough to earn an above poverty standard of living, it is not enough to earn what people accept as a Living Wage - Assuming a "poverty standard of living" is meant to be "Dire Poverty" then this is not a valid conclusion. No tie between "Dire Poverty" and "what people accept as a living wage" has not been offered in the premises.

    C3 - Therefore MW is lower than LW - Invalid conclusion. Same as C2, a tie between "Dire Poverty" and "what people accept as a living wage" has not been offered in the premises.

    C4 - Therefore just relying on earning what is currently the MW does not reliably allow one to attain an acceptable standard of living. - This is simply a restatement of C3 as currently defined. I would delete it as it offers no additional clarification. Same as C3, valid, but not sound.

    C5 - Therefore we have a problem with people not being able to attain an acceptable standard of living through labor - Unclear if a valid conclusion, depends on answer of who is included in "we."

    P4 - This problem should be solved. - Requested language change to "This problem should be reviewed or addressed."

    C6 -Therefore, We should have remedy to ensure that people have the means to attain an acceptable standard of living. - Awaiting definition of we here for validity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So I have supported that that at least 21.5 million people SOUGHT ADDITIONAL HELP from the government to help attain food. This supports that MANY people are looking for help to attain one of the necessities of life (food).

    So I claim, with support, that many people need help getting food in this country.
    The last sentence of the first paragraph quoted is supported, the second is not. You are correct that at least 21.5 million people sought additional funds from the government that they used for food.

    But that does not necessitate that they needed those funds right? That is a huge, unsupported assumption on your part. The point of my last objection was that the government's determination of what qualifies isn't the same thing as "need." The government has other factors it uses for its mechanisms of qualification that are political rather than economic or personal need. You can't just equate receiving a government benefit with "need" without some explanation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I think you are asking for greater precision than I've offered.
    It is not about precision, it is about categorical connections. I'm not asking you for the equivalent of the tenth digit of pi when you've offered the first 4. I'm asking you to show that "pi" is the same thing as "3.1415..." which should be easy. But I think the trip up is that you are using squishy terminology that could mean any number of things. A better analogy is that I'm asking you to support that Blue is good in the following argument:

    P1) X is blue

    C1) Therefore X is good.

    Obviously you are saying "blue is good" as an unstated premise, I'm asking you to support that. Where do you make the definition connection between Dire Poverty and Living Wage?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I make no claim regarding the connection either way.
    From above, ok, if you make no connection either way, then you retract the conclusion. If you don't actually make the connection that blue is good, the argument is invalid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    1. Mike likes Hamburgers (bias towards hamburgers)
    2. Squatch likes hamburgers (also a bias)
    3. Therefore when there's a cook out, hamburgers would a good thing to put on the grill.
    Your premises are objective. I like hamburgers regardless of who is evaluating the statement. Squatch likes hamburgers if Mican makes the argument. Squatch likes hamburgers if Talthas is making the argument. Squatch likes hamburgers has an objective truth value (it is true or false) irrespective of the evaluator.

    Hamburgers are good would be a subjective statement, sure, but not X likes hamburgers.

    Your conclusion is also invalid. If there is a cookout with Raul and Jessica, hamburgers might not be a good thing to put out. Your conclusion works and only works if Mike and Squatch are the only attendees of the cookout.

    And it certainly wouldn't mean that Ian, who also loves hamburgers, should accept the argument because of his like for hamburgers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But if God does not exist then the only place that the concept of ineligible rights could have come from is from a human mind.
    Right, and that would make the premise "we have God given inalienable rights" an incorrect premise, not a subjective premise. Let me ask it this way. If God does not exist, does the statement "God gave us inalienable rights" vary in truth value between Mike and Steve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    One can be objectively wrong that God is the source of the moral premise that humans have the right to life. But if there is no God, whether there is or is not a right to life is a subjective position.
    Yes, that is why those are two different premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that Humans having rights because they are people is true or false regardless of who is evaluating it.
    It is inherent in the formulation of the premise.

    "Humans having rights because they are people"

    None of the terms are subjective terms.

    You'll notice none of the definitions call back to the individual reading the definition. Words like good or tasty have implicit call backs to the person using the adjective. IE I find it good. Steve finds it tasty. It is tasty is an incoherent idea without the implied requirement that someone ate it.

    Humans and people have no such hang ups. That steve is human is irrelevant to whether Mike observes him as such or not. Steve's humanness is inherent in himself, not related to an outside individual.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't have enough information to answer that question. It depends on what kind of salary Steve needs in order to provide an acceptable standard of living for himself and his dependents.
    Exactly, it depends on a subjective evaluation criteria. IE "acceptable." In fact, you can't answer the question directly at all. The best you could say is "according to X's definition of acceptable, he is (or is not) earning a living wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But we don't necessarily need to identify the number to know if there's a problem (although I'm sure we do if we are going to implement solutions). We don't necessarily need to see Steve's salary to know if there's a problem with what he's earning. If we see that he works full-time but cannot afford to pay his bills, then we can conclude that he's not earning enough to pay his bills and we have a problem. And in that situation, I would say that his salary, whatever the exact number is, is inadequate. So in other words, whether $25,000 is a LW depends entirely on what Steve's expenses are.
    And if his expenses include a new corvette he buys each quarter? Or a lavish vacation plan, or coke habit? His expenses as a raw number are not sufficient either. Rather we need some cap on those expenses based on a bare minimum "acceptable" life style. But Steve might well say he needs that coke (and probably genuinely thinks he does) or those vettes (and he may even think he needs them), so we need some way, aside from Steve's opinion, to evaluate those expenses right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Sure:

    "If support is not offered (or if the support is irrelevant to the claim) the staff will, at its discretion, strike through the text and post a red letter in the post to the effect that the claim has not been supported and cannot be further used without support."

    Now, I've never seen us strike an unsupported claim but the rule says "the claim has not been supported and cannot be further used without support."

    So basically it says that one cannot repeat his claim without supporting it. So if one does just that - not repeat his claim - then he has obeyed the rule.
    That section is referring to the penalty section of not supporting. IE after the staff has punished you, you aren't able to offer the premise again with support or you will be punished. The more relevant section is:

    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    In fact, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I can't use that article as support my premises.
    I've already offered that support here in thread on several occasions. Your article (which fails as an appeal to authority fallacy) equates receiving support with "dire poverty." The article does not make a connection with an "acceptable standard of living" nor has any support been offered in thread. Until you make that connection, the article is not evidence of anything relating MW and LW. It can be used as a support that some number of working people obtain assistance to avoid dire poverty, but not as a connection to any kind of standard of living.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Your evidence does not bridge to your conclusion. I challenged you to support or retract that "Dire Poverty isn't an economics term, it is an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action." I'll agree that the term "dire poverty" isn't in any of those books your mentioned but that does not mean that it's "an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action" or, as you now also claim, "headline bait".

    So again SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the term "dire poverty" an emotional label used to make people feel bad and compel action as well as "headline bait".

    And will point out that the article that I linked did not use "Dire poverty" in the headline so in that instance it was not used as headline bait.
    There are two parts to the claim.

    We both agree that "Dire Poverty" is not an economics term and that has been shown in the last post.

    Dire is a subjective term used to emphasize the urgency of a condition or term. The author of your article offers no further clarification of why it is "dire" and as you agree, inserted it without support from the underlying study. Given the context of the surrounding sentences, the term is not being used to reference either a temporal or level of support need. Rather, given that no data or term from the study is referenced, it is purely an invention of the author absent empirical data, ie his personal opinion absent empirical data, the definition of emotive in the term emotional label.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But my support is not that study. My support is the article which directly states that many people sought assistance.

    And that data comes from? So absent the study your support becomes just the random claims of some random journalist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    PREMISE - Generally speaking, no one wants to live in a state of dire poverty.
    Offering an unsupported premise in support of an unsupported premise isn't a valid form of support.

    Please support or retract this assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That is not a premise in my argument so I have no need to support it.
    It is an implicit premise. If the definition of Dire Poverty used in the article is not the same as whatever support you offer, the support does nothing to help you validate your premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    One CAN use the word "arbitrary" to in reference to something where a system is in place and yet stick with the definition of "no system" when using the word.
    Agreed, this was, in fact, my point. The word arbitrary is perfectly appropriate when someone used a system unrelated to a goal ostensibly being achieved.

    For example. "‘This numbering system is an arbitrary designation based on small amino acid sequence differences." Clearly a system was used (specifically the amino acid sequence), but the existence of that system doesn't make the numbering less arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    A system was in place but was apparently abandoned when someone made arbitrary decisions.
    That doesn't appear to be what it says: "‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’"

    Those criteria and the system weren't abandoned, they were used to create arbitrary decisions. iE when you use these criteria, you create decisions unrelated to the underlying goal of the system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Seriously, how do you square the fact that the definition CLEARLY says that there's no system with your interpretation that the Oxford usage indicates that "arbitrary" means that there is a system of sort? Either the dictionary is contradicting itself or your interpretation is incorrect. I hold it's the latter option.
    It's actually quite simple. I don't have the baggage of assuming it is completely random that you are attaching. You are adding this criteria of absolute randomness that isn't in the definition. The definition's use of the term indicates a randomness related to the objective. Obviously people aren't absolutely random, we at least try to create rational outcomes. But when we use systems and reasons unrelated to the goals of our actions, we are still acting arbitrarily. The people being arrested in the Civil War weren't being arrested absent any reason, they were being arrested absent a valid reason. That is the meaning in the definition that you've overlooked by transforming randomness to "absolutely random."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 26th, 2013, 08:40 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 10th, 2010, 10:23 AM
  3. Obligation to inform of sex change...
    By thegreenape in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 12th, 2009, 11:58 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM
  5. What obligation do nations have to others?
    By Apokalupsis in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 04:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •