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 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The supporting statement, or the one that stuck with me was the that market wage < MW < Living Wage. I think we dismissed the first clause (Market < MW) for a couple of reasons, but the second clause is the one I'm trying to understand. How do we really know if the MW < Living Wage if we don't have a clear definition of what the latter means.

    We can offer generalities "what we need to get by" or "survive" but neither of those terms have a lot of useful information in them. Especially when we are confronted with the reality that people often make decisions about what is "necessary" that are different from ours. If we are really going to make a moral argument akin to "people shouldn't starve to death" we need a far more precise definition.
    And I disagree that we need to be more precise than we currently are. I provided the appropriate level of support by ODN rules and while you can ask for more precision, my support is not rendered inadequate if I decide to not give it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Starve to death is a clearly defined phrase. You died due to lack of caloric intake. We can know exactly who that occurred to and who it didn't. We can evaluate if it is occurring in the US and to what extent.

    I know it seems somewhat unbelievable to you, but I really have no idea what you mean by that term. Let me add to that that it is likely because, being from Seattle, I have a wide variety of inputs of people using similar terms with vastly different meaning. With housing it can range from living in a permanent structure to needing 2 acres of unaltered nature (not kidding, that is an argument for the minimum space required for a human to live on). For food it can range for 3000 calories of any sort to a requirement for a balanced diet of organic food. Internet is variously on or off the list. Vehicles are variously on or off the list. Health Insurance is an obviously sticky wicket, see how hard of a time Democrats had coming up with a list of "minimum acceptable coverage" in 2009.
    I think you do have an idea. You have just listed a number of valid factors to integrate into coming up with PRECISELY what one need to "make ends meet". So you do know what to "make ends meet" means but you just don't know exactly what it takes to make ends meet.

    And I see no reason that I need to figure out what it takes to make ends meet. It's certainly not necessary for support of any of my arguments.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The problem is, as I highlighted (and it is irrelevant to the arbitrary definition) is that "qualification for a government subsidy" is not the same thing as "living below the living wage." You've equated the two by using this as support.
    "Equate" as in have some relevance to each other, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or you are, at least, using that qualification as a proxy for living below living wage without offering a clear rationale as to why those would be 1:1 related.
    I didn't say that they were 1:1 related. Again, I would hold that they have some relevance to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The reason we are having a hard time resolving the above claim is that you haven't offered a methodological definition of a "living wage."
    But debate-wise, that’s not my problem. If you can’t rebut my argument without me defining this, then feel free to offer no rebuttal.

    As far as I can tell, I’ve offered what counts as support at ODN and you not offering an rebuttal but just asking me to more specifically define what I’m saying. Really, I think it’s shifting the burden. If I were to attempt to give you a “satisfactory” level of specificity, now instead of you having the burden of offering a rebuttal for my support, I have the burden of offering a currently unknown level of specificity (as I don’t even know at what level you will be satisfied) so you can technically endlessly ask for more specificity.

    So I have no burden nor interest in doing this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well not really. Bills almost always have a "background" and "rationale" section. These sections are incredibly important because they offer the courts and agencies additional framework to understand the law. It pre-empts courts from asking "what did the legislature mean by this?" However, most of the "poverty" measures, as I showed before, stem from the federal poverty line. That number was shown to be an arbitrary definition of 3 times the food budget from 1964 adjusted for inflation.

    It might not have been arbitrary in the sense that it was a political negotiation, but in relation to poverty it absolutely was arbitrary. There was no system or rationale related to poverty or if this proxy measured poverty, it was based on the individual will or judgement of the politicians. (There is an argument also that appealing to politicans' definition rather than economists' is an appeal to authority fallacy as well I think).
    It's not arbitrary by the most common definition of the word (which pretty much means random) - more on that below. And saying that there was no system because you didn't see one, doesn't mean there isn't one. I haven't shown you my high school diploma but that is not support that I didn't didn't graduate from high school.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please review post 464, where I provided this definition: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." From Oxford Dictionary.

    But let's also look at your Merriam definition:

    "existing or coming about seemingly at random"

    And

    " based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" (This is the most correct definition since it relates to a standard, which is what we are talking about).

    That second definition looks a lot like the Oxford definition. Individual preference is the determining factor, not an objective standard or definable methodology. Which was my critique of your position. That it is based on your internalized vision of something, not on a defined, methodological definition that others can read and accept or reject without comparing it to their own internal vision.
    First off, if you want me to agree that such decisions should not be made arbitrarily, then you need to stick to the definition that I, and pretty much everyone, is familiar with - the one that refers to randomness and a whim exclusively. I agree that important decisions should not be made by completely random criteria or on a sudden whim. But if you are going to expand the definition of "arbitrary" to include individual preference, then I don't necessarily agree that decisions should not be made arbitrarily.

    And as far as your critique of my position for using "internalized vision", you will need to support that it's wrong to do that. And again, at this point I do not concede that it's wrong for a decision to be made "arbitrarily" since you are apparently not defining the word as exclusively meaning "random or on a whim".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because the measurement of starvation isn't based on their individual will or judgement
    But whether we SHOULD allow people to starve is based on individual will/judgement. Before one can enact an anti-starvation measure, one has to make the judgment that people should not starve.

    So there is no way to implement any anti-starvation program without resorting to individual judgment. If I'm wrong about this, please demonstrate how it can be done.
    Last edited by mican333; May 11th, 2017 at 05:13 PM.

  2. #22
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But debate-wise, that’s not my problem. If you can’t rebut my argument without me defining this, then feel free to offer no rebuttal.
    I want to start with this because it really is the crux of this disagreement. It seems an odd position to take that you can use a term and offer no definition (especially when you chided me earlier for using precise, economic language). By that reasoning I could well rebut your argument by saying:

    "The marginal contribution, on average, when combined with exogenous market forces for capital allocation, is always above the living wage and thus we have no no moral obligation." And then I could point to the fact Americans are not starving en masse. By not defining either side of the argument (A or B in my premise), the claim that it is "true" becomes hollow. What's more, I've only offered support perhaps third order related to the premise terms, but we couldn't really even evaluate that without a definition of the premises' terms.


    The extreme version of your argument is "Well if A therefore A. CA, therefore B."

    And then voila, I've won the argument, because you can't rebut a concept with no definition. Thread over, let's retire for coffee and cigars. Alternatively, you could offer another non-defined term and the thread could devolve into meaningless sophistry.



    Further, it is just a silly position to take from a debate perspective. Just as anyone who offers a premise has the burden to defend and support it, a person who uses a specific term needs to offer some kind of definition to support it. What's more, you leave the room open for a definition different from what you would use.



    We can do that here for example. Since you've refused to offer a specific definition, I'll offer one to move the thread forward.

    A living wage is: "A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life."

    I have already calculated the requirements that are necessary to live. Those minimums for national averages affect less than 3% of workers.


    Alternatively, we can use the economic definition more common amongst professional economists, that the "living wage" is simply another name for a minimum wage. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7606.pdf With all the same economic consequences and problems already highlighted in this thread.


    So there are two options here, either it is relatively inconsequential, or it is a cover term for an existing methodology that increases poverty and reduces economic mobility. Or, you could offer your own, alternate definition with support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    First off, if you want me to agree that such decisions should not be made arbitrarily, then you need to stick to the definition that I, and pretty much everyone, is familiar with - the one that refers to randomness and a whim exclusively.
    This is a ridiculous rebuttal. Oxford Dictionaries isn't good enough apparently? The rest is essentially an unsupported appeal to popularity. You are simply artificially constraining the term to what you want it to be. If you want to dismiss one of the widest referenced dictionaries on the planet, you need to offer support for the claim that "pretty much everyone" ignores both the Oxford definition and more importantly, YOUR definition.

    Remember, I offered your Merriam definition:

    "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" This is your definition Mican.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But whether we SHOULD allow people to starve is based on individual will/judgement. Before one can enact an anti-starvation measure, one has to make the judgment that people should not starve.
    That is a bit of a strawman. No one is asking you about whether someone should accept a living wage. I'm asking what is a living wage. Likewise, I can objectively tell you what starving is which makes it objective, not a subjective, political number.
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 18th, 2017 at 12:56 AM. Reason: Post Clean/Thread Split
    "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. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It seems an odd position to take that you can use a term and offer no definition (especially when you chided me earlier for using precise, economic language).
    I wasn't refusing to give a general definition. You asked for a "methodological definition" which I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, requires one to not only define the term but to forward the methodology for figuring out how to determine what the living wage actually is.

    If you are referring to the simple dictionary definition of "living wage", no problem. But then I also don't think I need to do that either for you are just as capable of consulting the dictionary to find out what the term means as I am capable of finding it and pasting it in this thread. And in fact, I will do that right now.

    "a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../living%20wage


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Further, it is just a silly position to take from a debate perspective. Just as anyone who offers a premise has the burden to defend and support it, a person who uses a specific term needs to offer some kind of definition to support it.
    Actually no, One has to support the arguments that they make. The only reason that I would need to support that any definition means such-and-such is if you challenged my assertion that the definition is such-and-such so first I have to actually tell you what a word means before I have the burden to support it. But then if I told you what it means, you would not be complaining that I didn't tell you. But again, I don't really have a problem telling you what a term basically means. I was balking at the notion that I need to tell you how to figure out what a living wage IS, not what it means.

    So I would put this down to miscommunication. Either I didn't understand what you meant or you were not accurately relaying what you meant. So assuming you just wanted me to tell you the definition of the term, I just did above. So this is resolved. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We can do that here for example. Since you've refused to offer a specific definition, I'll offer one to move the thread forward.

    A living wage is: "A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life."

    I have already calculated the requirements that are necessary to live. Those minimums for national averages affect less than 3% of workers.
    Support this please.

    Your earlier calculation was too rough and incomplete to be accepted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Alternatively, we can use the economic definition more common amongst professional economists, that the "living wage" is simply another name for a minimum wage. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7606.pdf With all the same economic consequences and problems already highlighted in this thread.
    Okay. But my argument is based on the definition of the living wage that I just provided.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is a ridiculous rebuttal. Oxford Dictionaries isn't good enough apparently? The rest is essentially an unsupported appeal to popularity. You are simply artificially constraining the term to what you want it to be. If you want to dismiss one of the widest referenced dictionaries on the planet, you need to offer support for the claim that "pretty much everyone" ignores both the Oxford definition and more importantly, YOUR definition.
    I'm not disagreeing with the Oxford dictionary at all. The definition it provides is:

    "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

    And as I said - First off, if you want me to agree that such decisions should not be made arbitrarily, then you need to stick to the definition that I, and pretty much everyone, is familiar with - the one that refers to randomness and a whim exclusively.

    But this semantic quibbling really doesn't make a difference in regards to the content of the argument.

    If you want to define "arbitrary" as meaning using "individual judgement", I will go along with that. But if we are going with that definition, then I don't agree that using arbitrary standards is unacceptable. I think individual judgement is not only allowable but absolutely necessary in order to create a program that addresses starvation. More on that below.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a bit of a strawman. No one is asking you about whether someone should accept a living wage. I'm asking what is a living wage.
    Actually, this response is a straw-man. I was not arguing that someone should accept a living wage in what you are responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, I can objectively tell you what starving is which makes it objective, not a subjective, political number.
    Whether one is starving can be determined objectively. But whether a government should intervene to prevent people from starving is a subjective decision and there can be no program to prevent starvation without some people making that subjective decision. And likewise the decision to let people starve (not implement any kind of program to prevent starvation) is a subjective decision.

    So basically it's impossible for the government to take a position on starvation without using subjectivity even if they will also need to incorporate objective facts (such as determining when someone is starving).

    I consider what I've said valid support that one must use subjectivity to create any government policy that deals with "should" or "should not" (such as whether we should or should not intervene to prevent starvation).
    Last edited by mican333; May 12th, 2017 at 07:52 PM.

  4. #24
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I wasn't refusing to give a general definition. You asked for a "methodological definition" which I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, requires one to not only define the term but to forward the methodology for figuring out how to determine what the living wage actually is.

    If you are referring to the simple dictionary definition of "living wage", no problem. But then I also don't think I need to do that either for you are just as capable of consulting the dictionary to find out what the term means as I am capable of finding it and pasting it in this thread. And in fact, I will do that right now.

    "a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../living%20wage

    I think it is interesting that you picked the second definition rather than the first, which fits the definition I offered earlier:

    subsistence wage


    Ok, your original argument was that the living wage was larger than the minimum wage. Can you demonstrate that the minimum wage is less than either a "subsistence wage" or "an acceptable standard of living?"

    You'll have a hard time supporting the latter claim because acceptable is a subjective term, which has been my point. The former will likewise be difficult because it isn't true, as I've shown.

    So far, if this is the definition you are offering, your argument does not hold. It does not follow from "comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living" that MW < LW. There is a pretty large gap between those two premises.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Actually no, One has to support the arguments that they make. The only reason that I would need to support that any definition means such-and-such is if you challenged my assertion that the definition is such-and-such so first I have to actually tell you what a word means before I have the burden to support it.

    Your argument is a legalistic one, that you don't need to offer support for an argument until requested to do so. That is the case. But that doesn't mean the burden of proof doesn't remain with you, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Support this please.

    Your earlier calculation was too rough and incomplete to be accepted.
    If anything it included too much. The definition offered, along with the primary Merriam definition is of a wage able to provide for the "necessities of life" or a "subsistence wage." Those terms both mean what is necessary to survive.

    I included shelter, food, and health insurance. The latter isn't technically necessary to survive, it is just helpful in certain situations. In order to survive a human being requires shelter, food, and water. Those calculations include, if anything, a higher cost of living than what is necessary to survive.

    What you are objecting to is that this doesn't include criteria that you want to have included. Fine, offer a more robust definition that would include those concepts. What specifically is included in the living wage calculation?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I think individual judgement is not only allowable but absolutely necessary in order to create a program that addresses starvation. More on that below....I was not arguing that someone should accept a living wage in what you are responding to.
    ... Whether one is starving can be determined objectively. But whether a government should intervene to prevent people from starving is a subjective decision and there can be no program to prevent starvation without some people making that subjective decision.
    I think the same reasoning mistake is made in these three sections so I combined them.

    Your original argument had two parts.

    1) MW < LW

    and

    2) We, as a society, have an obligation to correct wages below the LW.


    The first part is still unsupported since we lack any definition of LW that allows for the kind of mathematical comparison you offered, let alone the data to support such a comparison.


    The second part is what you are arguing is necessarily subjective, but that had nothing to do with my argument, which is related to the first part. Arguing that society should do X or Y, at least in the framework you are offering, is subjective, true. But the link you offered, my calling it arbitrary, and the entire discussion has nothing to do with what society should or should not do. It was about whether X was less than Y, ie an objective statement.

    Your link was about whether there was evidence that the LW was less than the MW. You proposed to show that qualifying for subsidies was a proxy for that relationship (LW < MW). My objection was that qualifying for subsidies has nothing to do with a living wage as it is determined arbitrarily by Congressional fiat, not based on any specific or technical definition of the LW.

    I can't, for example show that oranges are expensive, by linking to an article about how apples are expensive unless I show those two are related. That last part hasn't been done here, just asserted.
    "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.


  5. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    First off, you are continuing to use the word "arbitrary". I personally find it unreasonable to use any definition of arbitrary that means anything other than "random or personal whim". That's not to say that I refuse to acknowledge other definition that exist in the dictionary but hold that we should not be using them in this debate. When it comes to dictionary definitions, you use them one at a time. For example, the word "cat" means a house cat, a large cat (like a lion), and a jazz fan. When I say that my cat sat on my lap, I am referring ONLY to the first definition and not referring to a lion or a jazz fan. So likewise if you are using the definition of "arbitrary" that does not refer to "random or personal whim" then you are no longer referring to randomness when using the word and therefor are miscommunicating with people who do think that arbitrary means "random" (as in your use might be technically correct but it's giving the listener the wrong impression of what you are saying as the listener will think "random" when you meant something else).

    So again, I see no good reason to use a definition of arbitrary other than "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" and at this point I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "arbitrary" - I'm guessing it's something akin to "subjective" and "individual will" instead of "random choice".

    So considering how muddled the definition is in this debate, I ask that you cease using the word. If not, then please use the definition that exclusively means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". And failing that, list the definition that you are using INSTEAD of "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".

    But as for now, I will just consider "arbitrary" to be akin to "subjective".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, your original argument was that the living wage was larger than the minimum wage. Can you demonstrate that the minimum wage is less than either a "subsistence wage" or "an acceptable standard of living?"
    I already have supported this. Here it is again and to the best of my knowledge, you have never defeated this support (which is not to say that you are not currently attempting to defeat it, which is a significant portion of the current debate). But until my support is defeated, it still counts as support.


    "Here's a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion.

    "That's the annual bill that state and federal governments are footing for working families making poverty-level wages at big corporations such as Walmart (WMT) and McDonald's (MCD), according to a new study from the University of California Berkeley Labor Center. 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/



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You'll have a hard time supporting the latter claim because acceptable is a subjective term, which has been my point.
    No, it's not. "Acceptable" has an objective definition (which you will find in a dictionary) so the term itself is not subjective. But when something is considered "acceptable" is often subjective. For example, when a child is asked to clean his room, it is up to the parent to subjectively decide when the child has done an "acceptable" job of cleaning (which will even vary from parent to parent). But this issue does not prevent a parent from having the child clean the room or denies the parent the ability to say the room is "clean". Likewise the subjectivity inherent in determining what constitutes a Living Wage does not make the term unworkable.

    So I reject your notion that subjectivity makes it impossible to come up with a workable line of acceptability and therefore do not think that this issue detracts from whether my support is valid. So my support still stands.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It does not follow from "comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living" that MW < LW. There is a pretty large gap between those two premises.
    Actually it does. If people who work qualify for public assistance, then it can be reasoned that their wages alone are not giving them "comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your argument is a legalistic one, that you don't need to offer support for an argument until requested to do so. That is the case. But that doesn't mean the burden of proof doesn't remain with you, right?
    The burden of supporting my argument is with me. But I don't have the burden to provide you with whatever information you care to ask or to explain my argument in greater detail upon request (such as the definitions of the words I am using). To hold up my position, I only have the burden to defend attacks on my position, as in rebut arguments of yours that, if correct, would show that my argument is incorrect. Asking me for definitions does not do that and therefor I have no such support.

    That's not to say that I categorically refuse to answer any questions that you might ask but I do want to make it clear that not answering a question typically does not qualify as a defeater.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If anything it included too much. The definition offered, along with the primary Merriam definition is of a wage able to provide for the "necessities of life" or a "subsistence wage." Those terms both mean what is necessary to survive.

    I included shelter, food, and health insurance. The latter isn't technically necessary to survive, it is just helpful in certain situations. In order to survive a human being requires shelter, food, and water. Those calculations include, if anything, a higher cost of living than what is necessary to survive.

    What you are objecting to is that this doesn't include criteria that you want to have included. Fine, offer a more robust definition that would include those concepts. What specifically is included in the living wage calculation?
    Actually, it doesn't sound like the definition of LW. I'm going with this definition.

    "a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living"

    Obviously that includes more than just a roof and enough food and water to keep from dying. It even mentions comforts.

    And yes, it is kind of subjective and even changes with the times. People can survive living like a medieval peasant but if one suggested that living like that now qualifies as an acceptable standard of living, it would be rejected. So obviously one has to earn more than just enough for a roof over their heads and enough food to avoid dying in order to have a living wage.

    And MY argument does not require me to come up with a better formula for determining what the bare minimum is and what it takes to earn it as I never made an argument that requires these number for support.

    The task of generating a good formula is the sole burden of the one who is using such a thing to support his argument and to reject the formula, the defeater just has to explain why it's not a good formula - they do not have the burden of coming up with their own good formula.

    And I've supported that your formula is not good. It is definitely too incomplete for today's standards. And if you don't know what it takes to make a good formula, then you can't use one to support your argument.

    But I should say that it seems to that figure out what an acceptable level is, one just needs to observe how people who live at the lower end of "acceptable" live in our current society and what it takes to maintain that. And one should factor supporting a family in the equation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your original argument had two parts.

    1) MW < LW

    and

    2) We, as a society, have an obligation to correct wages below the LW.


    The first part is still unsupported since we lack any definition of LW that allows for the kind of mathematical comparison you offered, let alone the data to support such a comparison.
    But then I supported my argument without using a mathematical comparison, nor has it been defeated by other means, so it is still supported.

    You seem to be setting up an artificial burden of support. There are multiple ways to support an argument and just because I didn't support my argument by using Method X, does not mean that I didn't support it via a different method.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    our link was about whether there was evidence that the LW was less than the MW. You proposed to show that qualifying for subsidies was a proxy for that relationship (LW < MW).
    No. I'm saying that qualifying for subsidies supports that one is not earning a LW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My objection was that qualifying for subsidies has nothing to do with a living wage as it is determined arbitrarily by Congressional fiat, not based on any specific or technical definition of the LW.
    Then you will need to support this. In other words, you need to show the method for how Congress determines the LW and then show that the method is invalid (at this point, the definition of the word "arbitrary" is too uncertain to be useful here).

    And saying that no method has been presented will not suffice. They used a method. If it is indeed something completely random with little rhyme or reason, I would agree that it's invalid. But saying that no method was used because you can't identify the method is pretty much engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.
    Last edited by mican333; May 15th, 2017 at 11:38 AM.

  7. #26
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    First off, you are continuing to use the word "arbitrary". I personally find it unreasonable to use any definition of arbitrary that means anything other than "random or personal whim". That's not to say that I refuse to acknowledge other definition that exist in the dictionary but hold that we should not be using them in this debate. When it comes to dictionary definitions, you use them one at a time. For example, the word "cat" means a house cat, a large cat (like a lion), and a jazz fan. When I say that my cat sat on my lap, I am referring ONLY to the first definition and not referring to a lion or a jazz fan.
    That you find it "personally find" acceptable is understandable, but largely irrelevant to whether the definition fits or not. I get that you are thinking of another context or sense that you want to convey, but that isn't what the word means.

    You are absolutely correct that we generally use one definition at a time to avoid equivocation fallacies. So let's review the definitions offered and see whose is more accurate to the context being used here. Let's remember the context is, are the levels of government support "arbitrary?"

    Merriam (Your source)


    1) a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will •an arbitrary choice
    •When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary. — Nehemiah Jordan


    Yep, seems to fit this definition. The bill offered, as I supported earlier, lacks any defense or rationale as to its reasoning behind what qualifies and what doesn't. What qualifies for government subsidy was created "seemingly at random." There is no "meaningful context" as to why $X of income qualifies, but $Y does not.

    We know this even by your own argument. At a bare minimum we know that food and shelter are on the list of things constituting a LW. But those are exactly factors that differ by state or county. Yet there is some magical number that represents all Americans, regardless of location, age, medical condition, etc?


    b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something •an arbitrary standard •take any arbitrary positive number

    Or we can review definition 1b. Certainly we've seen no argument they created this based on a "wages intrinsic nature" or any other kind of intrinsic nature. No such language exists in the bill or reasoning has been offered here. Likewise it certainly wasn't determined out of necessity right? It could easily have been much higher or much lower. The level that qualifies support, rather was based on political negotiation and the particular positions of the negotiating politicians. IE their individual preferences and the convenience created through negotiation.

    Thus that the specific standard for support offered in the bill was arbitrary fits this definition as well.

    2) a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power
    : ruling by absolute authority •an arbitrary government

    b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power •protection from arbitrary arrest and detention


    3) law: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law •The manner of punishment is arbitrary.

    Neither of the remaining two definitions really seem to match the context offered, so I would argue aren't really relevant here.


    So let's take the Oxford Definition I offered:


    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. "‘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.’"

    The same context seems to apply here as to the Merriam definition. This was based on the personal negotiated preferences of the politicians involved. No reason or system exists in the legislation or the commentary offered. Thus the specific level of income that qualifies for support was based on individual negotiation and position, and is, by this definition, arbitrary.

    It seems somewhat telling that Oxford uses, as an example of proper usage of the term something very akin to my argument.

    2(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

    3Mathematics
    (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

    Neither of these definitions really seem to fit, akin to the Merriam definition.



    So it comes down to this. I've offered that there was no system or rationale in either the context of the bill or the language of the bill. The process for bill adoption and reconciliation fits both the definition I offered and the definition you offered.

    You are rebutting based on the possibility that there could have been some system used. That is an argument of ignorance fallacy. If there was some system used, feel free to offer it as evidence, but the evidence offered thus far shows only an arbitrary standard was created.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I already have supported this. Here it is again and to the best of my knowledge, you have never defeated this support (which is not to say that you are not currently attempting to defeat it, which is a significant portion of the current debate). But until my support is defeated, it still counts as support.

    I'm afraid not. Because you have not shown that "qualification for government subsidy" is the same thing as "living below the Living Wage." You've asserted it, sure, but you've offered no direct evidence or rationale.

    Until you do so this is an unsupported claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it's not. "Acceptable" has an objective definition (which you will find in a dictionary) so the term itself is not subjective. But when something is considered "acceptable" is often subjective. For example, when a child is asked to clean his room, it is up to the parent to subjectively decide when the child has done an "acceptable" job of cleaning (which will even vary from parent to parent).

    You are conflating having an objective definition (which it doesn't actually, language, by definition is not objective) with the standard itself being subjective. You admit as much in your second sentence. It is acceptable to the parent, but not the child. The fact that we are appealing to people at all shows this is a subjective statement.

    So, when we say "acceptable" with a LW, whom exactly is it acceptable to?

    IE, if this is going to be your definition of the LW,"a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living" then you need to define who determines whether it is acceptable. This is incredibly important to the core of your argument, because if the definition essentially comes down to your subjective value of what is "acceptable" and what isn't, then the moral weight of your argument falls apart, unless you are doing something you thus far haven't, claiming to be some moral law giver as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Actually it does. If people who work qualify for public assistance, then it can be reasoned that their wages alone are not giving them "comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living".
    Only if we assume the two things are equal concepts. If you want to do that here you need to offer it as a formal premise and offer support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The burden of supporting my argument is with me. But I don't have the burden to provide you with whatever information you care to ask or to explain my argument in greater detail upon request (such as the definitions of the words I am using).
    But it does. Again, if I offered the argument "Quiakadkjdlkf means that we have a moral obligation to end the MW" I haven't offered up a rationale or supported argument, I've simply spoken in jargon (which we do have a rule against). Just because the jargon comes from social sites rather than a technical manual doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to support it.


    And again, if you were really making an argument that you really wanted to convince people of, you would offer more than the platitude that is the general term. I'm not asking you to create a schedule of payments for every single person in the US, just offer a definition of what is, and what is not covered in a living wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The task of generating a good formula is the sole burden of the one who is using such a thing to support his argument and to reject the formula, the defeater just has to explain why it's not a good formula - they do not have the burden of coming up with their own good formula.
    Actually, it is. You made a statement of mathematical relationship, that LW is greater than the MW. You have to support that. That means defining it in a coherent manner. The closest you've come is to say that LW = Government Assistance Level, a relationship you haven't supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Then you will need to support this. In other words, you need to show the method for how Congress determines the LW and then show that the method is invalid (at this point, the definition of the word "arbitrary" is too uncertain to be useful here).

    Please see above or earlier. Congress uses a pretty well defined process for creating laws. Congress offered no rationale or system for the number they arrived at. Oxford even offers that exact scenario in its list of acceptable usages of the word. That specific bill, as supported earlier, was created on a committee via a reconciliation process. IE it was negotiated between individual members of the House and Senate, not by a defined system for determining "an objectively acceptable standard of living."
    "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.


  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will •an arbitrary choice
    Right. That is the "randomness and whim" definition that I offered earlier and this is pretty much the same thing. And as I said, we have to settle on ONE definition and not use the others for in discussion, people use one definition at a time (as explained in my "cat" example). So this is the definition we are using and the rest of the definitions are irrelevant to the discussion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yep, seems to fit this definition. The bill offered, as I supported earlier, lacks any defense or rationale as to its reasoning behind what qualifies and what doesn't. What qualifies for government subsidy was created "seemingly at random." There is no "meaningful context" as to why $X of income qualifies, but $Y does not.
    You don't get to "arbitrary" with "Seemingly at random". If you are going to say it was done at random then you have the burden to show the process that was used and demonstrate how it really was random (such as someone rolled dice or threw darts at a board, etc). All you seem to have is lack of evidence that it wasn't done at random (as apparently how it was done was not clearly explained). That will not suffice as support that it was done randomly and is pretty close to engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We know this even by your own argument. At a bare minimum we know that food and shelter are on the list of things constituting a LW. But those are exactly factors that differ by state or county. Yet there is some magical number that represents all Americans, regardless of location, age, medical condition, etc?
    I don't see how this supports that the system is arbitrary so I have no rebuttal to this.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something •an arbitrary standard •take any arbitrary positive number
    And that is a different definition. IF we are using the first one, we are not using that one. I'm saying that it's an invalid definition but that if are going to argue that X is "arbitrary", we need to settle on one definition in order to make the argument, not every single definition that one can find in the dictionary. Since we both agree that the first definition is a good one, that is the only one I'm using in this debate. All others will be ignored short of me agreeing that we should use a different one than the first one that you offered above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So let's take the Oxford Definition I offered:


    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

    The same context seems to apply here as to the Merriam definition. This was based on the personal negotiated preferences of the politicians involved. No reason or system exists in the legislation or the commentary offered. Thus the specific level of income that qualifies for support was based on individual negotiation and position, and is, by this definition, arbitrary.
    You are completely ignoring the primary part of the definition - Based on random choice or personal whim. Random choice means that it was decided by some random method (drawing numbers from a hat or rolling dice. A person whim is a sudden decision - if one spends even a minute deciding something, it is not a whim. So just lacking a system (and btw, you have not supported that no system was used - just that you didn't see one) will not suffice.

    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the system used was based on randomness or a personal whim (as in a sudden decision without much thought). If you do neither, then please stop using the word "arbitrary" to describe this process unless you will support that their decision was based on randomness and/or whims.

    In the meantime, I reject the word "arbitrary" (as in the first definition) correctly applies to the process.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm afraid not. Because you have not shown that "qualification for government subsidy" is the same thing as "living below the Living Wage." You've asserted it, sure, but you've offered no direct evidence or rationale.
    Governmental assistance is for those who need help making ends meet. To qualify, you have to be in a position where you need governmental help to make ends meet. A person who is not earning a living wage will often need help making ends meet.

    So therefor, a person who is eligible for government assistance is someone who is no earning a living wage (generally speaking - I recognize that there will be a level of imperfection in any large system so exceptions will happen).

    So there is the rationale.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are conflating having an objective definition (which it doesn't actually, language, by definition is not objective) with the standard itself being subjective. You admit as much in your second sentence. It is acceptable to the parent, but not the child. The fact that we are appealing to people at all shows this is a subjective statement.
    It IS a subjective matter. As I said, subjectivity is not a flaw in these systems but a necessity. The subjectivity in the clean room scenario does not prevent a parent and child from having a workable clean room policy and therefore one cannot reasonably say that they can't have a clean room policy because of the subjectivity involved. And the same goes for government assistance of ANY kind. So my primary point is that you are not incorrect that subjectivity is involved but you are completely incorrect in saying that this is a problem of some kind. So yes, there is subjectivity. And so what?

    The crux of my argument is a moral one. Being against people not being able to support themselves even if they are willing to work is a moral position. You can subjectively disagree with it and say that you don't think it's a moral problem if people who are willing to work can't attain a reasonable standard of living. So if you are going to reject any and all moral/subjective arguments on the basis that they are subjective, then we actually have nothing to debate because I cannot prove that my position about working people is correct in any objective way. I just assumed that everyone here is one the same page as me regarding this issue and the debate is focused on how to best make sure that this happens, not whether it should happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So, when we say "acceptable" with a LW, whom exactly is it acceptable to?

    IE, if this is going to be your definition of the LW,"a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living" then you need to define who determines whether it is acceptable. This is incredibly important to the core of your argument, because if the definition essentially comes down to your subjective value of what is "acceptable" and what isn't, then the moral weight of your argument falls apart, unless you are doing something you thus far haven't, claiming to be some moral law giver as well.
    Yes, subjective/moral issues are an essential and inevitable part of determining what officially is a living wage. That is completely and utterly conceded by me so there is no need to debate whether this is so. Likewise we cannot have laws against murder without engaging in subjective/moral judgment for who is to say that murder is morally wrong?

    So I don't see what the problem actually is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Only if we assume the two things are equal concepts. If you want to do that here you need to offer it as a formal premise and offer support.
    Showing that they are directly related will suffice. And I have done that above.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But it does. Again, if I offered the argument "Quiakadkjdlkf means that we have a moral obligation to end the MW" I haven't offered up a rationale or supported argument, I've simply spoken in jargon (which we do have a rule against). Just because the jargon comes from social sites rather than a technical manual doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to support it.
    Again, one supports their arguments, not their definitions (unless the debate is over the definition). And I agree that if one forwards something that is incomprehensible, they should explain the term but explaining it as a dictionary definition level will suffice. One is not obligated to describe it in as much detail as requested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And again, if you were really making an argument that you really wanted to convince people of, you would offer more than the platitude that is the general term. I'm not asking you to create a schedule of payments for every single person in the US, just offer a definition of what is, and what is not covered in a living wage.
    I offered a definition. And I will concern myself with what is and is not covered, when providing such things is needed for me to support my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Actually, it is. You made a statement of mathematical relationship, that LW is greater than the MW. You have to support that. That means defining it in a coherent manner. The closest you've come is to say that LW = Government Assistance Level, a relationship you haven't supported.
    I have supported the relationship by noting that many people who earn minimum wage need government assistance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Please see above or earlier. Congress uses a pretty well defined process for creating laws. Congress offered no rationale or system for the number they arrived at. Oxford even offers that exact scenario in its list of acceptable usages of the word. That specific bill, as supported earlier, was created on a committee via a reconciliation process. IE it was negotiated between individual members of the House and Senate, not by a defined system for determining "an objectively acceptable standard of living."
    But I think it's safe to say that however they came up with the numbers that they did, it was not via complete randomness or mere whims so it would not fit the first definition of "arbitrary".

    Nor have you said anything that leads me to think that the bill is particularly faulty. As far as I can tell, it's your opinion that the method they used was invalid.
    Last edited by mican333; May 16th, 2017 at 08:33 AM.

  9. #28
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Ouch, I just spend about two hours on this response and...gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. That is the "randomness and whim" definition that I offered earlier and this is pretty much the same thing. And as I said, we have to settle on ONE definition and not use the others for in discussion, people use one definition at a time (as explained in my "cat" example). So this is the definition we are using and the rest of the definitions are irrelevant to the discussion.
    I should point out that I offered the Oxford definition below. You offered the Merriam definition.

    The first two parts of the Merriam definition aren’t really two separate definitions, they are elaborations on the same concept. Hence why they are 1a and 1b, not 1 and 2. If you want to confine yourself to just 1a, that’s fine, but it is an artificial constraint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You don't get to "arbitrary" with "Seemingly at random".
    Merriam would seem to disagree with you. If something comes about seemingly at random it is arbitrary, that is literally what their sentence means. If you want to argue that that relationship doesn’t exist, that is fine, but it means you are using a non-standard definition.

    If, rather we are going to accept the Merriam definition, then this process absolutely fits the definition of arbitrary. The word “seemingly” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/seemingly) is important in this definition because it relates to the observer, not the speaker. So the question is not, under this definition, what they were thinking, but rather how it appears outwardly. And we know, from the outward appearance, ie the text of the legislation, that there is no appearance of a system used to determine the monetary value of the qualification.

    This fits well with the Oxford definition, and specifically, their example sentence they used related to legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't see how this supports that the system is arbitrary so I have no rebuttal to this.
    According to a rebuttal you offered earlier, the LW is a calculation based on a multitude of factors, some of which we both agree on (housing, food) and some of which you’ve offered a sample of (insurance, electricity, internet, etc). These factors, and their values, vary widely across locality and demographics. A 23 year old in Seattle’s factors are vastly different in cost than a 65 year old in rural Alabama, right?

    Your argument is that the qualification for the transfer payment is a proxy for a living wage, but there are two counters to your support arising from that fact.

    1) The federal standard for transfer payments can’t be a good proxy for actually living below the LW if it doesn’t account for geographic or demographic differences, but the LW does. Thus, whatever it is a proxy to, it isn’t the LW.

    2) To the extent that the standard underlying the transfer payment is based on some system (and we haven’t had evidence that it is) it’s system is a different one that the system underlying the LW. A system using the underlying properties of poverty cannot produce a number that has no regard for geographic or demographic differences (a point you made) Thus, in relation to the LW, it is arbitrary under this definition because whatever system was used, it wasn’t a system related to the LW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You are completely ignoring the primary part of the definition - Based on random choice or personal whim. Random choice means that it was decided by some random method (drawing numbers from a hat or rolling dice. A person whim is a sudden decision - if one spends even a minute deciding something, it is not a whim. So just lacking a system (and btw, you have not supported that no system was used - just that you didn't see one) will not suffice.

    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the system used was based on randomness or a personal whim (as in a sudden decision without much thought).
    I’m afraid that isn’t what the sentence means. The sentence doesn’t mean that the system used was based on randomness or whim, but that that the lack of a system indicates randomness or whim. Let’s look at the sentence construct and remove the specific terms to illustrate.

    “Based on A or B, rather than C.” The term “rather than” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rather?s=t) indicates that the range of possible options in the sentence is [A,B, not C] IE if something is not C then it is A or B. In this case, “not C” is to lack a system related to poverty. We know, as supported earlier, that the standard clearly wasn’t based on anything like “getting by” because that wouldn’t have produced the kind of one size fits all solution offered. We also know that the bill and standard was set via the reconciliation process as supported earlier, meaning that it was a negotiation amongst Congressmen, not a methodological system of evaluating poverty.

    You also seemingly intentionally edited out Oxford’s specific example of correct word usage:

    "‘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.’"

    You are going to have a hard time arguing that I’m using the word incorrect when the dictionary’s editors specifically use my argument as an example of correct usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Governmental assistance is for those who need help making ends meet. To qualify, you have to be in a position where you need governmental help to make ends meet.
    I’d be tempted to challenge you to show that all government transfer payments are based on “making ends meet.” I think we can both admit that plenty of transfer payments are rewards for loyalty or to favored political groups rather than some meaningful definition of poverty.

    The question, and what you would need to show was that the specific transfer payments you offered as support were based on a system related to some kind of meaningful definition of poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It IS a subjective matter. As I said, subjectivity is not a flaw in these systems but a necessity.
    The argument wasn’t about whether it was a flaw in the system (though I think it is because it means actually determine a figure that helps people becomes incredibly hard to do). Rather, the subjectivity is a flaw in your argument. Your argument, again, has two parts.

    1) LW < MW
    And
    2) 1 imparts a moral obligation on all of us to do something to correct it.

    The subjective nature of the value of the LW invalidates both premises. If the value of LW is, in fact, subjective, 1 becomes a conditionally true statement. IE it is true in some cases, but not in others. Thus we can’t argue it is a true statement, only that it “might be true.”

    Let’s highlight this with an example. Let’s say I made the argument, “the MW < $8/hr.” Is that a true premise? Sometimes, sometimes not. In some states it is true, in some states it isn’t. Thus we can’t make a valid and true argument from that premise. We can only make an argument that “might be true.” Which is what you’ve constructed, an argument that might be true depending on who you talk to.

    The problem with conditionally true arguments is that they aren’t really arguments. They are opinions. A statement that is only true based on the individual is, definitionally, an opinion.


    It also invalidates premise 2, which is why;

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The crux of my argument is a moral one. Being against people not being able to support themselves even if they are willing to work is a moral position. You can subjectively disagree with it and say that you don't think it's a moral problem if people who are willing to work can't attain a reasonable standard of living. So if you are going to reject any and all moral/subjective arguments on the basis that they are subjective, then we actually have nothing to debate because I cannot prove that my position about working people is correct in any objective way.
    This statement represents essentially a concession of your argument for two reasons.

    1) We cannot evaluate the position “it is a moral problem.” If we are talking subjective morality and a subjective definition of LW, there is really no way for your audience to evaluate or (more importantly) to agree on the question “is there a moral obligation to do X?”

    Am I obligated to ensure everyone has a second car (75% of those below the poverty line have a car) or a third car? (a third have two). Am I morally obligated to ensure they have multiple computers (50%)? Or that they can play an Xbox and PlayStation at the same time (50%)?

    There is a huge moral gulf between needing to ensure a child has adequate food and shelter and to ensure that child can play both an Xbox and PlayStation at the same time. If you don’t define what the level of support is that constitutes a LW, there is no moral scope to your argument.


    2) You are applying the conclusion of your subjective argument objectively. You are arguing that we all have a moral obligation to fix that issue. But that conclusion doesn’t follow from a subjective moral argument. Steve does not incur a moral obligation from Mike’s subjective valuation of a third TV. Thus your argument lacks any moral weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes, subjective/moral issues are an essential and inevitable part of determining what officially is a living wage. That is completely and utterly conceded by me so there is no need to debate whether this is so.
    You didn’t actually answer the question. Acceptable to whom?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Again, one supports their arguments, not their definitions (unless the debate is over the definition). And I agree that if one forwards something that is incomprehensible, they should explain the term but explaining it as a dictionary definition level will suffice.
    The first sentence is somewhat odd. A claim is a sentence based on a set of definitions. You are arguing that you are obligated to support the validity of your sentences, but not their truth value? The truth value cannot be determined if the terms aren’t supported themselves.

    In order to support the meaning of a sentence (ie its truth value) you would have to likewise need to support the base, its words.

    The second sentence seems to also disagree with the first sentence. If the argument is incomprehensible, then we agree it would need to be explained in a form of support. I’m not sure why limiting ourselves just to a dictionary makes sense. Many terms are jargon and not in a dictionary. Likewise, a limited dictionary definition often doesn’t adequately clarify how the word fits into a sentence or argument.

    For example, a dictionary definition of “living wage” doesn’t help us evaluate the sentence, “the living wage is less than the minimum wage.” Further elaboration is needed to evaluate the truth value of that sentence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I think it's safe to say that however they came up with the numbers that they did, it was not via complete randomness or mere whims so it would not fit the first definition of "arbitrary".

    Nor have you said anything that leads me to think that the bill is particularly faulty. As far as I can tell, it's your opinion that the method they used was invalid.
    Why is it safe to say that? What evidence are you using to make that statement?

    I never said the bill was ‘faulty.’ Rather, I said your bill was irrelevant to your argument. Your claim is that the standard established by Congress in that bill is an equivalent figure to the figure that would be calculated by a LW. That Congress used some method to determine that number such that the process evaluated the base minimum for poverty. That is a claim that hasn’t been supported. If you want to maintain that the qualification for federal transfer payments is a living wage, you need to support that those two terms are, in fact, equivalent or alternatively that Congress used some kind of living wage metric to determine that standard.
    "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.


  10. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    I made my post and then decided that some of my answers were redundant so I've deleted a few which also means that I have not responded to all of your points (well, I did respond but then deleted the responses).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I should point out that I offered the Oxford definition below. You offered the Merriam definition.

    The first two parts of the Merriam definition aren’t really two separate definitions, they are elaborations on the same concept. Hence why they are 1a and 1b, not 1 and 2. If you want to confine yourself to just 1a, that’s fine, but it is an artificial constraint.
    Let me put it this way. If the definition does not include "random or on a whim", then it's not "arbitrary". So quite simply, if you can't support that a decision was made either primarily through random chance (rolling dice) or on a whim (a sudden irrational decision), then it's not random. And I'm sure whatever method the congress used, they did not pick numbers by sheer randomness or whimsically plucked them from their minds. They almost certain spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought into whatever they came up with. So it was not arbitrary.

    If you want to continue to argue that it was arbitrary, then please support that the method they used was primarily based on randomly generated criteria or just plucked from one's mind without much thought.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    According to a rebuttal you offered earlier, the LW is a calculation based on a multitude of factors, some of which we both agree on (housing, food) and some of which you’ve offered a sample of (insurance, electricity, internet, etc). These factors, and their values, vary widely across locality and demographics. A 23 year old in Seattle’s factors are vastly different in cost than a 65 year old in rural Alabama, right?

    Your argument is that the qualification for the transfer payment is a proxy for a living wage, but there are two counters to your support arising from that fact.

    1) The federal standard for transfer payments can’t be a good proxy for actually living below the LW if it doesn’t account for geographic or demographic differences, but the LW does. Thus, whatever it is a proxy to, it isn’t the LW.
    It really depends on how precise it needs to be before it qualifies as "good". I'm not saying that the two are exactly the same thing but that they have a direct relationship. So I don't about "good" but I do say that it's "good enough". If you disagree, then you need to specify when it's "good enough" and why that bar is the correct one. I mean without an agree-upon bar, you could just set the bar to wherever it needs to be for you to hold up your end of the argument - the level of precision that one could demand is practically endless.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    “Based on A or B, rather than C.” The term “rather than” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rather?s=t) indicates that the range of possible options in the sentence is [A,B, not C] IE if something is not C then it is A or B. In this case, “not C” is to lack a system related to poverty. We know, as supported earlier, that the standard clearly wasn’t based on anything like “getting by” because that wouldn’t have produced the kind of one size fits all solution offered.
    That is not at all supported. You seem to equating a certain lack of precision with complete randomness. I disagree with that assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We also know that the bill and standard was set via the reconciliation process as supported earlier, meaning that it was a negotiation amongst Congressmen, not a methodological system of evaluating poverty.
    Which is a far cry from doing things at random or based on whims.

    In fact, negotiations mean that it wasn't done arbitrarily. If one is just pulling numbers at random, there is no need to negotiate - you just go with the number that you randomly generated. Likewise if whims are good enough, there is no need to argue over anything - just take whatever pops into your head and go with it. If you have to argue for your position, it's not a whim but something that you think is worthy of defense which means there is reasoning behind it.

    And I have to say that arguing over the definition of arbitrary has been very non-productive debate-wise. If you want to define arbitrary in such a way that it does not mean that it's based on randomness and whims, then I don't agree that an arbitrary system is necessarily wrong for I only agree that arbitrary is bad because I don't think we should legislating based on sheer randomness or whims. And I have yet to see you attempt to show that what's gone was done by randomness or whims but just "lack of a system" and playing with dictionary definitions. So I'm tempted to cease responding to any and all arguments that incorporate the word "arbitrary" for it's use so far has been anti-productive instead of productive. So if you mean that the system was done randomly, then make the case that randomness was primarily used. Or the same for whims. But I'm about done with using or responding to the word "arbitrary" in this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The question, and what you would need to show was that the specific transfer payments you offered as support were based on a system related to some kind of meaningful definition of poverty.
    So I have to support the obvious? A program that is set up to help people who can't earn enough to make ends meet is going to set a rational bar for when someone isn't making ends meet.

    But I will support the same conclusion in a different fashion. From my original support.

    "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/

    So if you don't want to accept that the bar for receiving aid is set at a level that is related to poverty, the fact that people who work need assistance is support that they are not earning enough.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The argument wasn’t about whether it was a flaw in the system (though I think it is because it means actually determine a figure that helps people becomes incredibly hard to do). Rather, the subjectivity is a flaw in your argument. Your argument, again, has two parts.

    1) LW < MW
    And
    2) 1 imparts a moral obligation on all of us to do something to correct it.

    The subjective nature of the value of the LW invalidates both premises. If the value of LW is, in fact, subjective, 1 becomes a conditionally true statement. IE it is true in some cases, but not in others. Thus we can’t argue it is a true statement, only that it “might be true.”
    By definition LW is subjective (since it includes the notion of an "acceptable" standard of living and what's acceptable is subjective) so what the correct value is is likewise subjective. So to that extent, one cannot say that it's true or even might be true. There is no possible truth value when forwarded what a good living wage is. We can observe that X amount of money pays for a certain level of necessities and comfort but whether that level of lifestyle is too much or too little to be "acceptable" will always be a subjective judgement call so ultimately a proper LW is always a matter of opinion to some extent.

    And I see absolutely no problem with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let’s highlight this with an example. Let’s say I made the argument, “the MW < $8/hr.” Is that a true premise? Sometimes, sometimes not. In some states it is true, in some states it isn’t. Thus we can’t make a valid and true argument from that premise. We can only make an argument that “might be true.” Which is what you’ve constructed, an argument that might be true depending on who you talk to.
    Whether the minimum wage is less than $8 is NOT true based on who you talk to. It's true based on what state you are referring to. If the MW is under $8 in Missouri, then whoever you ask about that state's minimum wage will give you same answer (provided that they know the correct answer).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This statement represents essentially a concession of your argument for two reasons.

    1) We cannot evaluate the position “it is a moral problem.” If we are talking subjective morality and a subjective definition of LW, there is really no way for your audience to evaluate or (more importantly) to agree on the question “is there a moral obligation to do X?”

    Am I obligated to ensure everyone has a second car (75% of those below the poverty line have a car) or a third car? (a third have two). Am I morally obligated to ensure they have multiple computers (50%)? Or that they can play an Xbox and PlayStation at the same time (50%)?

    There is a huge moral gulf between needing to ensure a child has adequate food and shelter and to ensure that child can play both an Xbox and PlayStation at the same time. If you don’t define what the level of support is that constitutes a LW, there is no moral scope to your argument.
    Not if I don't. If WE (as in society or government) can't come up with a workable standard for LW, then such a thing can't effectively work in regards to setting policy. But I consider this "wide gulf" to be a red herring. I think pretty much everyone would think that a standard that includes the ability to buy multiple gaming consoles to be too high. And likewise people would agree that a standard that doesn't cover inexpensive rent is too low. In general, there probably isn't a "wide gulf" between what people generally think is acceptable and the range of disagreement is not too severe. So if a standard was found that some thought was a little too high and others thought was a little too low but no one thought was ridiculous, it's a workable standard. And the fact that everyone's opinion on what an acceptable standard is is subjective and no one completely agrees with each other doesn't make the LW unworkable.

    I think in general, you are appealing to an artificial standard of specificity. Just because a certain level of specificity is not reached does not mean that the standard is invalid. One size might not fit all perfectly but if we don't need perfection, just for it to work better than if we don't have it, then it's good enough to use. A sweater that's a size too large still covers the body.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) You are applying the conclusion of your subjective argument objectively. You are arguing that we all have a moral obligation to fix that issue. But that conclusion doesn’t follow from a subjective moral argument. Steve does not incur a moral obligation from Mike’s subjective valuation of a third TV. Thus your argument lacks any moral weight.
    I don't know what you mean by third TV - I never added any TVs to a LW. And if one does accept my subjective argument regarding people earning enough, then we can and should take actions that will alleviate the problem and one can make objective arguments that a certain action will help. Quite simply, if one holds that people shouldn't starve, then giving someone who is starving some food will objectively promote the subjective position. If one doesn't care if people starve, then there's no need to discuss this issue with me at all and we should agree to disagree and end the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn’t actually answer the question. Acceptable to whom?
    Whoever is making the judgment. If we are referring to society as a whole, I would say that we would ideally average out everyone's individual standard and find the mean. But in reality, we just have to do our best and not let perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, if setting the LW at X in our policies makes things better for people in general, then it's a good thing we set the LW at X even if we could have done a better job than we did (and hopefully will realize this and adjust for further improvements).



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The first sentence is somewhat odd. A claim is a sentence based on a set of definitions. You are arguing that you are obligated to support the validity of your sentences, but not their truth value?
    I am obligated to support the truth value of my sentences when challenged to. In other words, if you challenge me to support something I said, then I have an obligation to do so. But just asking me for more information on what I mean does not qualify as a challenge to the truth value of my statement and therefore gives me no obligation to support the validity of what I'm saying.

    I mean if one is obligated to give more information upon request in order to support one's argument, then the opponent could play the "eternal why" game and just ask for more and more and more and more information and go on endlessly and then someone can never support their argument in the face of that.

    If you don't know what I mean by "eternal why", here's an example - this is more for amusement than part of an argument. Go to about 7 mins for the part about "why".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why is it safe to say that? What evidence are you using to make that statement?
    The fact that the level of qualifying for benefits has some proximity to the point where people need government help.

    If the process was completely random, the resulting line is just as likely to be at $100 a year or $1,000,000 a year as it would be where it is right now. So either it's sheer coincidence that the level is approximately where people actually need that kind of help or they did a reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) job of determining where benefits should start.
    Last edited by mican333; May 17th, 2017 at 12:33 PM.

  11. #30
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I made my post and then decided that some of my answers were redundant so I've deleted a few which also means that I have not responded to all of your points (well, I did respond but then deleted the responses).

    That makes sense. I'm going to reorganize my response a bit for clarity as well. I think this debate really comes down to two, somewhat unrelated, areas.


    1) The subjective nature and lack of definition related to what a "Living Wage" is. This is the heart of the argument because it relates specifically to whether your argument has any validity or truth. IE, is the LW < the MW? And, do we all have a moral obligation to remedy that situation?


    2) The definition of arbitrary and its application to the specific bill at issue. This argument is somewhat off topic in the end. Even if the bill's standard was not arbitrary, it doesn't resolve your central rebuttal evidence's relevancy to the topic at hand. Establishing that it was arbitrary, of course, removes it as relevant support. But making it non-arbitrary doesn't mean that the standard is a good proxy for the LW. Rather, the next step would be for you to show that the system or rationale used is relevant to the system or rationale underlying the LW (which gets us back to point 1).


    With that, let's begin.






    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    By definition LW is subjective (since it includes the notion of an "acceptable" standard of living and what's acceptable is subjective) so what the correct value is is likewise subjective. So to that extent, one cannot say that it's true or even might be true. There is no possible truth value when forwarded what a good living wage is. We can observe that X amount of money pays for a certain level of necessities and comfort but whether that level of lifestyle is too much or too little to be "acceptable" will always be a subjective judgement call so ultimately a proper LW is always a matter of opinion to some extent.
    Then putting forward the argument LW < MW is unsupportable, right? You certainly can't hold that is a valid premise here if you are arguing that "there is no possible truth value." Thus that argument would seem to be retracted.

    Perhaps I'm missing something, how do you reconcile the points here? If what a living wage is becomes a subjective metric available for anyone and everyone's interpretation, what value does it have in a moral impact argument?

    Why does your, or Mike's, or Steve's, or whomever's personal feelings on what someone should have apply to Rob, or Adam, or anyone else? IE where is the moral weight of your argument?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It really depends on how precise it needs to be before it qualifies as "good". I'm not saying that the two are exactly the same thing but that they have a direct relationship. So I don't about "good" but I do say that it's "good enough". If you disagree, then you need to specify when it's "good enough" and why that bar is the correct one. I mean without an agree-upon bar, you could just set the bar to wherever it needs to be for you to hold up your end of the argument - the level of precision that one could demand is practically endless.
    This has been exactly my point throughout the debate. Without a precise definition of "acceptable" we don't really have a coherent argument. It could be $1 or $1M. There can be no coherent, responsible discussion until that definition is offered.

    The fact that they are "correlated" in your mind doesn't offer much support or clarity here. Not only does it give us no real reason to discuss, but correlations are meaningless here.

    Are individuals' choices on cheese consumption a good enough proxy for dying by bed sheet? I mean they are pretty correlated. There is a lot more (and you see this in all proxy usage in an economics paper) to usage of a proxy than vague correlation. Rather, to use a proxy one must;

    1) Define the variable being proxied and its drivers.

    2) Define the proxy and its drivers.

    3) Show that the two share a common driver set or drivers that are causally related.

    This is what, more or less, I'm asking you to do. Show that the proxy you are using (the standard set for transfer payments) is driven by the same relevant factors as the factors that drive the value of a living wage.

    Likewise, if your proxy is going to diverge sharply from the value of the thing being proxied, an explanation would seem to be warranted. Sure, it likely covers more people, as you point out. But that fact is exactly why it isn't a good proxy for support that people are living below a living wage, it artificially inflates that number by creating false positives.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I think pretty much everyone would think that a standard that includes the ability to buy multiple gaming consoles to be too high. And likewise people would agree that a standard that doesn't cover inexpensive rent is too low. In general, there probably isn't a "wide gulf" between what people generally think is acceptable and the range of disagreement is not too severe. So if a standard was found that some thought was a little too high and others thought was a little too low but no one thought was ridiculous, it's a workable standard.
    The first sentence undermines your use of the proxy above. If "pretty much everyone" thinks that standard is too high, then the poverty level rate currently is too high as it does allow that for a majority of people earning less than it.

    Your reply seems to misapply my comment about their being a huge moral gulf. The gulf I was referring to was the moral obligation between ensuring children don't starve and ensuring someone has multiple gaming platforms. The level of moral authority commanded by the former is widely separated from the level of moral authority commanded by the latter. I think we can both agree on that. That isn't a red herring at all, but a direct question towards the second premise of your argument, that we have a moral obligation to take certain action.

    What you responded to, rather, was your belief that what constitutes the LW is a relatively small gulf. This could well be, or not, all we have is your belief on the issue. It would be perhaps easier to at least offer a coherent definition of what does constitute a LW within that gulf as a starting point, and we can take it as a valid assumption for the purposes of debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I am obligated to support the truth value of my sentences when challenged to.
    This has been an entire page of me asking you to support the truth value of the sentence: "the living wage is less than the minimum wage."









    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If the definition does not include "random or on a whim", then it's not "arbitrary"... That is not at all supported. You seem to equating a certain lack of precision with complete randomness. I disagree with that assessment.
    We have two accepted definition sources in this debate. They support my claim in three ways.


    1) The Oxford source lists a series of acceptable uses. One of its examples is almost identical to the argument I'm making here, a legislature passed a bill about wages and offered no explanation as to how or why a specific wage was selected. The Oxford Editors, who I think we can agree are somewhat knowledgeable about language cite this as an example of the proper use of the word arbitrary.

    So to argue that I am using the term incorrectly, you are by proxy arguing they don't understand the word either.

    "‘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) The Oxford definition proper agrees with my usage of the term.


    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


    We can get to that from either of two ways. Either because we show that it was a or b (random or personal whim) or showing that it lacked a system related to poverty (hence the "rather than" language).

    The latter is clearly met by the legislature's usage of either the reconciliation process where individual Congressmen negotiate based on budgetary impact, not on poverty metrics, or their imputation of that number based on numbers unrelated to poverty. Those facts constitute this process not having a system related to the metric being established.

    Your counter that it would have to be "dice" (which aren't strictly random) or dartboards is incorrect. If it were a valid response, the example offered by Oxford wouldn't apply as obviously that legislature didn't use dice either, but the usage of the word arbitrary was correct. We can highlight this with other example sentences that Oxford offers as correct usages:

    ‘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 former likewise is easy to use to support. The nature of the negotiations and reconciliation process highlights this. Don't confuse that the fact there exists a process for negotiations or that the Congressmen had personal reasons to for X value or Y value with their support not being a whim. In the post you added before last you added the time criteria (less than a minute) to the word "whim" that is wholly unsupported in this context. The Oxford usage of whim offers no such specific limitation, "A sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained." Sudden can be anything from a minute to a year depending on the usual decision rate. The more important criteria is the latter half of the sentence, the desire being "unusual or unexplained."

    Clearly this fits both of those criteria. The value itself and their choosing of it is absolutely unexplained, we don't have a debate there I think. Likewise, as I highlighted it is unusual since it is applied broadly when we both agree that poverty is a personal, geographic, and demographic condition.

    Therefore it clearly fits the definition of personal whim. It is personal because it was based on their individual motivations rather than any offered objective methodology, and it was a whim because it was unexplained and didn't fit the supposed topic at hand, poverty.


    3) Finally, the Merriam definition likewise agrees with my usage. (I'll use 1a, though you've offered no objective reason why the rephrasing in 1b doesn't suffice as well. It is relatively moot since both fit the usage I've used, which makes sense because they are the same definition.)

    existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

    The bill offered, as I supported earlier, lacks any defense or rationale as to its reasoning behind what qualifies and what doesn't. What qualifies for government subsidy was created "seemingly at random." There is no "meaningful context" as to why $X of income qualifies, but $Y does not.

    The word “seemingly” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/seemingly) is important in this definition because it relates to the observer, not the speaker. So the question is not, under this definition, what they were thinking, but rather how it appears outwardly. And we know, from the outward appearance, ie the text of the legislation, that there is no appearance of a system used to determine the monetary value of the qualification.

    Just as with Oxford, we can use the examples offered by the Merriam editors as correct to illustrate that arguments similar to mine have been accepted by those with expertise.

    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.]


    I should also note that Merriam offers another clarifying definition on the same page, "done without concern for what is fair or right" which likewise fits the usage I offered I think pretty clearly.
    "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.


  12. Likes Ibelsd liked this post
  13. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Then putting forward the argument LW < MW is unsupportable, right? You certainly can't hold that is a valid premise here if you are arguing that "there is no possible truth value." Thus that argument would seem to be retracted.
    Since my argument does not forward an objective truth value or says that one exists, I don't have to retract my argument for not being rooted in a truth value.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps I'm missing something, how do you reconcile the points here? If what a living wage is becomes a subjective metric available for anyone and everyone's interpretation, what value does it have in a moral impact argument?

    Why does your, or Mike's, or Steve's, or whomever's personal feelings on what someone should have apply to Rob, or Adam, or anyone else? IE where is the moral weight of your argument?
    The moral weight is quite obvious to whoever agrees with the central premise that those who are willing to work should be able to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    The kinds of questions you are raising would apply to any and all policy issues that start with a moral premise. Why should we outlaw murder? Why should we agree with those who say that murder is so immoral that the act deserves punishment?

    So a policy argument having subjectivity at its core is not automatically unsupportable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This has been exactly my point throughout the debate. Without a precise definition of "acceptable" we don't really have a coherent argument. It could be $1 or $1M. There can be no coherent, responsible discussion until that definition is offered.
    I would define "acceptable" to be what people think is acceptable. Of course not everyone will have the EXACT same standard but the range is certainly not 1 to 1,000,000. I would think that barring a minority of clearly ridiculous opinions, the range of acceptability is not that great. And really the issue is what is the minimum level of acceptable and it's safe to say that what would be described as "dire poverty" is below the line of acceptable. And I have supported that the current MW is often not enough to keep one from dire poverty because MW workers are often seeking governmental assistance to avoid dire poverty. In support:

    "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/

    So I don't have to show you exactly where the line of "too much" and "too little" is to support my argument. Wherever the line of a LW is, being at risk of dire poverty is below that line (given we agree that working people should not be living in dire poverty) and since MW earnings is often not enough for one to avoid dire poverty, it can be concluded that the MW is below a LW.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The gulf I was referring to was the moral obligation between ensuring children don't starve and ensuring someone has multiple gaming platforms. The level of moral authority commanded by the former is widely separated from the level of moral authority commanded by the latter. I think we can both agree on that. That isn't a red herring at all, but a direct question towards the second premise of your argument, that we have a moral obligation to take certain action.
    But the only relevant level of "acceptability" is based on what people actually think is acceptable. And people pretty much do not think that a LW should be set to where people can afford what are clearly luxuries, such as multiple gaming systems. So bringing up a ridiculous standard of acceptability as part of the "gulf" distracts us from the issue at hand


    My argument does not rely on the gulf or even identifying exactly where the line is. My argument observes that people who earn minimum wage aren't earning enough for an acceptable standard of living and uses that to support that MW is often less than a LW. Obviously figuring out the specific numbers and comparing them would be another way to support my argument but that's not the method I'm using nor do I need to do it to support my argument when I've supported it in a different way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) The Oxford definition proper agrees with my usage of the term.

    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    We can get to that from either of two ways. Either because we show that it was a or b (random or personal whim) or showing that it lacked a system related to poverty (hence the "rather than" language).

    The latter is clearly met by the legislature's usage of either the reconciliation process where individual Congressmen negotiate based on budgetary impact, not on poverty metrics, or their imputation of that number based on numbers unrelated to poverty. Those facts constitute this process not having a system related to the metric being established.
    But that indicates that the wrong system was used, not that no system was used. And also "arbitrary" says "no reason". So did the people who negotiated use no reasoning whatsoever? Did anyone at any point, for example, make an assessment of what shelter typically costs and factor that into the negotiation? If so, they used reasoning and therefore were not being arbitrary.

    If NO reasons or system whatsoever was used - as in no one gave any thought on the matter before coming up with the numbers (just picked them at random or based on whims), then it's arbitrary. IF any thought was put in, then it's not arbitrary.

    And this is really pretty irrelevant to any argument I'm making anyway. If you want to say that the previous method was invalid, that's fine. I'm arguing for what ought to happen, not defending what did happen.
    Last edited by mican333; May 22nd, 2017 at 05:39 PM.

  14. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since my argument does not forward an objective truth value or says that one exists, I don't have to retract my argument for not being rooted in a truth value.
    There are two problem with this response I believe. The first is that it wasn't quite related to what I was arguing. I was arguing that if you are now claiming there is no truth value to the claim "LW > MW" then it is either a) unsupported (and unsupportable) or b) a personal opinion and thus spam.


    The second point of my response was that your argument did, in fact, rely on an objective truth value. Because you weren't arguing that you, Mican, should remedy the situation, you were arguing that all of us should be forced to participate in that proposed remedy. IE we all have a moral duty to fix the premised discrepancy. That is an objective moral obligation.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The moral weight is quite obvious to whoever agrees with the central premise that those who are willing to work should be able to attain an acceptable standard of living.

    ....

    Why should we outlaw murder?
    That is a begging the question fallacy. Of course the moral weight is obvious if you are relying on their personal value of "acceptable." That isn't an argument, it is just a circular reference. You are simply using the definition of acceptable (ie what one should accept or finds agreeable) in both parts of the argument.


    Your murder example falls flat on precisely this issue. We have a definition for murder. We know if act X was murder or not. We have a precise definition that allows for us to determine whether something is, in fact murder. We can disagree on associated facts of course (he was at the scene or not), but not on what constitutes murder.

    We have no such definition here. I can say "A LW includes factors X,Y, Z, but not A" while you can say "A LW includes factors X,Y,X, and A" and both have valid claims. That makes it a matter of taste or opinion, not a premise, and certainly not something we can argue all people should be legally bound to in a just society. If we had that kind of definition, akin to murder, this would be a different discussion entirely.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I would define "acceptable" to be what people think is acceptable. Of course not everyone will have the EXACT same standard but the range is certainly not 1 to 1,000,000.
    Ok, then what do "people think is acceptable?" Do you have that consensus? Or support?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    My argument observes that people who earn minimum wage aren't earning enough for an acceptable standard of living and uses that to support that MW is often less than a LW.
    Except, your argument doesn't do that. It equates "receives transfer payments" with "dire poverty" or "non-acceptable wages" or whatever other non-defined term you want to use. You haven't shown that those two things are, in fact equivalent though, just asserted it. Unless you can offer direct support/evidence that these two things are, in fact, equated, this support is irrelevant to your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But that indicates that the wrong system was used, not that no system was used.
    It indicates a system unrelated to the concept was used, making it arbitrary. Again, refer back to the usages Oxford or Merriam used as examples of proper usage:


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

    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’

    ‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’

    ‘This numbering system is an arbitrary designation based on small amino acid sequence differences.’

    '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.'

    '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.'

    So again, unless you want to argue that both the Merriam and Oxford editors are using this term incorrectly, I think this questions has been pretty decisively resolved.
    "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.


  15. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are two problem with this response I believe. The first is that it wasn't quite related to what I was arguing. I was arguing that if you are now claiming there is no truth value to the claim "LW > MW" then it is either a) unsupported (and unsupportable) or b) a personal opinion and thus spam.
    Since all moral positions are personal opinions (or at least no one can support that they are not), by your logic all moral arguments are spam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The second point of my response was that your argument did, in fact, rely on an objective truth value. Because you weren't arguing that you, Mican, should remedy the situation, you were arguing that all of us should be forced to participate in that proposed remedy. IE we all have a moral duty to fix the premised discrepancy. That is an objective moral obligation.
    Nope. Saying that you should do something is a subjective statement. I'm telling you what I think you ought to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a begging the question fallacy. Of course the moral weight is obvious if you are relying on their personal value of "acceptable." That isn't an argument, it is just a circular reference. You are simply using the definition of acceptable (ie what one should accept or finds agreeable) in both parts of the argument.
    Actually, I wasn't making an argument. I was answering your question regarding the moral weight of the question. Since I think the answer to your question is self-evident, that's the kind of answer you got.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your murder example falls flat on precisely this issue. We have a definition for murder. We know if act X was murder or not. We have a precise definition that allows for us to determine whether something is, in fact murder. We can disagree on associated facts of course (he was at the scene or not), but not on what constitutes murder.

    We have no such definition here. I can say "A LW includes factors X,Y, Z, but not A" while you can say "A LW includes factors X,Y,X, and A" and both have valid claims. That makes it a matter of taste or opinion, not a premise, and certainly not something we can argue all people should be legally bound to in a just society. If we had that kind of definition, akin to murder, this would be a different discussion entirely.
    But again, I was responding to your question about moral weight. Since my response did not require me to define LW, I consider your response to be a straw-man. You were asking where the moral weight comes from and the answer is the people's view of morality. That applies to both LW and murder.

    Really, you should not pose your arguments as questions. If you want to argue that the subjectivity of what a LW is makes the term invalid, then you should argue that directly instead of asking me to explain the opposing conclusion (which really is shifting the burden as your question gives me the burden of explaining how subjectivity invalid instead of you having the burden to support your position that subjectivity make LW invalid). That's often why I resist answering questions - it tends to shift the burden.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, then what do "people think is acceptable?" Do you have that consensus? Or support?
    As my argument does not rely on the answers to these questions, I choose to not answer these questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except, your argument doesn't do that. It equates "receives transfer payments" with "dire poverty" or "non-acceptable wages" or whatever other non-defined term you want to use. You haven't shown that those two things are, in fact equivalent though, just asserted it. Unless you can offer direct support/evidence that these two things are, in fact, equated, this support is irrelevant to your argument.
    Actually, I am not asserting that the two things are equivalent. My point is that many people who are working MW need help to avoid dire poverty. Where exactly they go for that help is irrelevant. So it doesn't matter if the help sought is from the government, their relatives, or a loan from a bank, or another source entirely. MW workers often need additional financial help to avoid dire poverty and therefore it can be concluded that what they are earning is not enough to be considered a LW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It indicates a system unrelated to the concept was used, making it arbitrary.
    I am using this definition exclusively as it corresponds to my understanding of the word.

    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    You are saying that the wrong system was used, not that no system was used. Since a system was used, it does not fit the definition which says that no "reason or system". So it's not arbitrary.
    Last edited by mican333; May 23rd, 2017 at 08:48 AM.

  16. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since all moral positions are personal opinions (or at least no one can support that they are not), by your logic all moral arguments are spam.
    Well no. If one argues they are objective and offers support to that effect they wouldn't be spam.


    If one argued they were subjective, but didn't argue they applied objectively, that would be a personal taste statement and therefore spam. If that is what you are arguing here, then your argument is spam.


    However, you seem to be implying that they are subjective (personal), but then arguing that they apply to everyone. That conclusion doesn't follow. Your take on moral obligation doesn't seem to imply that we should have a mandatory obligation on everyone, but your conclusion necessitates that result.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Nope. Saying that you should do something is a subjective statement. I'm telling you what I think you ought to do.
    This isn't the case for two reasons.

    1) You are applying a public policy like the UBI to this moral obligation. Laws are not what you "ought" to do, but what you must do under the penalty of punishment. Laws are objective statutes, not subjective applications.

    2) That wasn't your original argument at all. Your statement wasn't about what I, or Ibelsd, or Cowboy ought to do. It was about what we, as a group, should require everyone to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Actually, I wasn't making an argument. I was answering your question regarding the moral weight of the question. Since I think the answer to your question is self-evident, that's the kind of answer you got.
    But that assertion doesn't make it any less of a fallacy. Your argument is that it is "acceptable" and that "acceptability" is what makes it widely accepted. Well obviously. But the moral weight of the argument relies specifically on its vagueness. What is morally compulsory depends greatly on what is the moral obligation. That we haven't even gotten a broad brush argument of what is included implies that the vagueness is a feature of the argument rather than a byproduct.

    Likewise, you brought in the murder analogy, not me. I was pointing out that exactly where that analogy breaks down is the area of vagueness you've been insisting on. We can apply murder across society because it has a clear definition with objective standards. Steve murdered someone, or he didn't. There is no "I think pre-meditated homicide is murder, but Mike doesn't think that is." They can disagree on facts, but not conditional definitions.

    Because of that clear definition, we can apply an objective standard.

    Until you offer a clear definition that means we can apply a standard objectively across society, you aren't using a term that can apply to what all people should be compelled to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As my argument does not rely on the answers to these questions, I choose to not answer these questions.
    Your argument absolutely relies on the definition of acceptable.

    The premise you have still not supported is that LW > MW.

    You offered a definition of LW that included "acceptable living standard." I asked you to support what that means in the context of the premise you haven't supported.

    Rather, you offered a tautology as an answer "acceptable is what people find acceptable" and then argued that there is a pretty narrow range of what that means. Fine, support that claim. Support that there is a narrow range of what people think is acceptable. Please offer support for this claim or retract it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Actually, I am not asserting that the two things are equivalent.
    If you now claim that these two things are not equivalent, then the link you offered isn't support for your original premise. If you are no longer trying to show that qualifying for government transfer payments is a proxy for being below the MW, then your original premise "LW < MW" has no support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I am using this definition exclusively as it corresponds to my understanding of the word.
    And you are using it incorrectly. Do you have support that the restriction you are using is consistent with the usage? I offered support from two separate dictionary sources that your interpretation and limitation is incorrect. Unless you can offer comparable sources citing your interpretation is correct, you don't really have any leg to stand on objection-wise.
    "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.


  17. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    However, you seem to be implying that they are subjective (personal), but then arguing that they apply to everyone. That conclusion doesn't follow. Your take on moral obligation doesn't seem to imply that we should have a mandatory obligation on everyone, but your conclusion necessitates that result.
    I don't argue that they apply to everyone. I argue that they SHOULD apply to everyone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This isn't the case for two reasons.

    1) You are applying a public policy like the UBI to this moral obligation. Laws are not what you "ought" to do, but what you must do under the penalty of punishment. Laws are objective statutes, not subjective applications.
    But just saying that the law "ought" to such and such (which is subjective) is not the same thing as making the law itself. I've made no law but just made a subjective statement about what the law should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) That wasn't your original argument at all. Your statement wasn't about what I, or Ibelsd, or Cowboy ought to do. It was about what we, as a group, should require everyone to do.
    They are both "ought" arguments. Saying that people ought to be required to do something is still an "ought" argument. You just changed "ought to" to "should" in the second one.

    And besides that, while I forward UBI as a way to remedy the situation, I was just using it as an example and not directly arguing for it. I'm just pointing out the problem and not directly advocating any particular solution so while enacting a solution would require someone to do something, I am not saying that anyone ought to do anything in particular at this point.

    You can surmise that to fix the problem I'm pointing out, action will be required but I'm not directly advocating any particular action.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that assertion doesn't make it any less of a fallacy. Your argument is that it is "acceptable" and that "acceptability" is what makes it widely accepted. Well obviously. But the moral weight of the argument relies specifically on its vagueness. What is morally compulsory depends greatly on what is the moral obligation. That we haven't even gotten a broad brush argument of what is included implies that the vagueness is a feature of the argument rather than a byproduct.

    Likewise, you brought in the murder analogy, not me. I was pointing out that exactly where that analogy breaks down is the area of vagueness you've been insisting on. We can apply murder across society because it has a clear definition with objective standards. Steve murdered someone, or he didn't. There is no "I think pre-meditated homicide is murder, but Mike doesn't think that is." They can disagree on facts, but not conditional definitions.

    Because of that clear definition, we can apply an objective standard.

    Until you offer a clear definition that means we can apply a standard objectively across society, you aren't using a term that can apply to what all people should be compelled to do.
    I'd say you are moving the goal post. We went from discussing where the moral weight comes from to developing a standard for practical application in our society?

    And while there are differences between murder and what I'm discussing, they are not relevant differences to the issue at hand. In ALL cases, the moral compunctions come from the people and what they think is moral.

    The people decide what is immoral. The people also decide whether a particular moral position should be set into a policy that will apply to everyone. Exactly how this policy will be applied is not relevant to the particular argument I'm making at this time.

    It needs to be established that there is a problem (which means we need to first settle if MW is less than LW before we concern ourselves with implementing policy to fix this problem. Obviously if there is no problem, there is no need to make a new policy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your argument absolutely relies on the definition of acceptable.
    No, it relies on a standard of acceptable and I have provided that standard. The standard of "acceptable" is what people generally think is acceptable. Likewise "unacceptable" is what they think is unacceptable. And what is unacceptable is working people living in dire poverty. So of course the acceptable standard is higher than that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The premise you have still not supported is that LW > MW.
    Yes I have. You just didn't respond to the support I offered. More on that below.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You offered a definition of LW that included "acceptable living standard." I asked you to support what that means in the context of the premise you haven't supported.
    I don't have to support anything that I didn't specifically claim. So I don't have to support that X means anything in particular until I claim that X mean such and such. Please don't use the word "support" unless you are specifically challenging me to support something that I said. Other uses confuse the issue.

    And I think each of the words are pretty clear. The only one that's at all vague is "acceptable" but I think at this point I've amply explained what is meant by acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, you offered a tautology as an answer "acceptable is what people find acceptable" and then argued that there is a pretty narrow range of what that means. Fine, support that claim. Support that there is a narrow range of what people think is acceptable. Please offer support for this claim or retract it.
    Of course one method of retracting a claim is to not repeat it. So for now I will not repeat it and will concern myself with supporting it if I feel the need to repeat it.

    And if you are going to make the claim that the gulf is wide, I ask in advance that you support or retract that claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you now claim that these two things are not equivalent, then the link you offered isn't support for your original premise.
    I don't claim that they are not equivalent. I make no claim regarding their equivalency at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you are no longer trying to show that qualifying for government transfer payments is a proxy for being below the MW, then your original premise "LW < MW" has no support.
    If that was the only possible way to support that, you'd have a point. But I've supported that a different way and for the record, you did not respond to this the last time I posted it so I will post it again and bold it and this stands as support for MW < LW until it is rebutted.

    And really the issue is what is the minimum level of acceptable and it's safe to say that what would be described as "dire poverty" is below the line of acceptable. And I have supported that the current MW is often not enough to keep one from dire poverty because MW workers are often seeking governmental assistance to avoid dire poverty. In support:

    "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/


    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 which means they aren't earning a living wage (given that we agree that dire poverty falls below the line of "acceptable" as the term is applied to the definition of Living Wage.)

    So this is support that MW is lower than LW and this supports stands until it is rebutted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And you are using it incorrectly. Do you have support that the restriction you are using is consistent with the usage? I offered support from two separate dictionary sources that your interpretation and limitation is incorrect. Unless you can offer comparable sources citing your interpretation is correct, you don't really have any leg to stand on objection-wise.
    And I am using one of the definitions from your source, which is:

    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    And you said that they used a system but it's the wrong system. So they did not refrain from using a system (even a wrong system is a system) and therefore it does not fit the definition of arbitrary.
    Last edited by mican333; June 9th, 2017 at 05:03 PM.

  18. #36
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't argue that they apply to everyone. I argue that they SHOULD apply to everyone.
    Fine, then your conclusion doesn't follow. If the premises are subjective, there is no connection to derive that the conclusion should apply objectively.

    For example:

    P1) Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    C) No one should eat peanuts.


    The conclusion here doesn't follow from the premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But just saying that the law "ought" to such and such (which is subjective) is not the same thing as making the law itself. I've made no law but just made a subjective statement about what the law should be.
    You misunderstand the objection. That you believe the law ought to be X or Y is irrelevant. That you are arguing it should be a law is what matters. That it should be a law is what makes the conclusion in your argument an objective statement (since laws are objectively applied principles). That you are basing that objective conclusion on a subject premise is why the argument fails validity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'd say you are moving the goal post. We went from discussing where the moral weight comes from to developing a standard for practical application in our society?

    Not at all. The entire point is that the moral weight of your argument is incomprehensible unless we have some idea what the actual practical application is. I can't coherently argue, "You shouldn't schlorp" with any credibility unless I tell you, in an applicable manner, what "schlorping" is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It needs to be established that there is a problem (which means we need to first settle if MW is less than LW before we concern ourselves with implementing policy to fix this problem. Obviously if there is no problem, there is no need to make a new policy.
    That is a separate premise within your argument. I'm pointing out that neither premise in your argument has a truth value, and that the validity of the argument is flawed.

    This premise has yet to be shown. And by your argument cannot, by definition, be shown if LW is just some subjective taste position.

    I'm open to you showing that that MW is less than LW, but you've offered no direct evidence that that is the case. I know you will trot out the CBS article yet again, but it still holds no support power because it doesn't address the LW. Rather it addresses an equally ill defined concept. Until you can equate those two concepts, this article is for a claim unrelated to this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    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 which means they aren't earning a living wage (given that we agree that dire poverty falls below the line of "acceptable" as the term is applied to the definition of Living Wage.)
    It absolutely matters what government policy is. You aren't showing they are appealing to their family a bank, a loan shark, etc. You are showing that they are claiming government credits and transfer payments. Thus, showing that government policy is the same thing as the living wage is critical to your argument. You have not equated those two, thus you've offered no support for this claim.

    The argument you've offered here has several unsupported premises. If you want to rely on the fact that the fact they are applying for government transfer payments is equivalent to the conclusion that the MW is less than the LW, you need to support your premises here:

    1) They are seeking government transfer payments to avoid dire poverty.

    2) Dire poverty (as defined in premise 1) means you aren't earning a living wage (again, an objective definition of a living wage would be helpful here).

    3) That these same parties are earning a MW.

    3 might be easy, I no longer have access to the link (it appears truncated when I try to copy it). 2 will be difficult without offering some objective definitions, less you fall into the "you think that a is less than b" trap. 1 is virtually impossible because you need to prove their motive. If I offered you $100 on the street, your reason for accepting it is pretty near impossible to prove, and it certainly doesn't show that you are in poverty.

    Further, you concede 1 tacitly here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican

    I don't claim that they are not equivalent. I make no claim regarding their equivalency at all.
    Ok, if you have no claim towards their equivalency, then you are, de facto, withdrawing support that their qualification for transfer payments is evidence that the LW < MW.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it relies on a standard of acceptable and I have provided that standard.
    Which gets me back to the question I asked in post 32 that you refused to answer, "what do "people think is acceptable?" Do you have that consensus? Or support?"

    What is that standard? Can you offer support that that standard is the consensus opinion?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't have to support anything that I didn't specifically claim. So I don't have to support that X means anything in particular until I claim that X mean such and such. Please don't use the word "support" unless you are specifically challenging me to support something that I said. Other uses confuse the issue.
    This is a relatively disingenuous response.

    You offered a definition of LW that references "acceptable living standard."

    You offered a premise that said LW < MW.

    So unless you are saying that the transitive property suddenly doesn't apply, it is, in fact, incumbent upon you to show that your definition in 1 applies to your premise in 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Of course one method of retracting a claim is to not repeat it. So for now I will not repeat it and will concern myself with supporting it if I feel the need to repeat it.
    Given that that claim is retracted, we need to understand the implications of its retraction. If there is no consensus on what is an "acceptable living standard" then there can be, by definition, no consensus on LW being less than MW.

    Thus your premise that LW < MW cannot be held as true objectively (you've already conceded that) or by popular acclaim (since you retracted that claim). Thus we are only left with it being true in Mican's opinion, which is fine, but isn't an argument and can't be forwarded in a debate forum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And I am using one of the definitions from your source, which is:

    1) Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    And you said that they used a system but it's the wrong system. So they did not refrain from using a system (even a wrong system is a system) and therefore it does not fit the definition of arbitrary.
    Again, you are using an artificial restriction in your use of the definition. The specific examples offered by the editors of both Oxford and Merriam contain the word arbitrary for examples when a system unrelated to the point forwarded was used.

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

    ‘Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment.’

    ‘The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims.’

    ‘This numbering system is an arbitrary designation based on small amino acid sequence differences.’

    '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.'

    '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.'

    Can you show that they used the term incorrectly six times?
    "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.


  19. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fine, then your conclusion doesn't follow. If the premises are subjective, there is no connection to derive that the conclusion should apply objectively.

    For example:

    P1) Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    C) No one should eat peanuts.
    But your example's conclusion is subjective "No one SHOULD eat peanuts".

    So I don't really see your point here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You misunderstand the objection. That you believe the law ought to be X or Y is irrelevant. That you are arguing it should be a law is what matters. That it should be a law is what makes the conclusion in your argument an objective statement (since laws are objectively applied principles)
    I'd say you are misunderstanding the difference between a subjective position and an objective position.

    If one is arguing what should be, their argument is subjective. If one is arguing what is, their argument is objective.

    When I say the law SHOULD BE such and such, my argument is subjective. When I say the law IS such and such, my argument is objective (as in I'm making a factual statement).

    And my argument is clearly a "should be" argument and therefore is subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. The entire point is that the moral weight of your argument is incomprehensible unless we have some idea what the actual practical application is. I can't coherently argue, "You shouldn't schlorp" with any credibility unless I tell you, in an applicable manner, what "schlorping" is.
    Assuming "Shlorp" is a practical application of my moral position, we don't know need to know what shlorping is in order to assess the moral weight of my position.

    One does not need to know how to apply the morality of the position that murder is immoral before the position that murder is immoral has moral weight.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a separate premise within your argument. I'm pointing out that neither premise in your argument has a truth value, and that the validity of the argument is flawed.

    This premise has yet to be shown. And by your argument cannot, by definition, be shown if LW is just some subjective taste position.

    I'm open to you showing that that MW is less than LW, but you've offered no direct evidence that that is the case. I know you will trot out the CBS article yet again, but it still holds no support power because it doesn't address the LW. Rather it addresses an equally ill defined concept. Until you can equate those two concepts, this article is for a claim unrelated to this thread.
    The article supports that many of those who are working minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. So it directly addresses minimum wage. And it addresses a standard of living below what can reasonably be considered a Living Wage, which is "dire poverty".

    So the article equates the two concepts and shows that MW is lower than LW.

    You just seem to be saying that you aren't impressed with the support that the article gives. But it doesn't matter if you are impressed. Support has been given and you can't just wave it off. You will need to show that the conclusion I am deriving from the article is actually wrong on some level. Until you do that, I have supported that MW


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It absolutely matters what government policy is. You aren't showing they are appealing to their family a bank, a loan shark, etc. You are showing that they are claiming government credits and transfer payments.
    I am showing that they are seeking help from the government to support that they need financial help in order to avoid dire poverty. If someone goes to their family for financial help, THAT supports the same thing. Or if they go to a loan shark, THAT supports the same thing. It doesn't matter who they go to for help. The fact that they need help supports my argument. Whether the government has a policy to help them or what the specifics of the policy is is completely irrelevant to the fact that they turned to the government for help.

    So I have supported that these families are seeking help to avoid dire poverty which supports that they are not earning enough in their jobs to avoid poverty.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which gets me back to the question I asked in post 32 that you refused to answer, "what do "people think is acceptable?" Do you have that consensus? Or support?"

    What is that standard? Can you offer support that that standard is the consensus opinion?
    I choose to not answer these questions. If you want to present these issues as arguments, then I will address them.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is a relatively disingenuous response.

    You offered a definition of LW that references "acceptable living standard."

    You offered a premise that said LW < MW.

    So unless you are saying that the transitive property suddenly doesn't apply, it is, in fact, incumbent upon you to show that your definition in 1 applies to your premise in 2.
    Now, that I go back and re-read, I would say that I misunderstood what you were asking so my response was not entirely on-point.

    But I'm not sure what you are asking. I would say that you should state your point as an argument and not a request. I've definitely offered a definition of LW and as far as I can tell, the relevance to the premise is self-evident. So I don't know what the challenge is here. So again, present a challenge for me to address.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, you are using an artificial restriction in your use of the definition.
    No, it is not artificial. When using the dictionary, one uses one definition at a time. So I picked the one definition that seems to apply to what is being discussed the best and using that one exclusively.

    And the whole point of saying something is "arbitrary" is to discredit it. If one expands the definition of "arbitrary" to the point where it no longer means something that is unacceptable (such as a completely random or whimsical method), the it doesn't matter so much if it's arbitrary or not.

    So I'm sticking to the definition of "random/whim". If you likewise aren't going to use that definition, then I don't care if a method is arbitrary so you might as well not use the word in this debate.
    Last edited by mican333; June 20th, 2017 at 10:58 AM.

  20. #38
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But your example's conclusion is subjective "No one SHOULD eat peanuts".

    So I don't really see your point here.
    The is/ought difference is not the relevant factor in a subjective vs. objective claim. What you are defining here is the difference between a claim and an opinion.

    It doesn't matter if the person is Steve or Mike or Rob or Susan or Helga, they shouldn't eat peanuts. IE the truth value of the conclusion is indiscriminate to the person it is applied to. IE it is either true or false for everyone (no one or everyone one should eat peanuts).

    Let me ask it more simply.

    P1) Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    C) No one should eat peanuts.

    Does this conclusion follow from the premise?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'd say you are misunderstanding the difference between a subjective position and an objective position.

    If one is arguing what should be, their argument is subjective.
    That isn't generally how those terms are applied. However, let's assume your definitions here for the sake of argument. How is a subjective "argument" different from a personal opinion (IE not an argument)?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Assuming "Shlorp" is a practical application of my moral position, we don't know need to know what shlorping is in order to assess the moral weight of my position.

    One does not need to know how to apply the morality of the position that murder is immoral before the position that murder is immoral has moral weight.
    It absolutely does if you don't really know what murder is. If the practical application of "murder" is the death of an animal by humans for any reason (as some animal rights groups forward) then it carries a very different moral weight than the if the practical application being proposed is consistent with current law.

    We can demonstrate this pretty easily. Yes or no, do you agree with the statement, "no one should be allowed to schlorp?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The article supports that many of those who are working minimum wage are not earning enough to avoid dire poverty. So it directly addresses minimum wage. And it addresses a standard of living below what can reasonably be considered a Living Wage, which is "dire poverty".
    Let's review the claims made and see what has been resolved.

    3) That these same parties are earning a MW. This looks to be supported

    2) Dire poverty (as defined in premise 1) means you aren't earning a living wage (again, an objective definition of a living wage would be helpful here). You repeat the claim here, but offer no direct evidence that the article equates the standard of living being discussed with a living wage. Can you support that it makes that link?

    1) They are seeking government transfer payments to avoid dire poverty. There still seems to be no support for this connection offered at all.


    So this is less about whether I am impressed or not, it is about whether the support you've offered actually relates to the claim you've made. So far you've been unable to offer that connection, but relied on a "gut sense" that they are connected. In order for this claim to be supported, you need to actually show that it relates directly to your original claim. I can't offer a link to process of nuclear fission in stars to show that the sky is blue. They might be linked, or they might not be.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I am showing that they are seeking help from the government to support that they need financial help in order to avoid dire poverty.
    No, your link shows the rate at which people apply for transfer payments. The emotionally added argument of "help" is yours. Again, if I offer you $100, it doesn't mean that you need $100, that is an additional inference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I choose to not answer these questions. If you want to present these issues as arguments, then I will address them.
    ...
    Now, that I go back and re-read, I would say that I misunderstood what you were asking so my response was not entirely on-point.

    But I'm not sure what you are asking. I would say that you should state your point as an argument and not a request. I've definitely offered a definition of LW and as far as I can tell, the relevance to the premise is self-evident. So I don't know what the challenge is here. So again, present a challenge for me to address.

    Both of these responses fall around the same argument. You've made two statements.

    LW < MW

    and

    LW is defined as an "acceptable living standard."

    You've relied on that definition of LW since post 13. Since post 24, I've asked you to support the claim (derived via the transitive principle), that "An acceptable living standard < MW"

    In posts 25, 29, and 31 you define that acceptability as what society views as acceptable. In post 31 you specifically use the phrase "what people think is acceptable."

    So again, to refine, as you asked;

    "the standard of living people find acceptable is more than the MW."

    I'm asking you to support that statement. What is the standard of living that "people" find "acceptable." Where did you find that consensus?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So I'm sticking to the definition of "random/whim". If you likewise aren't going to use that definition, then I don't care if a method is arbitrary so you might as well not use the word in this debate.
    And I've forwarded the examples used by both the Merriam and Oxford editors as evidence that my usage of the term, which is where this began, is in line. So if you are going to claim that I am using the term arbitrary incorrectly, you need to offer direct support that my application, as detailed in post 30, and by extension the Oxford and Merriam editors, is incorrect.
    "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.


  21. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,649
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The is/ought difference is not the relevant factor in a subjective vs. objective claim. What you are defining here is the difference between a claim and an opinion.
    An opinion and a claim are not mutually exclusive. "No one should eat peanuts" is both a claim and an opinion. It's offering one's opinion on whether people should be allowed to eat peanuts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let me ask it more simply.

    P1) Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    C) No one should eat peanuts.

    Does this conclusion follow from the premise?
    It can follow. You just need to add some more premises between the first premise and the conclusion.

    P1 - Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    P2 - Steve must not be exposed to peanuts
    p3 - The only way to guarantee that Steve is never exposed to peanuts is to ban all peanuts
    Therefore, no one should have access to peanuts
    C) No one should eat peanuts.

    I don't agree with the conclusion but it definitely follows the first premise.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't generally how those terms are applied. However, let's assume your definitions here for the sake of argument. How is a subjective "argument" different from a personal opinion (IE not an argument)?
    Since an opinion can be an argument, I don't agree with the premise of the question.

    "There should be a law against murder" is both an argument and an opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It absolutely does if you don't really know what murder is. If the practical application of "murder" is the death of an animal by humans for any reason (as some animal rights groups forward) then it carries a very different moral weight than the if the practical application being proposed is consistent with current law.
    But in your argument, the uncertain moral weight is based on the uncertain definition of murder, not on how the moral position is applied. So this response is irrelevant to my argument so I will just repeat it.

    One does not need to know how to apply the morality of the position that murder is immoral before the position that murder is immoral has moral weight.

    So more to the point, not knowing how to apply a moral position does not invalidate the moral position. If you don't have a rebuttal to what's bolded, then this point is settled.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's review the claims made and see what has been resolved.

    3) That these same parties are earning a MW. This looks to be supported

    2) Dire poverty (as defined in premise 1) means you aren't earning a living wage (again, an objective definition of a living wage would be helpful here). You repeat the claim here, but offer no direct evidence that the article equates the standard of living being discussed with a living wage. Can you support that it makes that link?

    1) They are seeking government transfer payments to avoid dire poverty. There still seems to be no support for this connection offered at all.
    Here is my support.

    "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
    No, your link shows the rate at which people apply for transfer payments. The emotionally added argument of "help" is yours. Again, if I offer you $100, it doesn't mean that you need $100, that is an additional inference.
    Again, let's look at my support.

    "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."

    So the scenario is not you offering me $100. It's me coming to you and saying that I'm not earning enough to avoid dire poverty and asking you for $!00. At that point, it is reasonable to hold that my wages are inadequate.

    You seem to think that the actual governmental policy is relevant to my point. It's not. Going back to the me/you scenario, it doesn't matter what your policy is regarding giving people money. It's the fact that I need money to avoid poverty that supports that I'm not earning enough. Likewise the governmental policy on giving money is irrelevant to my support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So again, to refine, as you asked;

    "the standard of living people find acceptable is more than the MW."

    I'm asking you to support that statement.
    I have supported it. I'll do it with a logic chain.

    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

    So there is your support and it stands until you rebut this logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And I've forwarded the examples used by both the Merriam and Oxford editors as evidence that my usage of the term, which is where this began, is in line. So if you are going to claim that I am using the term arbitrary incorrectly, you need to offer direct support that my application, as detailed in post 30, and by extension the Oxford and Merriam editors, is incorrect.
    I didn't say that you are using it incorrectly. Here's what I said:

    "So I'm sticking to the definition of "random/whim". If you likewise aren't going to use that definition, then I don't care if a method is arbitrary so you might as well not use the word in this debate."

    A definition other than "random/whim" is not necessarily incorrect. But then a different definition is likewise not necessarily an unacceptable way for a government to function. In other words, I hold that governmental decisions should not be made based on random/whim which is why I agree that they should not be made arbitrarily. If you aren't using the word "arbitrary" in the same fashion, then I don't necessarily hold that government decisions should not be made arbitrarily and therefore you aren't really making a point against such decision making by saying that the decision was arbitrary.
    Last edited by mican333; June 21st, 2017 at 08:53 AM.

  22. #40
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Living Wage and Moral Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It can follow. You just need to add some more premises between the first premise and the conclusion.

    P1 - Steve is allergic to peanuts.
    P2 - Steve must not be exposed to peanuts
    p3 - The only way to guarantee that Steve is never exposed to peanuts is to ban all peanuts
    Therefore, no one should have access to peanuts
    C) No one should eat peanuts.

    I don't agree with the conclusion but it definitely follows the first premise.
    Exactly! The argument as offered does not follow (requiring additional premises is the definition of not following).

    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 applying to everyone that prevents them from accepting work at less than $X."


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Since an opinion can be an argument, I don't agree with the premise of the question.

    "There should be a law against murder" is both an argument and an opinion.
    Well, not really. An opinion is an unsupported, personal conclusion or premise. An argument is a structured set of premises and conclusion.


    "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.


    Again, we can see this extremely clearly. Do you agree with the statement, "no one should be allowed to schlorp?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But in your argument, the uncertain moral weight is based on the uncertain definition of murder, not on how the moral position is applied.
    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.

    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.


    Now, let's look at a similar scenario with your argument.

    "I make $40,000 a year."

    Am I able to maintain an "acceptable living standard?"

    I have no idea. We can't objectively compare those terms at all because we lack a concrete definition of the standard. I might say yes while you say no. MT might say maybe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Here is my support....
    If they need to receive government aid to avoid dire poverty, then the wages they are earning is not enough to avoid dire poverty.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You seem to think that the actual governmental policy is relevant to my point. It's not. Going back to the me/you scenario, it doesn't matter what your policy is regarding giving people money. It's the fact that I need money to avoid poverty that supports that I'm not earning enough.
    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. Unless an independent definition of dire poverty that doesn't rely on the definition created by the government to determine who gets aid is offered, it is a circular argument (begging the question fallacy).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I have supported it. I'll do it with a logic chain.

    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    A definition other than "random/whim" is not necessarily incorrect. But then a different definition is likewise not necessarily an unacceptable way for a government to function. In other words, I hold that governmental decisions should not be made based on random/whim which is why I agree that they should not be made arbitrarily. If you aren't using the word "arbitrary" in the same fashion, then I don't necessarily hold that government decisions should not be made arbitrarily and therefore you aren't really making a point against such decision making by saying that the decision was arbitrary.
    This section kind of reads as "I don't like the conclusion, so I'm ignoring a valid definition." I get that you, Mican, don't like the implications, but I don't see why that is compelling as an 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.


  23. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

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
  •