Ad hominem and “appeal to authority” are both logical fallacies.
In fact, pretty much just the opposite sides of the same coin.
Just saying...
I’ll Ask The Question Again
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Ad hominem and “appeal to authority” are both logical fallacies.
In fact, pretty much just the opposite sides of the same coin.
Just saying...
I am waiting for your side of the argument, that's all. I have said that data is easily manipulated to serve whatever purpose the collector wants. You refuted that by posting the names of the authors of the paper. Congratulations, you posted something I have already read, failed to acknowledge what I said, and then provided a useless post to back that up. Not sure where this hole is I am digging, but if it makes you feel any better, the hole is for your sorry ass to curl up in and suck your thumb.
Didn’t read the study...didn’t see the negligible effect either way of minimum wage increase...has no evidence to cite contradicting study’s analysis...still deflecting but failing miserably lol
Carry on
JFC, @CSCOTTOSUPOKES you are so concerned over winning and losing you got lost in the point. Please help me understand how raising the min wage does not pass to the consumer but tariffs do. I just need that answered.
Having read the study, do you feel qualified to now be an economist? Having read the study, do you now have the ability to perform a survey using something like Qualtrics? Having read the study, do you feel this study is in any way biased towards an opinion, political stance, societal stance, or the like? Having read the study, have you found the bias that I found? Having read the study, with your new skills and intellect, do you feel you can now be a professor of economics like those you've cited?
I have not once argued for, or against the study or the data. All I said is that data can easily be manipulated to show whatever the authors need or want it to. You're blinded by your political affiliation and ignorance to even acknowledge what a different person is saying. I read the study and immediately found multiple sources of a possible bias. Rose-colored glasses were off after finding that and I went back to what I know from people who would know, particularly my wife, her colleagues who I interact with often, my dad (MS Statistics), namely those who are vastly more qualified to give me information than a study I have not seen the raw data. If the ESPN contracting group has a statistician or economist available for you to speak to, I advise you to do so. Ask them about manipulation of data. The data itself, in raw for is not changed (unless dishonest), but the information surrounding the data can easily be modified to suite the collector(s)'s needed or wanted point. My wife has done several studies where the benefactor requested a specific outcome, but if the data does not show it, then it does not show it.
You can't even begin to tell me you understand that paper outside of the looking at the graphs, if you did, you'd be in a much better situation than you currently find yourself in...eh Will Hunting?
I have not once argued for, or against the study or the data. All I said is that data can easily be manipulated to show whatever the authors need or want it to. You're blinded by your political affiliation and ignorance to even acknowledge what a different person is saying. I read the study and immediately found multiple sources of a possible bias. Rose-colored glasses were off after finding that and I went back to what I know from people who would know, particularly my wife, her colleagues who I interact with often, my dad (MS Statistics), namely those who are vastly more qualified to give me information than a study I have not seen the raw data. If the ESPN contracting group has a statistician or economist available for you to speak to, I advise you to do so. Ask them about manipulation of data. The data itself, in raw for is not changed (unless dishonest), but the information surrounding the data can easily be modified to suite the collector(s)'s needed or wanted point. My wife has done several studies where the benefactor requested a specific outcome, but if the data does not show it, then it does not show it.
You can't even begin to tell me you understand that paper outside of the looking at the graphs, if you did, you'd be in a much better situation than you currently find yourself in...eh Will Hunting?
Lol...so you read bias yet you don’t cite it. Classic. You’re searching long and hard for the narrative to twist back your way...it isn’t haha.
Carry on.
You do see that this is why people don't have actual substantive discussions with you, right? (Again, I'm not posting this to demean you; but, rather to enlighten you. You don't argue this way and expect real answers.
I post actual data and #facts and you people can’t handle it lol. Your “enlightenment” is a pile of horseshit and spin haha.
Carry on.
@PoncaDan and @CSCOTTOSUPOKE: I am an economist and some food for your thoughts:
A. You are correct in that Safeguard Tariffs are typically used for two reasons. 1. To protect against a damaging import surge (quantity and price) and 1. For national security. Embedded in 1. is also a trading partner country unfairly subsidizing their products being exported to the US. China, is IN FACT, subsidizing these products unfairly and they need to be stopped.
B. I agree with you that general (and broad) tariffs are damaging. Stopping China doesn't mean we need a broad Tariff that applies globally. And lest you be worried about China's response, do a pro-forma GDP for China assuming they lose access to the US consumers in Walmart.
C. I disagree with you about the effects of Tariffs by past Presidents and I disagree that our past Presidents have honored the WTO court tribunal systems. Virtually every one has bypassed that to do what the hell they want. So in your words we have been a tyrannical dictatorship for about 60 years.....NOT just one year.
D. I also agree with others in this thread that sometimes the use of these Tariffs is useful as a means to a different end. China is abusive in so many ways that it would take another 6 page thread to explore, starting with the lack of transparency and free market in their most powerful leverage (currency). NAFTA is, IN FACT, a very bad agreement and is one-sided in Mexico's favor. It was the politically correct thing to do at the time, but we (and they) have outgrown it.
In my view the arguments you make AND the ones others have made that oppose you.....are BOTH flawed.....and in a silly vacuum without all of the variables and details to make rational sense.
A. You are correct in that Safeguard Tariffs are typically used for two reasons. 1. To protect against a damaging import surge (quantity and price) and 1. For national security. Embedded in 1. is also a trading partner country unfairly subsidizing their products being exported to the US. China, is IN FACT, subsidizing these products unfairly and they need to be stopped.
B. I agree with you that general (and broad) tariffs are damaging. Stopping China doesn't mean we need a broad Tariff that applies globally. And lest you be worried about China's response, do a pro-forma GDP for China assuming they lose access to the US consumers in Walmart.
C. I disagree with you about the effects of Tariffs by past Presidents and I disagree that our past Presidents have honored the WTO court tribunal systems. Virtually every one has bypassed that to do what the hell they want. So in your words we have been a tyrannical dictatorship for about 60 years.....NOT just one year.
D. I also agree with others in this thread that sometimes the use of these Tariffs is useful as a means to a different end. China is abusive in so many ways that it would take another 6 page thread to explore, starting with the lack of transparency and free market in their most powerful leverage (currency). NAFTA is, IN FACT, a very bad agreement and is one-sided in Mexico's favor. It was the politically correct thing to do at the time, but we (and they) have outgrown it.
In my view the arguments you make AND the ones others have made that oppose you.....are BOTH flawed.....and in a silly vacuum without all of the variables and details to make rational sense.
Last edited:
Okay, well I tried. I wasn't even commenting on the merits of the argument. You may in fact be correct. I was commenting on your methods, tone, and tact.
But, just to be clear. I've treated you with respect and decorum since your last outburst. It is you that are blowing all that off. Not me. I've tried to be friendly and give you sound advise.
If you refuse to reciprocate, that's on you.
What if the authority you are appealing to is your wife? Does that count?
Look where some of the funding came from shit for brains. Jesus .
In my household my wife is not the final authority, not by a long shot. No, indeed, she’s the ONLY authority.
Of course while I bow to your superior knowledge I don’t think these economists will:
https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/trump-tariffs-winning-not/
I have no idea but find it funny that she connects multiple generations of Cowboys. Think I had her in '05 as well.
Was it Monday through Thursday 6-10 study like hell, Friday through Sunday party like hell?
Pretty close. I was on a Sunday through Wednesday study like hell / Thursday through Saturday party like hell plan.
I partied some on Wednesdays though too. Willies had a drown night if I remember correctly.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Why are libs hellbent on having penises in women’s locker rooms?
- Latest: LAY THE WOODY
-
-
-
-
