3 ms·

We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response

We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
No, we can’t do both. Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day. They ask you to come back the next day. You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day. And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday. Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick. What would a reasonable rational person do?
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives. I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    1. Please define ‘both’ 2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    We don’t have ‘resources’. We have a mechanism for instituting punitive taxes on a minority just because they are wealthy for a spending plan that has no clear path to success. And who is ‘we’? Peter and Paul want to tax Bob to hand over $$ to Jack and Jill.
MperorM 6y ago
if you spend some money one place, you can't spend that money elsewhere as well. You could argue there's enough money to solve both problems, and a tax on the wealthiest would help accomplish that. that is a view I'm very sympathetic to. But I think the comment you're responding to is making the first point, rather than the latter.

We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

No, we can’t do both. Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day. They ask you to come back the next day. You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day. And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday. Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick. What would a reasonable rational person do?

digitaltrees 6y ago
Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives. I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  1. Please define ‘both’ 2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  We don’t have ‘resources’. We have a mechanism for instituting punitive taxes on a minority just because they are wealthy for a spending plan that has no clear path to success. And who is ‘we’? Peter and Paul want to tax Bob to hand over $$ to Jack and Jill.

MperorM 6y ago

if you spend some money one place, you can't spend that money elsewhere as well. You could argue there's enough money to solve both problems, and a tax on the wealthiest would help accomplish that. that is a view I'm very sympathetic to. But I think the comment you're responding to is making the first point, rather than the latter.