5 ms·

>> fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservati

>> fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute If it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. If it's a good argument, it's a good argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. It's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument, rather than committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

cazum 3y ago
It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument. It also happens to be a bad argument from people who traditionally and historically have made similar bad arguments.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
  - ddingus 3y ago
    In context the user meant: >>It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument[, not because it came from Cato] They also imply the bad of the argument is obvious. I do not entirely agree and believe their comment would be improved with just a bit of work. They did not seriously intend to present a circular fallacy. Just saying.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      It actually is circular as written, especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments. As there's no evidence they evaluated the argument at all, we can assume this history is also based on reasoning of the form "it's bad just because" this this boils down to "it's bad just because, just like everything else they say". Also, you're being too generous to assume there's an unstated justification for why it's is a bad argument. Pretty obvious that there isn't, they just assume anything said by the authors must be bad because tribes.
      - ddingus 3y ago
        I don't think I am being generous at all. That's a common speech pattern and often the intent is basically as I stated. Cato does, in fact, produce many bad arguments. Now they don't get it all wrong. They have produced good material. That said, I personally do not consider them reputable.
      - cazum 3y ago
        It can't be circular reasoning because it's not an attempt at reasoning. It's an incredibly common English phrase that means "The argument is independently bad on it's own merit", not an attempt to show a logical incongruity. Others have already explained why the argument does not hold up, I don't need to repeat their work here. And if we want to be pedantic, "especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments" would make my "argument" an ad-hominem fallacy, or perhaps poisoning the well, but not circular reasoning. But again, as I said, the argument is bad independent of the people who made it.
jqpabc123 3y ago
It's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument It's a bad argument. "Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment". This is illegal. Basically, they are equating union strikers with criminals. It is a particularly bad argument when applied to physicians. The American Medical Association is effectively a labor union of doctors with monopoly control over licensing and legal practice of medicine --- the only such union in the country. Which helps explain why the average US physician earns over $350K a year.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "This is illegal." Is it only illegal for physicians and not sanitation workers, baseball players, or actors?
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    It is illegal for anyone to use force in this way. During the baseball strike of 1994-95, MLB teams hired replacement players. No one used force to prevent it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_...
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  So a right is only a right if it is not illegal? I'll inform the lawmakers, they will be very pleased about this.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    So a right is only a right if it is not illegal? Union workers have a right to strike. They don't have the right to use force to prevent others from doing their job. In fact, lots of picket lines in recent years have featured a police presence to enforce this.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago

cazum 3y ago

It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument. It also happens to be a bad argument from people who traditionally and historically have made similar bad arguments.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
- ddingus 3y ago
  In context the user meant: >>It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument[, not because it came from Cato] They also imply the bad of the argument is obvious. I do not entirely agree and believe their comment would be improved with just a bit of work. They did not seriously intend to present a circular fallacy. Just saying.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    It actually is circular as written, especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments. As there's no evidence they evaluated the argument at all, we can assume this history is also based on reasoning of the form "it's bad just because" this this boils down to "it's bad just because, just like everything else they say". Also, you're being too generous to assume there's an unstated justification for why it's is a bad argument. Pretty obvious that there isn't, they just assume anything said by the authors must be bad because tribes.
    - ddingus 3y ago
      I don't think I am being generous at all. That's a common speech pattern and often the intent is basically as I stated. Cato does, in fact, produce many bad arguments. Now they don't get it all wrong. They have produced good material. That said, I personally do not consider them reputable.
    - cazum 3y ago
      It can't be circular reasoning because it's not an attempt at reasoning. It's an incredibly common English phrase that means "The argument is independently bad on it's own merit", not an attempt to show a logical incongruity. Others have already explained why the argument does not hold up, I don't need to repeat their work here. And if we want to be pedantic, "especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments" would make my "argument" an ad-hominem fallacy, or perhaps poisoning the well, but not circular reasoning. But again, as I said, the argument is bad independent of the people who made it.

jqpabc123 3y ago

It's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument It's a bad argument. "Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment". This is illegal. Basically, they are equating union strikers with criminals. It is a particularly bad argument when applied to physicians. The American Medical Association is effectively a labor union of doctors with monopoly control over licensing and legal practice of medicine --- the only such union in the country. Which helps explain why the average US physician earns over $350K a year.

readthenotes1 3y ago
"This is illegal." Is it only illegal for physicians and not sanitation workers, baseball players, or actors?
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  It is illegal for anyone to use force in this way. During the baseball strike of 1994-95, MLB teams hired replacement players. No one used force to prevent it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_...
friend_and_foe 3y ago
So a right is only a right if it is not illegal? I'll inform the lawmakers, they will be very pleased about this.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  So a right is only a right if it is not illegal? Union workers have a right to strike. They don't have the right to use force to prevent others from doing their job. In fact, lots of picket lines in recent years have featured a police presence to enforce this.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago