Raw Dawgin' it;1244066 wrote:Sell the McDonalds. You can't complain about fat people when you're a direct cause of someone being fat.

I don't force them to eat my food.

WebFire;1244032 wrote:Still lame and very un-sleeper like. I expect more from you.

I think a lot of people around here expect more from me. Not much I can do when I'm handicapped by an overzealous and overaggressive moderation staff hell bent on silencing anything that doesn't praise or agree with anyone. In debating, I need to make sure I point out how I respect the other persons opinion and that agreeing to disagree is okay. It's gross. Blame them, not me.

sleeper;1243995 wrote:It's called a hypothetical OTRAP. What do they call the logical fallacy of bringing up metrics outside of the hypothetical to suit your argument?

You used unrealistic numbers in your hypothetical example to prove a real-life point, which was originally to justify your position for being happy about a real-life drought.

If the thread was posed as a hypothetical, then that would be different, but your hypothetical was meaningless, because it doesn't fit the point you were intending to make about reality. All I did was point that out and use more realistic numbers for a realistic case (ie the drought we're experiencing and its effect on food supply).

A dollar a day for food ... that's fine if you want to deal solely in the realm of hypotheticals, but it doesn't help your position on the real drought. In reality, anyone can afford to eat either garbage or a somewhat healthy (or at least balanced) diet, barring a world-wide famine. As such, the drought will do nothing, and altering the price will do little (I almost might say that's an interesting proposition for an allegedly free-market supporter, but that's a different subject).

sleeper;1243999 wrote:I agree that it is their responsibility to eat healthy. They make bad choices and don't follow this. Price is the easiest way to force the type of behavior that you desire.

What I desire for them doesn't matter. The notion that we should "force the type of behavior [we] desire" is the same notion currently used to prevent same-sex marriages. How about this: Instead of trying to control what people eat ... you know, civil liberties and all ... just make everyone responsible for their own health. That way, when those people get sick or keel over from weight-related health issues, nobody tries to prop them up.

Sound good?

Heretic;1244002 wrote:Have you tried using a combination of pictures and small words typed with big letters?

Too apathetic for that.

Oh gosh a ruddies. Here's a better more realistic hypothetical for your obtuse brain.

Man earns $365 per day. The only food available is a cheeseburger in the entire universe, which costs $1. Man eats 1 cheeseburger per day. Drought happens, price goes to $2 per cheeseburger. Man can now only consume .5 cheeseburgers per day. He has no choice. Man eats less.

Is that simple enough for you? Hopefully this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

I would be okay with making everyone responsible for their own self. But speaking of unrealistic hypothetical, that describes it to a T.

Oh, and the fallacy of doing that is Inconsistent Comparison.

sleeper;1244101 wrote:Oh gosh a ruddies. Here's a better more realistic hypothetical for your obtuse brain.

Man earns $365 per day. The only food available is a cheeseburger in the entire universe, which costs $1. Man eats 1 cheeseburger per day. Drought happens, price goes to $2 per cheeseburger. Man can now only consume .5 cheeseburgers per day. He has no choice. Man eats less.

Is that simple enough for you? Hopefully this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

If i make 365 a day, i can easily afford $2 burgers...hope this helps. You scenario is retarded, just like your entire argument. You can't complain about something you cause, enjoy.

Maybe you should sign on as isadore and start preaching about helping the poor.

sleeper;1244101 wrote:Oh gosh a ruddies. Here's a better more realistic hypothetical for your obtuse brain.

Man earns $365 per day. The only food available is a cheeseburger in the entire universe, which costs $1. Man eats 1 cheeseburger per day. Drought happens, price goes to $2 per cheeseburger. Man can now only consume .5 cheeseburgers per day. He has no choice. Man eats less.

Is that simple enough for you? Hopefully this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

I assume you mean $365 per year, not per day.

If we're going to go with strict hypotheticals, then sure, but then you can't use this parallel to justify a position in real life. So congratulations, you have a logical hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

Also, I thought we were discussing the healthiness of the food, and not just the volume. In your example, this is obviously a non-factor, but again, in real-life, it is, so the hypothetical doesn't justify the position in actuality.

sleeper;1244104 wrote:I would be okay with making everyone responsible for their own self. But speaking of unrealistic hypothetical, that describes it to a T.

Hardly. Personal responsibility is still enforced and supported regarding a large part of society, and can be seen across all cultures to some degree. It has been a foundation for establishing law and ethics codes for millenia, as well as a crux in every discussion regarding philanthropic assistance.

O-Trap;1244106 wrote:Oh, and the fallacy of doing that is Inconsistent Comparison.

Good to know. I feel I fall for this one on several occasions. Mostly on purpose.

Raw Dawgin' it;1244108 wrote:If i make 365 a day, i can easily afford $2 burgers...hope this helps. You scenario is retarded, just like your entire argument. You can't complain about something you cause, enjoy.

Maybe you should sign on as isadore and start preaching about helping the poor.

Typo'd on purpose.

sleeper;1244114 wrote:Good to know. I feel I fall for this one on several occasions. Mostly on purpose.

Nobody goes through life without committing one, so don't worry. Everyone on earth uses flawed logic at one time or another.

O-Trap;1244113 wrote:I assume you mean $365 per year, not per day.

He doesn't even know what the fuck he means.

O-Trap;1244113 wrote:I assume you mean $365 per year, not per day.

If we're going to go with strict hypotheticals, then sure, but then you can't use this parallel to justify a position in real life. So congratulations, you have a logical hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

Also, I thought we were discussing the healthiness of the food, and not just the volume. In your example, this is obviously a non-factor, but again, in real-life, it is, so the hypothetical doesn't justify the position in actuality.



Hardly. Personal responsibility is still enforced and supported regarding a large part of society, and can be seen across all cultures to some degree. It has been a foundation for establishing law and ethics codes for millenia, as well as a crux in every discussion regarding philanthropic assistance.

I'm talking about eating less food, not healthiness of food. Less food(calories) = less weight gain(holding everything else constant). I find it embarrassing that it took this long to get this smallest of points through to you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple equation.

O-Trap;1244116 wrote:Nobody goes through life without committing one, so don't worry. Everyone on earth uses flawed logic at one time or another.

Nothing wrong with using flawed logic. I find it easier to persuade the masses using logical fallacies since they make every argument easier. The mean of society doesn't understand that I'm subverting logic in order to prove my point. I certainly can win without using logical fallacies, but I prefer the path of least resistance if I am able to use it.

Raw Dawgin' it;1244117 wrote:He doesn't even know what the fuck he means.

What's with you lately? You seem mad. Don't be mad.

sleeper;1244120 wrote:I'm talking about eating less food, not healthiness of food. Less food(calories) = less weight gain(holding everything else constant). I find it embarrassing that it took this long to get this smallest of points through to you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple equation.

Well, based on the origination of the topic, I assumed you were actually following a logical line of thought ... that when you made a parallel in a topic whose subject is a real-life example, your parallel would be applicable to said real-life subject.

Oh, and eating healthy food has the same result. "More healthy food (less calories) = less weight gain (holding everything else constant, including volume of dietary intake)."

sleeper;1244120 wrote:I'm talking about eating less food, not healthiness of food. Less food(calories) = less weight gain(holding everything else constant). I find it embarrassing that it took this long to get this smallest of points through to you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a simple equation.

less weight doesn't necessarily mean more healthy. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this.

sleeper;1244122 wrote:Nothing wrong with using flawed logic. I find it easier to persuade the masses using logical fallacies since they make every argument easier. The mean of society doesn't understand that I'm subverting logic in order to prove my point. I certainly can win without using logical fallacies, but I prefer the path of least resistance if I am able to use it.

How very Machiavellian of you. Win by hook or by crook, as the ends justify the means. I do admit that I've used the same for certain purposes. It's why I'm in marketing.

O-Trap;1244131 wrote:How very Machiavellian of you. Win by hook or by crook, as the ends justify the means. I do admit that I've used the same for certain purposes. It's why I'm in marketing.

You should have applied this Machiavillian tactic on the cop that gave you a ticket yesterday.

O-Trap;1244116 wrote:Nobody goes through life without committing one, so don't worry. Everyone on earth uses flawed logic at one time or another.

Such as generalizing?

Devils Advocate;1244136 wrote:You should have applied this Machiavillian tactic on the cop that gave you a ticket yesterday.

Use a big word like that on the average cop and he's probably gonna think you're hitting on him, so unless he would be into man-on-man, that could open up a whole new line of litigation.

Raw Dawgin' it;1244127 wrote:less weight doesn't necessarily mean more healthy. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this.

Agreed. But less weight = less obese people, which brings a joyful smile to my face.

Heretic;1244142 wrote:Such as generalizing?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with generalizing. None what-so-ever. Generalizing is using all available data that one has observed through his or her lifetime to make a conclusion on a particular item. That doesn't necessarily mean said person is correct, but that they are using what they know to form an opinion. If you feel said person is unfairly giving a generalization to an object, you are allowed to present data in order to persuade said person to change their generalization of said object.

sleeper;1244148 wrote:Agreed. But less weight = less obese people, which brings a joyful smile to my face.

Depends how you judge obese. According to BMI some olympic athletes are obese, it's all relative. Stop serving people junk and they won't eat it, but according to you, you care about money over well being.

I'll expect you to come back as isadore and counter with how we need to help the poor more.

sleeper;1244151 wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with generalizing. None what-so-ever. Generalizing is using all available data that one has observed through his or her lifetime to make a conclusion on a particular item. That doesn't necessarily mean said person is correct, but that they are using what they know to form an opinion. If you feel said person is unfairly giving a generalization to an object, you are allowed to present data in order to persuade said person to change their generalization of said object.

In general I think generalizing is dumb.