There are many systems we have to navigate thru as we move forward in life (school,work etc). How come the most difficult system to navigate thru seems to be the governmental system? Shouldn't a government try to make it as easy as it can on it's citizens? The United States Government seems to like to tie it's citizens up in red tape. Maybe Socialisim would be better than "The System" we have now.. Any thoughts? be seeing you

We are long over due for a revolution. We the people must take back our government.

what youre not understanding is ...the government's system is to tie you up in red tape...

exactly, there is nothing hard to understand about that. reduce your fears down by seeing them for who they are. they are the wizard in wizard of oz. just a little scared man behind a big curtain.

What makes you think that socialism is any less complicated?

If you care for my opinion (I have studies socialism in detail), I can tell you, that by default, from the start, the socialist system must be way more complicated than anything our government could possibly design.

What you see is actually our system, becoming more and more convoluted, as it becomes more and more socialistic. We are not living in capitalism. Just a quick example: Capitalist countries DO NOT bailout anyone EVER, be it a bank, and insurance company, a big business, a small business, or a poor joe-six-pack.

Thus, if you wanted to un-complicate, I suggest you to take a look at capitalism.

Socialism isn't a 'system', it's a broad theory of socio-economic organisation. 'Presidential democracy' is a system.

ok, then do you believe that it's good for america?

prisonerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

where ya go big boyyyyyyyy??????????????

come out come out wherever you are

Considering how many definitions there are of socialism, that's a difficult question to answer. I believe universal healthcare and affordable post-secondary education should be available to Americans just as they are in almost every other modern industrialised nation.

but remember, america is actually the **** country. we're getting too big, we cost too much we live too long. we are a burden upon the world. but, we are also the country that is bullying every other country, our little ride on the fake money express is quickly coming to an end. other countries are just watching as we fall to the ground with pride still not seeing our transgressions. they are looking at us with pity, because we use to be such a great nation in the beginning. up until we were forced by the bankers to enter the first world war. since then we've filled ourselves with a bully's pride. and to the ground flailing from our pride, we will still have it.

How about riots with burning and overturning of private vehicles parked on the streets? These things are available in almost every other modern industrialized nation, as well.

Straw man argument.

Very good, but not good enough.

I am not attacking your argument that universal healthcare and affordable post-secondary education should be available in America.

Instead, I am showing a weakness of your implied argument that we should try to copy something from other nations, simply on the basis that it exist there, and that those nations are a lot like our own, without having a consideration if that something is a good thing to establish in our nation in the first place.

That is what makes it a straw man argument. You are not attacking my actual, explicit argument, but what you consider an implicit argument.

I do

Thats right. Most of these people don't even know what socialism is. I have tried to talk to them about it and they didnt even understand the terminology. Only a couple people on here know what socialism is.

This is not as good as I thought. Reread the definition of a "straw man fallacy". Here it is, from nizkor:



Notice how there is nothing about the difference between stated/implied (explicit/implicit). Why? Because both stated and implied constitute an actual position being held. Implied meaning is not the distorted version of stated meaning, rather it is simply an unambiguous representation of an ambiguous statement.

Now, back to our argument.

Your stated position was that "I believe universal healthcare and affordable post-secondary education should be available to Americans just as they are in almost every other modern industrialised nation."

Your implied position was that US should adopt some policies simply because other developed nations have adopted them. (Here was your chance to disagree with my interpretation, showing that it was distorted, if it indeed was, however you have chosen to take you main forces on assaulting the definition of a straw man to suit the circumstances.)

By attacking implied, I am still attacking your actual position. You agree? If I had distorted your position, by saying, for instance, that "there are already too much healthcare and educational options offered in US", then I would have commited a foul, by using the straw man argument.

Instead, I have stated that "How about riots with burning and overturning of private vehicles parked on the streets? These things are available in almost every other modern industrialized nation, as well."

I have implied that "simply because other developed nations have something, doesn't immediately make it desirable".


Why did I chose to imply, rather than to state directly? Because I am answering you in the same key that you have used to introduce your argument.


My advice? Pull back and regroup to attack tomorrow. Don't waste your troops by defending the unwisely placed assault attempt.

Your (unstated and un-implied) idea that US needs healthcare and post-secondary education, has nothing to do with the way you have chosen to introduce it. Therefore, the idea, in and of itself, has not been defeated. You could find a better reason why it is a good idea, and reintroduce it.

Which is not the reasoning behind my argument. This is a distortion of my argument and qualifies as a straw man fallacy.

The distortion need not be an assumption of an implicit argument, but the assumption of an implicit argument may nevertheless be a distortion.

This is true. Since it was my judgment on the implied argument contained in your speech.

What was your (true, unassumed) implied argument then?