Apologies for the missing link.
First link here:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/t ... t-solutionRelated story on the idiocy of Krugman:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/19/krugm ... solution-hRangerDave wrote:
DFK! wrote:
Shifting goalpost fallacy.
It's not shifting goalposts to point out an additional factor that's relevant to the analysis. The US divides its taxation between central and regional governments to a greater degree than most other western countries, which is an important consideration when analyzing the stability and magnitude of central government revenues.
Actually, that is shifting goalposts. Introducing new variables to try to win a point is pretty much the
definition of shifting goalposts. This is a thread about the Presidential debate, presidential policy, and thereby
Federal policy. Adjoining state governments into the mix is attempting to move goalposts and obfuscate my point; which is necessary since my point is based on actual data.
Now, that being said, aside from pointing out your fallacy, I don't really care because I AM an advocate of specificity of language, and I did in fact omit the specific "Federal spending" verbiage. Fair enough; but when the entire conversation has been about Federal spending and policy, it's implied via inductive logic.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
