The Glade 4.0

That's why websites all say "dis muh'**** is shut down" despite websites not operating like that. And why open-air monuments and parks with no "admissions" staff are closed. Propaganda.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Make no mistake, that terrifies neocon Republicans as well.

Oh please. It's incredibly unlikely that these guys passionately espouse a theory of individualized consent regarding debt and taxation but don't apply that theory to other areas of government action. Sure, it's possible that they just have wildly different views about taxation and debt than about any other government function, but if so, it's on them to note that fact and explain their limiting principle. Inductive reasoning != fallacious argument, you know?

Horseshit.

Did the article cited by Kaffis, referencing Spooner make the argument you're asserting they made?

If yes, fine.

If no, strawman.

Period.

Considering the correct answer is "no," you're making up and asserting a position they have not espoused. The proper thing to do in a reasonable debate is to then either argue the actual merits of your position or, minimally, to concede that you have indeed conducted fallacious reasoning yet opt out of further debate.

Period. There is no wiggle room for how actual, real logic and critical thinking works.

No matter who claims victory, the Republicans lost this one. Reports are that 30 or so R-Reps are willing to cave, wanting to cave, but Boehner is not allowing the vote to happen, mostly because he knows how wimpy it is going t make him look.

Except that what you're describing isn't that. RD has not created a strawman of their argument. You are defending special pleading on their part (or doing it yourself) and engaing in the fairly typical misuse of a strawman by claiming it has been distorted when in fact all that has happened is that it has been applied consistently to a matter that the maker of the argument didn't think of.

The proper thing to do would be to stop trying to lecture on real logic and critcal thinking.

1.Person 1 has position X.

2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
[i].Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
[ii].Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
[iii].Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
[iv].Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
[v].Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Absolutely no distortion, simplification, or arguing against an untaken position has taken place. None whatsoever. Spooner's position has validly been reduced to absurdity. Leaving a hole in an argument does not mean it has been misrepresented when an opponent exploits that hole. That's a "glade strawman" defense.

If you want to establish that RD is strawmanning Spooner, then you must either provide an explanation from Spooner, or your own, explaining why debt is different from other laws, and a special case. Without a logically valid reason why, then an accusation of Straw man against RD means that either Spooner, you, or both, are engaging in special pleading for debt, and thus the argument fails anyhow. Inconsistency is a valid avenue of attack.

Government Will Shut Down Websites Even if It Costs More Than Keeping Them Up, Just to Show You Who Is Boss

Brian Doherty|Oct. 2, 2013 3:04 pm



In case you doubted the purely punitive nature of certain aspects of the "government shutdown," Julian Sanchez at Cato examines the strange case of federal websites:


It’s a bit hard to make sense of why some sites remain up (some with a “no new updates” banner) while others are redirected to a shutdown notice page—and in many cases it’s puzzling why a shutdown would be necessary at all.....



For agencies that directly run their own Web sites on in-house servers, shutting down might make sense if the agency’s “essential” and “inessential” systems are suitably segregated. Running the site in those cases eats up electricity and bandwidth that the agency is paying for, not to mention the IT and security personnel who need to monitor the site for attacks and other problems. Fair enough in those cases. But those functions are, at least in the private sector, often outsourced and paid for up front: if you’ve contracted with an outside firm to host your site, shutting it down for a few days or weeks may not save any money at all. And that might indeed explain why some goverment sites remain operational, even though they don’t exactly seem “essential,” while others have been pulled down....

Still weirder is the status of the Federal Trade Commission’s site. Browse to any of their pages and you’ll see, for a split second, the full content of the page you want—only to be redirected to a shutdown notice page also hosted at FTC.gov. But that means… their servers are still up and running and actually serving all the same content. In fact they’re servingmore content: first the real page, then the shutdown notice page. If you’re using Firefox or Chrome and don’t mind browsing in HTML-cluttered text, you can even use this link to navigate to the FTC site map and navigate from page to page in source-code view without triggering the redirect. Again, it’s entirely possible I’m missing something, but if the full site is actually still running, it’s hard to see how a redirect after the real page is served could be avoiding any expenditures.

One possible answer can be found in the policy governing shuttering of government Web sites—which, as blogger Jon Christian noted, stipulates that:


The determination of which services continue during an appropriations lapse is not affected by whether the costs of shutdown exceed the costs of maintaining services.


It’s easy to imagine how this might often be the case: if the “inessential” public-facing Web pages are hosted on the same systems you’ve got to keep up and running for other “essential” back-end purposes—meaning you don’t get to save the security or electricity overhead— then the cost of having IT go through and disable public access to the “inessential” sites could easily be higher than any marginal cost of actually serving the content. But the guidance here seems to require agencies to pull down “inessential” public-facing content even when this requires spending more money than leaving it up would. In the extreme case, you get the bizarre solution implemented on the FTC site: serve the content, then prevent the user from seeing it!

Were that the case, that's reductio ad absurdum, and is still a fallacy.

It is not the case.

You don't "PROVE" that somebody is being fallacious. That's not how a logical proof works. If somebody is being fallacious, they must show why their argument is actually valid.




Whatever, I get it. You guys don't like the idea of opt-out taxes.

objectively speaking the Democrats want 100 percent of their agenda is well. what makes them any less holding hostage?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.