Posted on 02/25/2002 2:14:43 PM PST by RCW2001
No, in your #94, you claimed that there was a Logical Fallacy in my following challenge:
Actually that is what I meant by "objection" in this statement. It doesn't matter if I specifically identified the fallacy or not. What I am point out is what I meant by the term "objection", which you seem to have misunderstood.
But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.
C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
You identified nothing.
Which is irrelevant to what I meant by "objection" in the later statement. I identified a fallacy but I did not express it -- mainly because I knew it would bog down the debate.
Merely claiming Logical Fallacy in my response is without value. You must identify my Logical Fallacy.
The fallacy identified is an invalid analogy. The reason it is invalid is that there exists a large support staff of policy analysts that receive feedback based on decision making. There also experts and degrees in Foreign Policy Studies, *unlike* the case of Corporate subsidies. Based on these essential criteria the analogy you presented was invalid.
The problem here is that you weren't willing until now to concede that your favorite experts might not be experts at all in anything other than the tool of foreign intervention and have a bias and pre-disposition to using intervention always and claiming it "works."
Switzerland has had peace for hundreds of years and these same experts would claim that they haven't been a success. Switzerland is by no stretch of the imagination isolationist (they trade with virtually everyone) and yet if you bring them up as an example to the meddling variety of foreign policy "experts" they will mock you rather than deal with the obvious FACT that Switzerland has enjoyed both peace and prosperity for half a millineum.
The foreign policy "experts" of which you appeal do not consider that success. They measure success as how one can play one nation against another in an effort to create "regional stability" and "preserve the balance of power."
Switzerland is just Europe's "pussies" who aren't armed with nuclear weapons and don't have a badass carrier group circling the globe "projecting power" and letting everyone know that if they make a wrong move they'll get their asses kicked.
Foreign Policy Studies may be utter garbage, but this would be an entirely new debate...
Okay, point granted, but still respectfully rejected.
As you well know, Appeal to Authority is still a logical fallacy, even in the case of "relevant" experts, if it incorporates an Appeal to Popularity fallacy -- as yours did.
Fifty Million Frenchmen can be wrong. So can fifty million foreign-aid lobbyists whose jobs depend upon bringing home the bacon for their local tin-pot dictator.
The object of debate is finding the Morally Right policy, not merely "appealing to Authority" (or even "appealing to popularity", in those cases where you can find enough bought-and-paid-for foreign lobbyists whose expertise is "relevant" enough for you to cleverly evade the direct accusation of an Appeal to Authority fallacy).
were Mexico hostile to the US, and building nuclear weapons, I might consider a pre-emptive stike. I am a believer in Defense, and Defense can include Pre-Emption. ~~ Oh, then we may be arguing about different points. If this is your stance, then we may actually be much closer in viewpoint than I realized. I was under the impression that you were a STRICT isolationist. I'm going to call it a night and pick this up tomorrow...
If you wanted to ask me whether or not Israel's 1981 strike on the Osirak nuclear reprocessing plant was justified, I will tell you that, "well, Israel bloody-well believed that it was, and I can understand that." Provided that US blood and treasure are not involved, I fully understand that foreign nations (such as Israel) will undertake those pre-emptive military actions they feel to be crucial to their defense, and I understand and defer to that.
I am a Non-Interventionist as concerns my country, the USA, in conflicts thousands of miles from my borders.
I am a Friend of Israel, and if she wants to knock down a hostile nuclear reactor in the region where she lives, I can understand that.
But it has next-to-nothing to do with my family's blood and taxes where I live.
Okay, "Invalid Analogy". Now there's an actual identification of a logical fallacy -- if the analogy is, in fact, invalid.
No offense, it's about time. Shee-eesh.
Now, let's see if my Analogy was Invalid.
Nope. There exists a large support staff of Commerce and Treasury analysts that receive feedback based on decision making. And, amazingly, these analysts will identify a corporate subsidy as a "success" if it benefits the Industry in question.
But that's no surprise. The purpose of Corporate Subsidies is to benefit one industry at the expense of Taxpayers. And if that one industry is shown to have benefitted, then the policy wonks may term the Subsidy a "success" at "saving jobs" (or more accurately, garnering additional Industry contributions for their Congressional bossess).
In exactly the same way as foreign lobbyists ply their trade. The Analogy is validated.
If you imagine for one second that corporate lobbyists and Commerce-Department wonks do not have MBA's, just as Foreign lobbyists and State-Department wonks have "International Relations" degrees, you are just being naive.
The Analogy is validated.
Both essential criteria proven to be analogous. The analogy is therefore doubly valid.
Soooouu-eee!! Belly up to the Taxpayer trough; Pork of a different cut turns out to be... still Pork.
My point all the time...one can never have a civil discussion about world affairs whitout beign labeled a enemy of Israel or a bigot for that matter.
Since when is Israel beyond reproach of criticism in the realm of civil objection? I for one do not agree whith the way Israel handles its relationship with the States vis-a-vis our policies. We pumping every year 2+ Billion of tax payer money in this money pit with no palpable results. All we get is lip service from various cabinet representatives justifing the auctions.
Dare I mention that Israelies are spying on us on regular basis and that they are selling Hi Tech weaponry to the Chinese?
I do understand the strategic position of Israel in the Arabian Peninsula and our support for the only democratic elected leaders in that country, but somewhere is a limit to all that largesse.
Note: the fact that the world's private Capitalist entrepreneurs have trusted the Swiss with supervision of one-third of the entire planet's liquid monetary assets is mere coincidence.
The Swiss just got lucky. The idea the Private Capitalists trust and respect the Swiss policy of Non-Interventionism is clearly balderdash.
Besides, the Swiss would've been successful anyway. If they had not earned the Trust of the world's productive entrepreneurs by a 500-year policy of Non-Interventionism, they would have still become a World Financial Powerhouse by exploiting their "natural resources", like rocks and snow and goat-crap and stuff.
Non-Interventionism has not uniquely benefitted the Swiss.
Non-Interventionism cannot have uniquely benefitted the Swiss.
The very idea is Heresy.
I don't trust them. They stole the gold.
Details?
Note: I will stipulate in advance that Gold is but a microscopic fraction of the Liquid Assets which the World's Capitalists have freely trusted to the isolationist Swiss. Gold is nice and all, but the Swiss have been entrusted supervision over one third of the planet's liquid assets, not just Gold.
But, if I am about to hear a "The Swiss are the Illuminati, and Gold is the only Asset in the entire world" story, I will faithfully don my tinfoil hat and will listen attentively.
Fire away, I await your wisdom.
The summary you provided is thus mistaken at its core and your conclusion is equally faulty.
My position is simple: While I believe the aid may be necessary at least for the short term, I am aware that the aid does not come without a hefty price. Would I prefer that Israel do without the aid? Certainly. But if that comes at the expense of nuking the Arabs, I'm not sure that is a price America would enjoy.
Is there anything else?
Completely debunked. That was a liberal story put out ther in hopes that the Swiss could be blackmailed.
Do you lie for pleasure or is it an intrinsic aspect of your character and thus you can't help it?
No other country on this earth has cost the American taxpayer this much. No other country on this earth has tried to exert this much influence on US politics.
You should be ashamed of this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.