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.
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.