|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
I thought you were going to ignore Senior's opinions? Nah, you preferred to throw ad hominems, and attack the posters rather than the opinions.
Nobody said unions were 'evil.' We said they were seedy, and scummy, and like gangsters. The ties between organized crime and the great unions are well-documented. La Cosa Nostra and Labor Racketeering (go to the bottom). Chicago politics, gangsters, and labor unions.
Furthermore, unions are often detrimental to the interests of their own workers. The AUW, for example, has been instrumental in destroying the American auto industry (no love for the corporate executives either). The Teachers' Union have been protecting poor teachers for decades. There was a time when unions were a necessary evil to combat behemoth industrialists. With strict Federal labor regulations and judicial protection for workers, that time has passed. |
This is for both you and Senior.
It isn't an ad hominem attack to call someone a Nazi if they are actually a Nazi. It is an ad hominem attack to call them a Nazi if they aren't.
On a good/evil scale it isn't out of line to say seedy and scummy are terms that are suggestive of the evil side of the scale. Evil as genocide? No. Inarguably, seedy and scummy are negative emotional terms that you deliberately choose which are an ad hominem attack on unions. Most union members are decent people doing the best they can to provide for their families. There are bad apples in any large group. You spread your vile over everyone without qualification then you cry to me about things I've said. This means when I call you a hypocrite it isn't an ad hominem attack. It's an established fact. Further, I would argue that the things you have said and continue to say about unions are in point of fact indicative of people who don't know what they are talking about. They really and truly show you to be ignorant and arrogant in your ignorance. Calling a fool a fool is not an ad hominem attack.
There is that experience in life when you are an expert in something to the degree that you know exactly how educated people are on that topic by the things they say about them. For most of us here, that probably happens with Korea. You probably won't believe this. Everything you said in response to me was exactly what I thought you would say. I pegged you exactly right. Wake me up when you have an original thought of your own about unions and aren't just spouting the same old predictable anti union ideas that a million people have said before you.
I have no respect for the opinions of people who demonstrate a lack of original and/or complex thought. I think they are fools who are wasting one of the greatest gifts given to humans. I will say it again. You have a comic book understanding of unions and perhaps the world. You can waste all the time you want desperately looking up things to say that will show me just how wrong I am about you. The question is: why do care what I think.
Don't let the fact that I have responded to you go to your head. I just moved, they haven't turned the satellite tv on yet, and I have time to kill before work. If I wasn't bored I wouldn't waste my time with you two.
Also, access to an online dictionary doesn't make you a rhetorician or a philosopher. Stay away from terms like ad hominem. |
Feel free to state your case as to why you think unions are good.
You are committing a very common fallacy by supporting unions. Unions are indeed very beneficial for those people who benefit from unions (can you see the circular reasoning already?). Unfortunately, people who support unions (and the myriad other economic fallacies that were debunked at the turn of last century, but are still all pervasive today) fail to see the run on effects.
Unions amount to extracting value from one group or groups and giving it to another. The currently hired workers receive rents, whilst unemployed workers, consumers, business and generally the rest of the economy miss out.
If the firm were allowed to keep the rents that would have naturally accrued to them, they would increase their capital base and production would increase, creating more jobs.
So, yes a select group of workers are better off in the short term. But if their militancy leads to the demise of the firm they work for (as is happening now) then everyone in this picture is made irrevocably worse off.
This failure to see the knock on effects and bigger picture of a proposed policy, is one of the most destructive facets of modern political economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bloopity Bloop
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Location: Seoul yo
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am 100% with Senior. It's amazing to me the support these unions still receive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| It isn't an ad hominem attack to call someone a Nazi if they are actually a Nazi. It is an ad hominem attack to call them a Nazi if they aren't. |
I don't have any opinions about unions, but ad hominems have nothing to do with whether or not your personal insults are accurate. An ad hominem is an ad hominem if you're using personal insults as though they were arguments.
If, for example, you were actually a diagnosed schizophrenic and I responded to this post with "more schizophrenic nonsense" instead of with the explanation this example is a part of, then I would be making an ad hominem argument even though I'd be accurate insofar as you would have that diagnosis.
Alternatively, if you weren't actually a diagnosed schizophrenic and I called you a schizophrenic but this was just tagged onto the end of an otherwise substantial evidence based argument, than that wouldn't be an ad hominem even though I'd be wrong insofar as you wouldn't have that diagnosis. |
Wrong. Here's why. Ad hominem can't be true or false, good or bad. Ad hominem is a term used to identify unethical rhetoric. Ad hominem is always bad.
Calling into question a speaker's credibility and character is not only fair and expected. It is the responsibility of a person in an argument when there is sufficient reason. To avoid legitimate questions of character is just as unethical as a pretense to questions where none exist. This has been true since before Plato. Classically there are only three things to argue against: a speaker's logic, a speaker's emotion, and a speaker's character. You seem to be laboring under the impression that only logic matters or is fair. In any given case, one may be more important than the others, but all are relevant and fair. There are times when logic is by far the least important.
Ad hominem is a term that applies only to mere unjustified name calling. Socrates is an atheist who worships false gods.
That which is justified or established to be true is not unethical and therefore cannot be ad hominem. It is ethical, responsible speech.
The idea that a mostly ethical speech qualifies unethical speech as ethical is beyond silly. All unethical behaviors are individual instances. A wrong after several goods is still wrong.
Why do people who don't know what they are talking about insist on lecturing me like they are experts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Classically there are only three things to argue against: a speaker's logic, a speaker's emotion, and a speaker's character. You seem to be laboring under the impression that only logic matters or is fair. |
No. We're under the correct impression that you don't know anything about us, so attacking our character is worthless.
Senior is right, you can't even make a defense of unions on the merits, and have simply lashed out at our character in the most undisciplined manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| It isn't an ad hominem attack to call someone a Nazi if they are actually a Nazi. It is an ad hominem attack to call them a Nazi if they aren't. |
I don't have any opinions about unions, but ad hominems have nothing to do with whether or not your personal insults are accurate. An ad hominem is an ad hominem if you're using personal insults as though they were arguments.
If, for example, you were actually a diagnosed schizophrenic and I responded to this post with "more schizophrenic nonsense" instead of with the explanation this example is a part of, then I would be making an ad hominem argument even though I'd be accurate insofar as you would have that diagnosis.
Alternatively, if you weren't actually a diagnosed schizophrenic and I called you a schizophrenic but this was just tagged onto the end of an otherwise substantial evidence based argument, than that wouldn't be an ad hominem even though I'd be wrong insofar as you wouldn't have that diagnosis. |
Wrong. Here's why. Ad hominem can't be true or false, good or bad. Ad hominem is a term used to identify unethical rhetoric. Ad hominem is always bad. |
Where did you get the idea that ad hominems can't be true or false? You can make up your own definitions or you can pick one out of any of these and see that you're wrong:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=ad+hominem+definition&aq=f&aqi=l1g7g-m1&aql=&oq=&fp=3d121c88310e67e3
Yes, I know, internet dictionaries-- how pretentious, but I can't exactly mail you a print copy.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Calling into question a speaker's credibility and character is not only fair and expected. It is the responsibility of a person in an argument when there is sufficient reason. To avoid legitimate questions of character is just as unethical as a pretense to questions where none exist. This has been true since before Plato. Classically there are only three things to argue against: a speaker's logic, a speaker's emotion, and a speaker's character. You seem to be laboring under the impression that only logic matters or is fair. In any given case, one may be more important than the others, but all are relevant and fair. There are times when logic is by far the least important. |
What do the Classical modes of persuasion have to do with the modern definition of "ad hominem?"
I'm not laboring under any impression other than what the definition of ad hominem is. If you think you know of a superior definition, cite it. If you want to make up your own definition, go right ahead. But don't act like I'm the one making stuff up when a million Google returns all say the same thing.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Ad hominem is a term that applies only to mere unjustified name calling. Socrates is an atheist who worships false gods. |
Source? Show me what source establishes that the term "only" applies to unjustified name calling. And I'm going to lol if you cite Aristotle.
Like I was saying in my last post, the term is used incorrectly, but not in the way you're imagining. Name calling or attacks on character, even when false, aren't ad hominems unless they're used as though they were arguments to prove a point beyond whatever character trait you're suggesting. Calling you a moron isn't an ad hominem in itself. Saying your argument is invalid because you're a moron is. Whether or not you're actually a moron has nothing to do with whether or not calling you a moron is an ad hominem or not. This isn't just my take on things. This is the standard definition. If you'd prefer that something else be the standard definition, that's you're prerogative, but that doesn't magically make everyone using the standard definition wrong.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| That which is justified or established to be true is not unethical and therefore cannot be ad hominem. It is ethical, responsible speech. |
Source? Every definition of ad hominem I've found says something along the lines of:
| Quote: |
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made |
Merriam-Webster's about as reputable a source as you can get, and not only does it not say anything about your idea being the only definition, it doesn't even say anything remotely agreeing with your idea as an acceptable alternative definition.
I'm not looking for a word for word match up, but your idea seriously has nothing to do with reality. It's more than a little annoying to me that you'd not only think it does somehow, but that you'd go so far as to assert that I'm off base for citing the standard definition.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
The idea that a mostly ethical speech qualifies unethical speech as ethical is beyond silly. All unethical behaviors are individual instances. A wrong after several goods is still wrong.
Why do people who don't know what they are talking about insist on lecturing me like they are experts? |
...........................__________.....................
...................../��****************��\.....................
................/��************************��\......................
.............../********************************\,,................
............../_________________________\.................
............./__________________________\......................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\.................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,.............
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,\\\(.(�`*,`,.............
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\��*`*;..)...............
.................\,-*`�,*`)............,-~*`~.......��/////./.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.........��///////\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..........��//////.\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...................../////////////)�`~,.............
................|./.../..../\\.....)......,.)`*~-,....//////////////.)......`~-,...........
..............././.../...,*`\\..//////////\\\\\\\\\\\\.////////////////..|.........�```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,\\\.`*`.,-~*.,-*./////////////////../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,\.``.,,,-*.////////////////////...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,\\\\\\\\|////////////////////....(`-,..........\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/..\\\\\\\|//////////////////....,-*......|...`-.\........
............................................\\\\\/////////////////.........
................................................\\|//////////////..................
...................................................\\\/////////................
......................................................\\\/////...............
........................................................\\//....................
Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about and neither does every dictionary definition available.
I'm not getting sucked into arguing any further with someone I'm convinced is either learning disabled or a compulsive liar (note how that wasn't an ad hominem since I only mentioned your character in explaining why I was done rather than using it as though it were an argument in itself). You're welcome to the last word on account of anyone who can't tell from what's been written already how wrong you are probably isn't worth the effort of further explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Feel free to state your case as to why you think unions are good.
You are committing a very common fallacy by supporting unions. Unions are indeed very beneficial for those people who benefit from unions (can you see the circular reasoning already?). Unfortunately, people who support unions (and the myriad other economic fallacies that were debunked at the turn of last century, but are still all pervasive today) fail to see the run on effects.
Unions amount to extracting value from one group or groups and giving it to another. The currently hired workers receive rents, whilst unemployed workers, consumers, business and generally the rest of the economy miss out.
If the firm were allowed to keep the rents that would have naturally accrued to them, they would increase their capital base and production would increase, creating more jobs.
So, yes a select group of workers are better off in the short term. But if their militancy leads to the demise of the firm they work for (as is happening now) then everyone in this picture is made irrevocably worse off.
This failure to see the knock on effects and bigger picture of a proposed policy, is one of the most destructive facets of modern political economy. |
Unions don't do good because they only do good for people they do good for. Wow. You are a special, special person.
Okay. The following is to both happy warrior and senior. The UAW is not responsible for the decline of the American auto industry as happy warrior has suggested. Unions are not responsible for driving businesses out of business in general.
The American auto industry was mismanaged. There was a time when the vast majority of cars sold in the US were made by the big three. Foolishly they believed this would always be the case. Then the energy crisis happened. The American auto industry built gas guzzlers, so Americans started buying foreign cars in larger numbers in particular Japanese cars.
First serious problem. The US auto industry had the wrong product for the market. Did the unions pick the cars that we produced for market? No, auto industry management did.
Second serious problem. The US auto industry was slow to respond and give the consumer what they wanted. Unions fault? No, management fault.
As people bought more and more foreign cars something really bad happened. People realized American made cars were bad. Poorly design. Poorly produced. Conversations like the following happened "my Toyota has 200,000 miles and hasn't given me a lick of problem." "Really my Ford has less than 100,000 miles and is on it's third transmission." As a result people bought even more foreign cars.
Ah-ha you say. Lazy auto workers built bad cars. No. American cars were intentionally designed to be bad. It's called mean time between failure. Cars and parts were designed on purpose to go bad so people would have to buy more. The big three could make more money. Fine as long as you are the only game in town.
Third serious problem. An inferior product. Union fault? No, management.
US auto management went into the market with a bad product and they got their ass handed to them. They were slow to change. It is just that simple.
What happened recently, oh yeah, the US auto industry got caught in the market with gas hogs in a time of rising energy coasts. They didn't learn from the mistake of 30 years ago. Not the fault of unions.
US auto management blamed their failure on greedy unions. People who don't understand the situation believed them.
For the sake of argument, let's take a look at this idea.
Union pay and benefits are negotiated. They don't get to just demand whatever pay they want. Signed contracts are the product of an adversarial process. The job of the union is to try and get the best possible deal for it's members. The job of the business is to get the best possible deal for itself. The idea is they will land somewhere at a reasonable middle. Something both parties can live with.
Maybe you think that is a bad system. Blame the government.
Maybe you think the union negotiators were too good at their job. Is that a bad thing to be good at your job? Better to say management negotiators were bad at their job. Who hires management negotiators? The unions? No, management.
If a business goes out of business that hurts everyone. True. Whose responsibility is it to make sure a business is profitable? In this system it is managements job. Again, if you don't like the system get the government to change it. What your saying is unions have to do both their job and the job of management.
Union members are just greedy. We all know that right. They are just trying to grab everything they can with both hands. Unlike US corporate management who legendarily refuse large salaries and are very thrifty. Some live on cabbage soup six days a week. Please. Yes, workers want the best possible deal for themselves. Everybody does. It is the American way to get yourself the best possible deal. Business people do it. Doctors do it. Athletes do it. All across America in every walk of life people try to get themselves the best possible deal. That's fine, unless you work for a union and then you are just greedy. Double standard much?
Unions are full of criminals. Everybody knows that right. We should just round up everyone who has ever been in a union and put them in jail. Maybe that is silly. Maybe just some of the people in unions are criminals. Okay. Some politicians are criminals. Some judges are criminals. Some police officers, doctors, bakers and teachers are criminals. Pick a profession. It would be shocking if there weren't criminals in unions considering they have millions of members. It would be surprising if some people in position of authority in unions weren't corrupt. So what makes unions seedy and scummy and not everybody? Could it be that you just don't like unions? Don't get me wrong. Corruption is bad. I'm just saying there is nothing unique about union corruption. We don't dissolve the government when a politician is corrupt. We hold that person responsible. In other words, you can't blame unions for the actions of bad people in unions. You blame the bad people.
Companies sign contract with unions voluntarily. Unions don't have special magical powers.
Plenty of companies have unions and manage to succeed in business. When a company goes out of business you blame the people whose job it was to run it successfully and failed. Unions? No, management.
Do you think workers should work for free and be thankful for the privilege? I don't know about you, but I like capitalism. The idea of getting a fair wage for a day's work is beautiful. Paying workers isn't a redistribution of wealth. It is critical to the system working.
America is a system based on checks and balances. Unions are a check against the power of corporations. That's a good thing. It's very American. In fact, it is god damn patriotic.
To sum up, management failure followed by management failure followed by management failure and you blame unions. It is that illogical conclusion that allows me to deduce certain truths about you. It is what allows me to label you as I have.
I have never met a single person who hates unions who has something unique to say against them. Nothing that remotely resembles individual thought. Nothing that shows they have critical thinking skills. Always with the same nonsensical accusations against the UAW. Every time. I should be thankful you spared me the Jimmy Hoffa verse. Some day you may decide to think for yourself. I doubt today is that day, so I'm sure there will be more silliness from you two. As bored as I am without tv, this is all the free education I can give you.
Senior, I want to thank you. Your version of reality is very funny and gave me a great laugh. Happy warrior - you are less interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| What do the Classical modes of persuasion have to do with the modern definition of "ad hominem?" |
Seriously?
That makes me want to weep for modern education.
God save me from people who think a surface understanding based on online dictionaries is the same as an education.
Let's try this. What is the function of the term ad hominem? Not what does it mean. What is it's purpose? What is it used to achieve? Think about that. Then think about the underlying implications of that function. What would have to be true about this term and terms like it in order for them to function properly? Let go of your online dictionary and think.
Then think about the modern western legal systems. What is it's nature? How did it get to be what it is? What does any of that have to do with ad hominem? How do they inform each other?
Aristotle will make you laugh out loud. OMG. Here a word you can look up in your precious online dictionaries: philistine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AmericanExile. Let me guess. You're from Minnesota or perhaps WI. You've graduated from college w/in the last 18 months. Wouldn't be surprised if it were Madison.
That rant of yours about the auto industry is so one sided it is silly. Talk about oversimplication. And yes, those who say the UAW is the cause for the American car industry's destruction are doing the same. Here's an idea: perhaps BOTH sides caused GM, Ford, and Chrysler's fall? What a concept.
Uggh, and a thread about the greatest TV show ever made has digressed to this. Joy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
AmericanExile. Let me guess. You're from Minnesota or perhaps WI. You've graduated from college w/in the last 18 months. Wouldn't be surprised if it were Madison.
That rant of yours about the auto industry is so one sided it is silly. Talk about oversimplication. And yes, those who say the UAW is the cause for the American car industry's destruction are doing the same. Here's an idea: perhaps BOTH sides caused GM, Ford, and Chrysler's fall? What a concept.
Uggh, and a thread about the greatest TV show ever made has digressed to this. Joy. |
Guesses about me - totally wrong.
I'm really unclear as to why people have difficulty accepting the idea that the people who get paid to make sure a company runs successfully are at fault when it is run unsuccessfully.
Why is it so much easier to believe that people who have no control over the decisions about how a company is run are responsible for those decisions?
Did I wake up in bizarro world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just finished Season 3. It was more engaging than Season 2, but it looks like they're setting up Season 4 to leave the streets and go to the political arena.
The Hamsterdam experiment was interesting. Was its purpose to show how it was politically impossible to legalize drugs, or to demonstrate how real beat-policing is dead, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BaldTeacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Season 4 is just as, if not even more focused on the streets, although it does continue to follow Carcetti. It also introduces a group of middle schoolers and shows you what the streets do to them over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
I just finished Season 3. It was more engaging than Season 2, but it looks like they're setting up Season 4 to leave the streets and go to the political arena.
The Hamsterdam experiment was interesting. Was its purpose to show how it was politically impossible to legalize drugs, or to demonstrate how real beat-policing is dead, or both? |
I think it was to show how yes, beat-policing is dead, and also to show how the "war on drugs" has led policemen to have more a soldier mentality than a cop one, and that it is a waste of both financial and human resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
