2017 PotWR Round 2: The Debate / Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still waiting on a comment from you on the alt-Reich terrorists.

Why hasn't GNN been covering this story?

Anyone who tries to give a person they never met in real life a seizure via an internet forum PM is a complete despicable piece of shit not worth giving much attention to. It's being addressed but I rather not give them anymore attention than needed.
 
Thanks goodness for these GNN headlines. I haven't been able to tune in this week and their reports have really allowed me to stay informed.


Misinformed is more like it. Adds nicely to your low-information approach. :(
 
Anyone who tries to give a person they never met in real life a seizure via an internet forum PM is a complete despicable piece of shit not worth giving much attention to. It's being addressed but I rather not give them anymore attention than needed.

For shits and giggles I'm curious as to who the douchebag was. Probably a bible thumper evangelical!?!?!??!
 
Sure, but it also means that citizens of low tax states like Florida are in effect subsidizing citizens of high tax sates like Massachusetts.

dollar.JPG


https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending

<Gordonhat>

That's not necessarily true in the Net effect. Florida relies on more Federal aid as a part of their state budget and gets a lot more money back compared to what they pay into the Fed

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

.

Actually, Florida is a net taker and Maasachusetts is a net payer with respect to Federal funds. The subsidizing goes the opposite way of what you are suggesting.

These responses all have to do with where federal funds are directed after taxation. That is an entirely different issue than allowing residents of high tax states to deduct those taxes, thus placing part of the burden of those taxes on residents of low tax states.
<puh-lease75>

@IngaVovchanchyn
 

How is that dishonesty?

I was making the point that there is a solid argument for not allowing state and local income tax payments to be deducted from federal income taxes, because it favors people living in high tax states and can in effect be a high tax subsidy. Several people pointed out that some of the lowest tax states receive a lot more federal funding than several of the highest tax states. That's irrelevant, because the nifty charts only showed correlation, not causation.

Now this is the part I'd like you to consider for a moment. See, you could disagree with me there, and several smart posters did so. Enough people told me I was wrong to make me rethink my position on that issue. But to call it shocking dishonesty is itself dishonest.
 
How is that dishonesty?

I was making the point that there is a solid argument for not allowing state and local income tax payments to be deducted from federal income taxes, because it favors people living in high tax states and can in effect be a high tax subsidy. Several people pointed out that some of the lowest tax states receive a lot more federal funding than several of the highest tax states. That's irrelevant, because the nifty charts only showed correlation, not causation.

Now this is the part I'd like you to consider for a moment. See, you could disagree with me there, and several smart posters did so. Enough people told me I was wrong to make me rethink my position on that issue. But to call it shocking dishonesty is itself dishonest.
It took me 3 minutes to find that. We both know that it's not nearly the most egregious example. But, obviously, I'm not going to spend more than 5 minutes on this.
 
Anyone who tries to give a person they never met in real life a seizure via an internet forum PM is a complete despicable piece of shit not worth giving much attention to. It's being addressed but I rather not give them anymore attention than needed.

Lead is Kurt Eichenwald, confirmed!
 
It took me 3 minutes to find that. We both know that it's not nearly the most egregious example. But, obviously, I'm not going to spend more than 5 minutes on this.

Of course it's not the most egregious example. But that's because it's not an example of dishonesty at all. It's an example of me losing an argument.

I don't know what your problem is. Your slander was entirely unprovoked.
 
Of course it's not the most egregious example. But that's because it's not an example of dishonesty at all. It's an example of me losing an argument.

I don't know what your problem is. Your slander was entirely unprovoked.
My contribution is going to be unwanted and unhelpful, but I've been drinking and there's an interesting issue here.

The accusation of dishonesty seems to come from the exchange around subsidies:

Inga first claimed that SALT could be acting as a subsidy, then, when presented with evidence that the balance of payments indicated that subsidization effectively occurred in the opposite direction, tried to argue that subsidy meant something different.

That's not the interesting bit and the accuracy of the restatement doesn't matter too much.

Inga's argument was bad, but determining whether it was dishonestly made requires a bad argument AND an inference of bad faith. People make that sort of mischaracterization or unwittingly shift their positions all the time-the question is whether it was offered in bad faith.

But! The countercharge that the accusation of dishonesty is itself dishonest or a slander relies upon the same rules and thus requires the same sort of inference. In other words, to treat the accusation as dishonest, it needs to be both unwarranted and in bad faith.

This is where it gets fun.

If such inference should not be made without more than a bad argument, then Homer's charge was unwarranted, but should be treated as having been made in good faith.

However, if-as needed to accuse Homer of dishonesty/slander-we can make such inferences of malice, then Homer's original charge of dishonesty was warranted, because he could infer the malice necessary to make such an accusation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top