 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
Is that figure for Canada or the US? Now include taxes from the state and local governments to find out the real tax rate. I assure you the real tax rate is much higher then 20%.
In any event foreign competition is much higher now so if we tax the hell out of companies they will all simply close their plants and build new ones in China where they can pay some peasant $1 per day and not have to worry about little things like environmental or worker safety laws. This is what we must compete against.
Last edited by Oerdin on 18-10-2004 at 07:13
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Actually, ace, the opposite -- grammatically -- would be:
"Unions are everything but an individualistic mentality not endorsed by the government" 
|
Grammatical opposites don't matter here. They don't mean jack.
quote:
The opposite -- logically -- would be:
"Anti-unionism is nothing but an individualistic mentality not endorsed by the government".
|
No.
Where
A=unionism
B=mob mentality endorsed by the government
The opposite of 'A is B' is not '-A is -B', it's 'A isn't B'. Logical opposites are made through connectors, not through semantic opposites (well in the natural language at least).
Now I see where you're heading: "But your first sentence wasn't the genuine logical opposite of what I said in the first place!" And you would be right.
I have partly misused the term 'opposite' and as a result I was partly misunderstood. So...
quote:
How does that say anything about the validity of my argument?
|
It reveals the lack of suffisance contained in your statement. My fault here was to use the term 'opposite' in a context where I looked like I could be talking about formal logic, while I was merely hinting at a semantic/ideological 'counterpart'.
In other words, instead of making a statement 'describing' the internal validity of your argument, often a more potent and effective way is to take its 'ideological' counterpart (which, again, I mistakenly referred to as an 'opposite') using the same substructure in order to expose rather than demonstrate the invalidity of an argument.
In all fairness, I could have used an example with colors or geographical truths, but the rhetorical effectiveness of ideological counterparts is higher.
Ultimately, the mistake in this case was the sophistic use of the term 'mob mentality' trying to rely on its potential moral pejorativeness, which I tried to expose by the sophistic use of the term 'individualistic', trying to rely on its potential moral pejorativeness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It reveals the lack of suffisance contained in your statement. My fault here was to use the term 'opposite' in a context where I looked like I could be talking about formal logic |
Squirm all you want, you mentioned specifically a course in formal logic (when taking a crack at my understanding of it, no less) and then mis-used it right after.
Your entire post is pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and a great attempt at what the common man would reduce to "smoke and mirrors" and move on. The "intellectual", on the other hand, will embrace this study, call it "Philosophy", and pretend it's important.
No matter how you dress it up, the fact remains that unions are a nicer term for mob. It's all about using groups of people to force opinion and action on others.
And when they start forcing you to join their union if you want to work for a private company, and then make you pay them, I consider that a mob.
Mandatory unions are disgusting.
Philosophize that, beyatch. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW how could it be explained that public spendings account for nearly 50% of the GDP, while total government revenues are at 12.9%? Doesn't the federal spend 20 to 25% of public money anyway? |
Same site, different page. GoC revenue as percent of GDP was 15.3% in 2003-04.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2004/frt04_1e.html#Table4
Public program spending does not account for 50% of GDP. Total government program expenditures as a percentage of GDP were a little over 30% in 2001. Debt servicing cost are on top of that.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/bp/bpa4e.htm
Total public debt is less than 50% of GDP. It was about 75% in 1995. It is down to under 40% by 2003.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpa3e.htm
Last edited by notyoueither on 18-10-2004 at 10:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Squirm all you want, you mentioned specifically a course in formal logic (when taking a crack at my understanding of it, no less) and then mis-used it right after.
|
Yes, and I did admit my bad.
quote:
Your entire post is pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and a great attempt at what the common man would reduce to "smoke and mirrors" and move on. The "intellectual", on the other hand, will embrace this study, call it "Philosophy", and pretend it's important.
|
It may be useless but it does make some people who've actually got good arguments when it comes to talking about things such as "what should be our rights".
I knew you would say that, and you know you're wrong. Since you seemed pretty intent on harassing me on terminology, I decided to make my post as precise as possible.
In other words, I just took lengths to explain you the following, that when someone says **** you just take the same **** but replace the words to show him that the logic is wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-10-2004 06:56
. Yes, I'm still upset by that. 6 years have passed, and I'm still pissed.
|