I regulary watch A Different Bias on You Tube hosted by Phil. His comments are claringly obvious compared to analysis on main stream news or newspapers.
Jonathan Cook is a consistently strong voice on Palestine issues and other political matters. He writes for Middle East Eye. Chris Hedges is well known as an excellent journalist who relies on facts. Although the Guardian is awful generally, I will always read Adidya Chakraborty’s column as well as Nesrine Malik.
I am sick of all the dead cat stories, the gaslighting and the projection from the Tories, so called Labour and most of the MSM. If people are so stupid not to see through this bull*hit there is no hope for those of us that do.
Oh Tom, how I love you. You writing a post about truth is like Boris advocating celibacy. You are the king of lying through omission and a conspiracy theorist. But your most common lie/logical fallacy is the false dilemma. You use it in almost every post, and it is bollocks - you have used it again in the above. I assume you understand this but continue to use it because it works for you? You are like Tony Blair defending the Iraq debacle where he seems to believe his own bollocks. Your hypocrisy makes me smile. I hope its sunny in Sheffield, all the best Sam
Nice total omission of any evidence to substantiate any of the allegations you make, plus a totally non-hyperbolic comparison between a blogger writing his opinions about politics and a war criminal justifying his war crimes.
Such bad faith debating tactics are a sure sign of a "truth-teller", right?
"And no, using the phrase does not show 'economic illiteracy' or trying to 'dupe people they believe to be gullible.' This is a 'false dilemma' logical fallacy, where you present an entirely bogus choice to limit the options and make a point. It's logical nonsense, of course, because you have not included the far more likely option that it is simply a poor analogy. You use 'false dilemmas' all the time in your writing. I think it's quaint, like my 14-year-old daughter in her school essays. I am sure she will not be using them in a year or two. Either you use them because you are stupid and don't know any better, or you think we are gullible and will not see them. Which is it? (Before you point out that the last sentence is a false dilemma, I know, I am being ironic)."
Hi Tom, this is the last time I'm pointed out you use of false dilemma. There are lots and lots of examples in your rants.' In the above, for instance, you said, "either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible." Again, this is a false dilemma; there are more options than the two you state. As I understand it, you are an English teacher, and I presume you know this logical fallacy well? So why do you make this mistake so often? If it helps, Tom, I will point it out each time you do it, let me know. I am very happy to provide more examples if it helps and its worth having a read of you 'False Flag' (Manchester bombing) and 'Social Murder' stuff that for evidence of your conspiracy theory leanings. All the best Sam
A lot of The Economist, and a fair amount of sience books. Just finished Homo Deue and reading a fantastic book of genetics. Back in 2016 during the referendum I found that I was only reading things I agreed with. Since then I have been reading a lot of hard left and hard right stuff to get some exposure to people like Tom. Why do you ask?
Here's a question for you, Sam, what do you call it when a person pretends to be polite, reasonable and concerned when in fact they are trolling someone? False seems too feeble. Malicious cant? And yes, there is irony here. Quis trolliet ipsos trolls?
Hi Zoltan, I trust you are well? "I enjoy debate and strongly encourage people from all political persuasions to leave comments. I have an anti-censorship moderation policy, so as long as you remain reasonably polite (swearing is allowed) your comments will never be removed." - Quote from Tom Clarke (AAV) from his blog. Tom literally encourages debate from all "political persuasions". Are you so thin skinned that you can not handle "polite, reasonable" debate if you happen to disagree? This is a political blog it is in every way the place for debate.
I will continue to be "polite and reasonable" because I am polite and reasonable
Debate? Now I get the mention of BJ - your idea of debate is similar to his. Its all about ridiculing the other person and belittling their ideas. Read your first post again and see which phrase was not disparaging, insulting, slighting or discourteous. It dripped with derision. It was one long sneer.
The second comment was one laboured attempt at justifying your rudeness and was sticky with smugness and snark. You don't debate, you just air your condescension. Even your faux politeness and jaunty "all the best" is meant to goad.
I'm not interested in debating on your level. I respond in the vain hope that you might begin the process of realising that you are Trolling, and stop.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to your bad faith time-wasting trolling but here goes.
You're confused about what a false dilemma is, because you have no understanding of logic.
A false dilemma requires missing options.
If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading).
Then there's only two explanations for people who keep using them.
They don't know that they're misleading (when they should)
They know that they're misleading (but use them regardless)
Any other explanation requires undermining the premise, because they either know it or they don't know it.
You have neither invalidated the premise, nor shown there to be other explanations.
You can't just cry "false dilemma" when you don't/obviously can't explain what the missing options are!
And you can't cite "logic" when you're unwilling to even engage in the logical argument.
So now you have two choices here to justify what you're saying:
Either make the case that household analogies are not misleading when it comes to government budgets (extremely difficult but something you could at least attempt), or come up with a different logical explanation for the behaviour of people who keep using them beyond doing it unknowingly and doing it knowingly (impossible).
As for the conspiracy stuff. What a desperate demonstration of bad faith. You cite an article in which I debunked a conspiracy theory that was spreading like wildfire in the aftermath of the Manchester Bombing to accuse me of having "conspiracy theory leanings".
You try to occupy this logical and moral high ground, but you're just a shit-smearer using the dirtiest and most deceptive bad faith tactics you can come up with short of slinging crude insults.
If you intend to reply to this, apologise for your smear tactics, and then show your logical workings to justify your claim there's more than two explanations for politicians who spread misleading analogies. If you reply by shifting the goalposts you'll just be further proving what a troll you are.
Thanks for your response. First of all, I think my above message was unnecessarily brutal, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize.
Next, a definition lifted from the Scribbr online dictionary – I am sure we are both comfortable with the definition, but it's always a good place to start.
'The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate.'
As you say, a false dilemma requires missing options. To prove a false dilemma fallacy has been used, all I need to do is come up with further possibilities that are logical and outside of the two you have given, so let's do that.
The phrase of yours I quoted was this: 'either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible.' In relation to the use of 'Maxed out the country Credit Card.' This is a false dilemma because there are lots and lots of logical and reasonable reasons why he used the phrase that do not require stupidity or incompetence. I will write in the first person because it's clearer, I hope it works.
1. Intelligent audience – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.'
So now we have three options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, or a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor.
2. Utility – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. However, given the constraints of time in an interview and the simplicity and brevity the phrase provides, I think the advantages of using the phrase outweigh the risks of misleading the listener.'
So now we have four options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor, and the utility of the phrase outweighing the risk of misleading the listener.
Obviously, I can go on and on with perfectly defensible, logical reasons for using the phrase that do not require the person to be incompetent or a liar. I am sure you can think of dozens more as well. To make it a binary choice of stupidity or incompetence is therefore clearly a False Dilemma Logical Fallacy.
Now to head off some criticism – Am I just being pedantic and making a fuss to score a cheap point? No, because this is not a one-off; it is a habit of yours, and you do it frequently. Look back at all your writings, and you will find these false either/or options peppered through it, and then ask yourself honestly if there are other possibilities. I have not counted, but I bet it's about 1 in 4. Second, it is how you use them. Very often you finish your pieces off with a ‘got you’ political point along the lines of the above. When you realize that the concluding statement is logical bollocks, it makes the whole piece irrelevant. And lastly, it's important because it is just one of the logical fallacies you make.
Thanks, enough for now; I will continue, but I have a call. And I will happily address any issues you have.
Neither of your so called examples is anything but a subset of the binary Tom suggested. Essentially, He said "public debt is not in any way like a credit card debt, so if you say it is, you either believe it, or are deliberately saying something you know to be false. " Your two examples are just people trying to justify why they said something they know to be false. In essence, you suggest it's a white lie rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. So, it's the motive that varies. But that doesn't alter the fact they have knowingly said something that is untrue. So, technically, they are lying.
I realise that Tom said "cynically lying to dupe", which is also imputing a motive for the lie, but this is a polemical blog, as indicated by the title. So a little hyperbole is to be expected. There's nothing to stop you starting your own blog, perhaps you could call it "a reasonable and logical voice explores in a balanced way and in great detail every possible nuance of current affairs and all the possible motives that may be involved, even the most unlikely ones that don't really stand up at all, if I were to be honest". No doubt it would be hugely popular, and attract many similarly minded comments in which you could exchange pleasantries and 'all the bests' in the passive aggressive style you have carefully cultivated.
Nicely worded. I would like to apologise to you to Zoltan, for my unnecessary tone this week.
If I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.' Is a just a subset it must be a lie or economic illiterate, which is it please?
I asked you a question the other day that you didn't so much sidestep as totally ignore, and I am still curious to understand your position. If my examples are a "subset" of Tom's position, then the following statement must be a lie or economically inept. Which is it, and why, please? "I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal."
I have some time during lunch to address some of your other points.
"If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading)." - OK let’s take a look at this. You are, of course, correct in pointing out the differences between government debt and household debt - this is not in dispute. But......
All analogies are, by definition, not wholly accurate. Attacking this difference is pointless because it's always there, and no one is denying the existence of a difference. What you can do, of course, is criticize its utility – is this a useful analogy? Or, in this case, is it misleading? But this is a judgment call and not a point of fact. I have attached an article from the IEA that makes the counter argument very well – that the phrase does have utility as a political analogy. You make the case that it is a misleading phrase – fine, no problem with that. But a second person is perfectly free to come to a different judgment, as Anthony Evans has, and this does not make him a liar or incompetent. Incidentally, this can be made into another proof of your logical fallacy. Simply "Having looked at the arguments, I agree with the IEA more than AAV" – no lying and no incompetence required.
Allied to the above is the simple fact that a phrase can be both misleading AND useful. Pointing out it is a misleading phrase does not (necessarily) take away its utility.
I see from today’s Magic Money Tree you are still at it. It goes like this: Magic Money Tree is a bad phrase because of x, y, z, therefore May/Reeves are incompetent, liars, etc. It’s the "therefore" bit that is bollocks.
Anyhow, back to work and I look forward to your thoughts on the above.
Is it a metaphor, or an analogy? You were arguing one, now its the other. This must be some sort of fallacy - perhaps the shifting sands fallacy?
P.S. The IEA has a very particular self-serving and distorted interpretation of economics, most of which has been discredited, so take what they say with an ocean full of salt.
I am looking forward to your thoughts, and I would like to reiterate my apology for being unnecessarily abrasive, and thank Zoltan for accepting my apology to him. In the absence of any input from you, I thought I would revisit some of your original post and consider it again in light of my comments.
"You're confused about what a false dilemma is because you have no understanding of logic."
I think we can safely put this to bed, Tom.
“A false dilemma requires missing options.”
Agreed - I have provided several missing options. Do you think they are bogus in some way? Incidentally, the missing options are not qualitative but quantitative. In other words, to prove a logical fallacy, all I need is one viable additional option of any 'quality'.
“If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading).”
The premise is nothing more than your opinion. It is not 'true'; this is simply you stating your opinion as fact, Tom. This is clearly just bollocks.
“Then there's only two explanations for people who keep using them.
They don't know that they're misleading (when they should)
They know that they're misleading (but use them regardless)
Any other explanation requires undermining the premise because they either know it or they don't know it.”
This is a GCSE grade D – the premise IS undermined – it is opinion, and there are obviously lots more possibilities.
“You have neither invalidated the premise nor shown there to be other explanations.”
Yes, I have done both and in multiple ways.
“You can't just cry 'false dilemma' when you don't/obviously can't explain what the missing options are!”
Yes, I can and yes, I have.
“And you can't cite 'logic' when you're unwilling to even engage in the logical argument.”
See above, my friend.
So now you have two choices here to justify what you're saying:
Either make the case that household analogies are not misleading when it comes to government budgets (extremely difficult but something you could at least attempt), or come up with a different logical explanation for the behavior of people who keep using them beyond doing it unknowingly and doing it knowingly (impossible).”
There is a third option: to do both (yes, entertainingly, you have used a false dilemma). The premise is an opinion, not fact; see IEA article attached, and there are lots of “logical explanations” for using the phrase, see my thoughts below, that do not require lying or ineptitude.
“You try to occupy this logical and moral high ground, but you're just a shit-smearer using the dirtiest and most deceptive bad faith tactics you can come up with short of slinging crude insults.”
Logical high ground, yes, my morals are much more questionable. When it comes to shit-smearing, it is the shit you write that is on my brush, Tom, and I think it's artistic endeavour rather than just a smear.
“If you intend to reply to this, apologize for your smear tactics, and then show your logical workings to justify your claim there's more than two explanations for politicians who spread misleading analogies. If you reply by shifting the goalposts, you'll just be further proving what a troll you are.”
Out of curiosity, my Friend, how is the pay wall on comments working out? Is it increasing subscriptions? I am interested to know the affect on revenue.
Even more dangerous are the dramas and documentaries that are starting to flood television. People are already swayed by MSM, but the propaganda in the drama programmes is much more subtle.
It is utterly tragic. I tend to look at Al Jazeera, Middle Est Eye, Channel 4 and Beth Rigby - plus a few campaign groups , like PSC, and put stuff together.
I am a software engineer interested in exploring technological solutions. But more than anything else, we need to reply to the new technology with new culture. I believe the most important thing would be to only read articles that start by steelmanning the opponent. Almost nobody does this. And this is not sth one can enforce by law or technology.
I'm a retired Software Eng in my 75th year, I don't believe that the solutions to the way we treat each other will come through technology, but through the spiritual heart (not religion), technology can help us provide for everyone's physical needs, what we need to overcome is the evil that lurks inside those that want to crush us...
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. ”
We live in a world where, bombarded by facts and damn lies that seem equally attractive, our critical thinking facilities are stretched as we try to avoid our natural biases, and as my Father used to say, paraphrasing Cromwell - possibly unconsciously - thinking that we might be wrong anyway. I'm so grateful for this post, and the many useful comments. It helps.
Chris Grey and his Brexit blog. Simon Wren-Lewis is good on economics, as is Chris Dillow
Andy Verity of the BBC is also not too bad.
Democracy Now, Breakthrough News, Novara Media, Marc Lamont Hill, Katie Halper, Double Down News, Garys Economics. All on Youtube
Bravo 👏👏👏
I regulary watch A Different Bias on You Tube hosted by Phil. His comments are claringly obvious compared to analysis on main stream news or newspapers.
At least we have you as one of the truth tellers.
Jonathan Cook is a consistently strong voice on Palestine issues and other political matters. He writes for Middle East Eye. Chris Hedges is well known as an excellent journalist who relies on facts. Although the Guardian is awful generally, I will always read Adidya Chakraborty’s column as well as Nesrine Malik.
I like Novara, Byline Times, Tortoise, Double Down News The only TV channel is C4 News. As for you, keep up the terrific work!
I am sick of all the dead cat stories, the gaslighting and the projection from the Tories, so called Labour and most of the MSM. If people are so stupid not to see through this bull*hit there is no hope for those of us that do.
Oh Tom, how I love you. You writing a post about truth is like Boris advocating celibacy. You are the king of lying through omission and a conspiracy theorist. But your most common lie/logical fallacy is the false dilemma. You use it in almost every post, and it is bollocks - you have used it again in the above. I assume you understand this but continue to use it because it works for you? You are like Tony Blair defending the Iraq debacle where he seems to believe his own bollocks. Your hypocrisy makes me smile. I hope its sunny in Sheffield, all the best Sam
Nice total omission of any evidence to substantiate any of the allegations you make, plus a totally non-hyperbolic comparison between a blogger writing his opinions about politics and a war criminal justifying his war crimes.
Such bad faith debating tactics are a sure sign of a "truth-teller", right?
"And no, using the phrase does not show 'economic illiteracy' or trying to 'dupe people they believe to be gullible.' This is a 'false dilemma' logical fallacy, where you present an entirely bogus choice to limit the options and make a point. It's logical nonsense, of course, because you have not included the far more likely option that it is simply a poor analogy. You use 'false dilemmas' all the time in your writing. I think it's quaint, like my 14-year-old daughter in her school essays. I am sure she will not be using them in a year or two. Either you use them because you are stupid and don't know any better, or you think we are gullible and will not see them. Which is it? (Before you point out that the last sentence is a false dilemma, I know, I am being ironic)."
Hi Tom, this is the last time I'm pointed out you use of false dilemma. There are lots and lots of examples in your rants.' In the above, for instance, you said, "either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible." Again, this is a false dilemma; there are more options than the two you state. As I understand it, you are an English teacher, and I presume you know this logical fallacy well? So why do you make this mistake so often? If it helps, Tom, I will point it out each time you do it, let me know. I am very happy to provide more examples if it helps and its worth having a read of you 'False Flag' (Manchester bombing) and 'Social Murder' stuff that for evidence of your conspiracy theory leanings. All the best Sam
Who do you read Sam?
A lot of The Economist, and a fair amount of sience books. Just finished Homo Deue and reading a fantastic book of genetics. Back in 2016 during the referendum I found that I was only reading things I agreed with. Since then I have been reading a lot of hard left and hard right stuff to get some exposure to people like Tom. Why do you ask?
Also, Fraser, I would love some book recommendations. Recommendations are an easy way to avoid a siloed reading list. Thanks sam
Here's a question for you, Sam, what do you call it when a person pretends to be polite, reasonable and concerned when in fact they are trolling someone? False seems too feeble. Malicious cant? And yes, there is irony here. Quis trolliet ipsos trolls?
Hi Zoltan, I trust you are well? "I enjoy debate and strongly encourage people from all political persuasions to leave comments. I have an anti-censorship moderation policy, so as long as you remain reasonably polite (swearing is allowed) your comments will never be removed." - Quote from Tom Clarke (AAV) from his blog. Tom literally encourages debate from all "political persuasions". Are you so thin skinned that you can not handle "polite, reasonable" debate if you happen to disagree? This is a political blog it is in every way the place for debate.
I will continue to be "polite and reasonable" because I am polite and reasonable
All the best
Sam
Debate? Now I get the mention of BJ - your idea of debate is similar to his. Its all about ridiculing the other person and belittling their ideas. Read your first post again and see which phrase was not disparaging, insulting, slighting or discourteous. It dripped with derision. It was one long sneer.
The second comment was one laboured attempt at justifying your rudeness and was sticky with smugness and snark. You don't debate, you just air your condescension. Even your faux politeness and jaunty "all the best" is meant to goad.
I'm not interested in debating on your level. I respond in the vain hope that you might begin the process of realising that you are Trolling, and stop.
I was aiming more for Michael Gove rather then BJ To be honest Zoltan, but ho hum. Have a good evening sam
I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to your bad faith time-wasting trolling but here goes.
You're confused about what a false dilemma is, because you have no understanding of logic.
A false dilemma requires missing options.
If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading).
Then there's only two explanations for people who keep using them.
They don't know that they're misleading (when they should)
They know that they're misleading (but use them regardless)
Any other explanation requires undermining the premise, because they either know it or they don't know it.
You have neither invalidated the premise, nor shown there to be other explanations.
You can't just cry "false dilemma" when you don't/obviously can't explain what the missing options are!
And you can't cite "logic" when you're unwilling to even engage in the logical argument.
So now you have two choices here to justify what you're saying:
Either make the case that household analogies are not misleading when it comes to government budgets (extremely difficult but something you could at least attempt), or come up with a different logical explanation for the behaviour of people who keep using them beyond doing it unknowingly and doing it knowingly (impossible).
As for the conspiracy stuff. What a desperate demonstration of bad faith. You cite an article in which I debunked a conspiracy theory that was spreading like wildfire in the aftermath of the Manchester Bombing to accuse me of having "conspiracy theory leanings".
You try to occupy this logical and moral high ground, but you're just a shit-smearer using the dirtiest and most deceptive bad faith tactics you can come up with short of slinging crude insults.
If you intend to reply to this, apologise for your smear tactics, and then show your logical workings to justify your claim there's more than two explanations for politicians who spread misleading analogies. If you reply by shifting the goalposts you'll just be further proving what a troll you are.
Afternoon Tom,
Thanks for your response. First of all, I think my above message was unnecessarily brutal, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize.
Next, a definition lifted from the Scribbr online dictionary – I am sure we are both comfortable with the definition, but it's always a good place to start.
'The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate.'
As you say, a false dilemma requires missing options. To prove a false dilemma fallacy has been used, all I need to do is come up with further possibilities that are logical and outside of the two you have given, so let's do that.
The phrase of yours I quoted was this: 'either because they’re too dumb to realize they’re spreading economic lies, or because they’re cynically lying on purpose to dupe the gullible.' In relation to the use of 'Maxed out the country Credit Card.' This is a false dilemma because there are lots and lots of logical and reasonable reasons why he used the phrase that do not require stupidity or incompetence. I will write in the first person because it's clearer, I hope it works.
1. Intelligent audience – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.'
So now we have three options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, or a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor.
2. Utility – 'I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. However, given the constraints of time in an interview and the simplicity and brevity the phrase provides, I think the advantages of using the phrase outweigh the risks of misleading the listener.'
So now we have four options for why he used the phrase: Stupid, liar, a belief that the audience can understand that it’s a metaphor, and the utility of the phrase outweighing the risk of misleading the listener.
Obviously, I can go on and on with perfectly defensible, logical reasons for using the phrase that do not require the person to be incompetent or a liar. I am sure you can think of dozens more as well. To make it a binary choice of stupidity or incompetence is therefore clearly a False Dilemma Logical Fallacy.
Now to head off some criticism – Am I just being pedantic and making a fuss to score a cheap point? No, because this is not a one-off; it is a habit of yours, and you do it frequently. Look back at all your writings, and you will find these false either/or options peppered through it, and then ask yourself honestly if there are other possibilities. I have not counted, but I bet it's about 1 in 4. Second, it is how you use them. Very often you finish your pieces off with a ‘got you’ political point along the lines of the above. When you realize that the concluding statement is logical bollocks, it makes the whole piece irrelevant. And lastly, it's important because it is just one of the logical fallacies you make.
Thanks, enough for now; I will continue, but I have a call. And I will happily address any issues you have.
All the best, Sam"
Neither of your so called examples is anything but a subset of the binary Tom suggested. Essentially, He said "public debt is not in any way like a credit card debt, so if you say it is, you either believe it, or are deliberately saying something you know to be false. " Your two examples are just people trying to justify why they said something they know to be false. In essence, you suggest it's a white lie rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. So, it's the motive that varies. But that doesn't alter the fact they have knowingly said something that is untrue. So, technically, they are lying.
I realise that Tom said "cynically lying to dupe", which is also imputing a motive for the lie, but this is a polemical blog, as indicated by the title. So a little hyperbole is to be expected. There's nothing to stop you starting your own blog, perhaps you could call it "a reasonable and logical voice explores in a balanced way and in great detail every possible nuance of current affairs and all the possible motives that may be involved, even the most unlikely ones that don't really stand up at all, if I were to be honest". No doubt it would be hugely popular, and attract many similarly minded comments in which you could exchange pleasantries and 'all the bests' in the passive aggressive style you have carefully cultivated.
Nicely worded. I would like to apologise to you to Zoltan, for my unnecessary tone this week.
If I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal.' Is a just a subset it must be a lie or economic illiterate, which is it please?
Hey Zoltan,
I asked you a question the other day that you didn't so much sidestep as totally ignore, and I am still curious to understand your position. If my examples are a "subset" of Tom's position, then the following statement must be a lie or economically inept. Which is it, and why, please? "I understand fully the limitations with the phrase and all the differences between a personal credit card and government debt. I used the phrase because I believe the audience is intelligent, understands the differences, and is perfectly capable of understanding it is a metaphor and not literal."
Hi Tom,
I have some time during lunch to address some of your other points.
"If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading)." - OK let’s take a look at this. You are, of course, correct in pointing out the differences between government debt and household debt - this is not in dispute. But......
All analogies are, by definition, not wholly accurate. Attacking this difference is pointless because it's always there, and no one is denying the existence of a difference. What you can do, of course, is criticize its utility – is this a useful analogy? Or, in this case, is it misleading? But this is a judgment call and not a point of fact. I have attached an article from the IEA that makes the counter argument very well – that the phrase does have utility as a political analogy. You make the case that it is a misleading phrase – fine, no problem with that. But a second person is perfectly free to come to a different judgment, as Anthony Evans has, and this does not make him a liar or incompetent. Incidentally, this can be made into another proof of your logical fallacy. Simply "Having looked at the arguments, I agree with the IEA more than AAV" – no lying and no incompetence required.
Allied to the above is the simple fact that a phrase can be both misleading AND useful. Pointing out it is a misleading phrase does not (necessarily) take away its utility.
I see from today’s Magic Money Tree you are still at it. It goes like this: Magic Money Tree is a bad phrase because of x, y, z, therefore May/Reeves are incompetent, liars, etc. It’s the "therefore" bit that is bollocks.
Anyhow, back to work and I look forward to your thoughts on the above.
All the best,
Sam
https://iea.org.uk/blog/has-the-credit-card-analogy-been-maxed-out
Is it a metaphor, or an analogy? You were arguing one, now its the other. This must be some sort of fallacy - perhaps the shifting sands fallacy?
P.S. The IEA has a very particular self-serving and distorted interpretation of economics, most of which has been discredited, so take what they say with an ocean full of salt.
Afternoon Tom,
I am looking forward to your thoughts, and I would like to reiterate my apology for being unnecessarily abrasive, and thank Zoltan for accepting my apology to him. In the absence of any input from you, I thought I would revisit some of your original post and consider it again in light of my comments.
"You're confused about what a false dilemma is because you have no understanding of logic."
I think we can safely put this to bed, Tom.
“A false dilemma requires missing options.”
Agreed - I have provided several missing options. Do you think they are bogus in some way? Incidentally, the missing options are not qualitative but quantitative. In other words, to prove a logical fallacy, all I need is one viable additional option of any 'quality'.
“If the premise is shown to be true (household analogies are misleading).”
The premise is nothing more than your opinion. It is not 'true'; this is simply you stating your opinion as fact, Tom. This is clearly just bollocks.
“Then there's only two explanations for people who keep using them.
They don't know that they're misleading (when they should)
They know that they're misleading (but use them regardless)
Any other explanation requires undermining the premise because they either know it or they don't know it.”
This is a GCSE grade D – the premise IS undermined – it is opinion, and there are obviously lots more possibilities.
“You have neither invalidated the premise nor shown there to be other explanations.”
Yes, I have done both and in multiple ways.
“You can't just cry 'false dilemma' when you don't/obviously can't explain what the missing options are!”
Yes, I can and yes, I have.
“And you can't cite 'logic' when you're unwilling to even engage in the logical argument.”
See above, my friend.
So now you have two choices here to justify what you're saying:
Either make the case that household analogies are not misleading when it comes to government budgets (extremely difficult but something you could at least attempt), or come up with a different logical explanation for the behavior of people who keep using them beyond doing it unknowingly and doing it knowingly (impossible).”
There is a third option: to do both (yes, entertainingly, you have used a false dilemma). The premise is an opinion, not fact; see IEA article attached, and there are lots of “logical explanations” for using the phrase, see my thoughts below, that do not require lying or ineptitude.
“You try to occupy this logical and moral high ground, but you're just a shit-smearer using the dirtiest and most deceptive bad faith tactics you can come up with short of slinging crude insults.”
Logical high ground, yes, my morals are much more questionable. When it comes to shit-smearing, it is the shit you write that is on my brush, Tom, and I think it's artistic endeavour rather than just a smear.
“If you intend to reply to this, apologize for your smear tactics, and then show your logical workings to justify your claim there's more than two explanations for politicians who spread misleading analogies. If you reply by shifting the goalposts, you'll just be further proving what a troll you are.”
No need to at all for goalposts repositioning
I hope my friend I have addressed your concerns
All the best
Sam
Tom
Hi Tom,
How are you? Good Easter I hope. I am curious to hear your thoughts on the above? What are your opinions?
Many thanks
Sam
Afternoon Tom,
Out of curiosity, my Friend, how is the pay wall on comments working out? Is it increasing subscriptions? I am interested to know the affect on revenue.
Thanks
Sam
Even more dangerous are the dramas and documentaries that are starting to flood television. People are already swayed by MSM, but the propaganda in the drama programmes is much more subtle.
It is utterly tragic. I tend to look at Al Jazeera, Middle Est Eye, Channel 4 and Beth Rigby - plus a few campaign groups , like PSC, and put stuff together.
I forgot; ONS, Full Fact, Tim Harford.
I am a software engineer interested in exploring technological solutions. But more than anything else, we need to reply to the new technology with new culture. I believe the most important thing would be to only read articles that start by steelmanning the opponent. Almost nobody does this. And this is not sth one can enforce by law or technology.
I'm a retired Software Eng in my 75th year, I don't believe that the solutions to the way we treat each other will come through technology, but through the spiritual heart (not religion), technology can help us provide for everyone's physical needs, what we need to overcome is the evil that lurks inside those that want to crush us...
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. ”
― George Orwell, 1984
Thanks for the quote ... I didnt remember it ... chilling ...
We live in a world where, bombarded by facts and damn lies that seem equally attractive, our critical thinking facilities are stretched as we try to avoid our natural biases, and as my Father used to say, paraphrasing Cromwell - possibly unconsciously - thinking that we might be wrong anyway. I'm so grateful for this post, and the many useful comments. It helps.
James O'Brien. He wrote 'How They Broke Britain'
See Kerno on Youtube and other places, a good man that we need.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kernowdamo