I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

Tyranny is embedded in all life forms:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DOW2WOeGh-A?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from zdreg:

it is always the same nonsensical reply from people at the losing end of a debate. go do the work yourself.
if wilikipedia has something to contribute copy and paste the essential parts to this thread.
More...
When one or the other of two debaters makes an ad hominem remark or attempts to characterize their opposition as being at the "losing end" of the debate the affect on the audience may not be what was intended. Here is some friendly debating advice for you.

Ad hominem attacks, and attempts to characterize your opposition as a loser don't sit well with the judges. You did yourself no favor. If you want to win a debate, focus on verifiable facts, if possible, and failing that focus on reasonable conjecture. You'll do much better. If your opponent fails to provide any factual information bearing on the issue, it is not necessary to point it out. We, in the audience, don't like condescension. The judges, on their own, will duly note which side has presented the most convincing arguments.

In the present case, you might begin with data that describes how the distribution of incomes among the populace changed after trickle down economics was adopted, and contrast that with the change in income distribution in the immediate prior years. Then you might go beyond mere correlation to show that trickle down is, or is not, causative by noting the changes in income tax bracket rates, the changes in federal expenditures, the effect of privatization that begin with trickle down on costs and incomes, the effect of government borrowing and inflation that is attributable to trickle down, etc.

You may not succeed, but this way you will have a far better chance of prevailing. Good luck!

By the way, ad hominem remarks are not always ineffective or ill advised and can be as delightful as Reagan's clever comment that he had no intention of taking advantage of his opponents youth and inexperience, which occurred during a debate of candidates for president.

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm
 
Quote from piezoe:

When one or the other of two debaters makes an ad hominem remark or attempts to characterize their opposition as being at the "losing end" of the debate the affect on the audience may not be what was intended. Here is some friendly debating advice for you.

Ad hominem attacks, and attempts to characterize your opposition as a loser don't sit well with the judges. You did yourself no favor. If you want to win a debate, focus on verifiable facts, if possible, and failing that focus on reasonable conjecture. You'll do much better. If your opponent fails to provide any factual information bearing on the issue, it is not necessary to point it out. We, in the audience, don't like condescension. The judges, on their own, will duly note which side has presented the most convincing arguments.

In the present case, you might begin with data that describes how the distribution of incomes among the populace changed after trickle down economics was adopted, and contrast that with the change in income distribution in the immediate prior years. Then you might go beyond mere correlation to show that trickle down is, or is not, causative by noting the changes in income tax bracket rates, the changes in federal expenditures, the effect of privatization that begin with trickle down on costs and incomes, the effect of government borrowing and inflation that is attributable to trickle down, etc.

You may not succeed, but this way you will have a far better chance of prevailing. Good luck!

By the way, ad hominem remarks are not always ineffective or ill advised and can be as delightful as Reagan's clever comment that he had no intention of taking advantage of his opponents youth and inexperience, which occurred during a debate of candidates for president.

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm
More...

"Ad hominem attacks, and attempts to characterize your opposition as a loser don't sit well with the judges."

nice try but nobody characterized you as a loser. the remark simply said that the technique of telling others to do the work is used by people who know they are at the losing end of an argument and are unable to defend their position. there is no personal characterization involved.
 
How the caged bird fights back:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/harnessing-quantum-entanglement-is.html

I can't verify the accuracy of this article (on the surface it seems a bit dubious to me), but I have wondered before whether Quantum Mechanics entanglement could be used as the perfect defensive weapon against the banking tyranny. If enough people thought something like banking person X should go to jail for fraud charges for example, would it happen? Who would be held responsible? Perhaps the caged bird will win in the long run by definition of the 99% versus the 1%?

".... Looking at what I originally thought was a weak scientific attempt to prove something that could never be, I proceeded to read about the Princeton experiments to see what the fantasy crowd was up to. Instead, what I found was exemplary science with nearly flawless methodology as it related to the research of quantum entanglement of minds and the power of intention..... "
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

(Can't think of an appropriate adjective for the immorality of public sector employee unions...)
More...

Even FDR didn't like them.
 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100934695

"On some days, Yolanda Williams says she wonders why it's so hard to stay alive. "I'm working as hard as I can. Every time I talk to my boss I ask, 'Is there any more work?'"

Williams works part-time as a home-health aide so that she can also attend the Kaplan school to study medical billing. For about 17 hours a week of work, at $10 an hour, she takes home about $298 every two weeks, which she uses to support her disabled husband and her 21-year-old daughter, both of whom are unemployed.
"I'm trying to go to school so I can get a better job, so I can get off welfare," added Williams, who receives food stamps and Medicaid. "If that means I have to be on the bus 24 hours a day, I'll do it." ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top