We need government

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, I actually agree with you.

But would the founders have agreed with you?

They signed a document that said people had the right to organize governments as they thought would best effect their happiness. So if people believe that a government safety net would best effect their happiness, then we have the signed agreement from these founding fathers that such people ought to seek to institute government that does this.

So if we have the signed document from the founders saying they want people to institute government that they think best effects their happiness, why do you agree with this post that says the founders would not have wanted this?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Can you explain to me why you resort to the slippery slope fallacy? Is it because you have no valid arguments to use?

It is widely regarded as a logical fallacy to assume that something is a slippery slope, that once one makes one logical conclusion, that he will be forced to follow that conclusion to illogical extremes.

If you would view the short video in the OP, it has nothing to do with the view that all regulations and agencies are good. Nothing. You just made that up and attacked that straw man, rather than address what was actually on the video.

At this point it's characteristic for people involved in internet arguments to bring fallacies by name without understanding what they mean. It's quite a convenient technique because it allows people to avoid making an actual argument. That is, if someone says "that's the ad hominem fallacy" or "that's the poisoning the well fallacy" or whatever else they can simply stop right there and it looks to the untrained eye that a decent point has been made, when usually it hasn't.

In this case you accuse me of endorsing the "slippery slope fallacy." This would mean that I am saying that a current trend will continue indefinitely without giving a cause that would lead to it. (This last part is particularly important and often forgotten since, for example, if someone were to say: "if you keep spending money from your checking account without any putting any money back in, you'll eventually run out" that isn't a "slippery slope fallacy" but simply a recognition of the effect that the cause of spending money has). Where did I make any claim about any trend continuing on indefinitely? Please quote me.

What I did predict was that people in this thread would make use of the Motte and Bailey technique, which is to say that they would take assent to one limited claim as assent to a much larger claim. Say, for example, if someone agreed that disaster assistance in cases like Hurricane Harvey was necessary, it would be argued that they must also agree that there can be no cuts to public education, to EPA regulations.

And what do you know, my prediction was right on the money:

If you would read the OP, you see it has nothing to do with conservatives wanting no government. The OP deals with those who voted for Trump with the idea that he would dismantle much of government and bring on prosperity. Trump has certainly set out as a bull in the china shop to dismantle government. His education secretary wants to cut back public education; his EPA directory wants to end climate protections;

Now do you want to actually address something that I said, or do you want to simply name unrelated fallacies in an attempt to give the impression that you are saying something on topic without needing to make an argument?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did I make any claim about any trend continuing on indefinitely? Please quote me.

Oh for crying out loud! Did you forget where you are? Your words are written down, and it is easy to copy what you say. You said:

then down the line:

"How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!" [emphasis yours]
​

So yes you did use the word any. And you put the word any in italics. Now you deny you said it? Unbelievable.

Again, your first post is arguing from a slippery slope. It is saying that if a person accepts certain government regulations, then down the line that person will argue for all government regulations, and will not admit to any unnecessary regulation. That is pure foolishness. That is a pure and simple argument from a slippery slope.

And your agument has been quoted back to you.

P.S. And if you are arguing that we claimed you were arguing an indefinite slippery slope, that was never said. Nobody said you used the word indefinitely.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Oh for crying out loud! Did you forget where you are? Your words are written down, and it is easy to copy what you say. You said:

then down the line:

"How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!" [emphasis yours]
​

So yes you did use the word any. And you put the word any in italics. Now you deny you said it? Unbelievable.

Again, your first post is arguing from a slippery slope. It is saying that if a person accepts certain government regulations, then down the line that person will argue for all government regulations, and will not admit to any unnecessary regulation. That is pure foolishness. That is a pure and simple argument from a slippery slope.

And your agument has been quoted back to you.

P.S. And if you are arguing that we claimed you were arguing an indefinite slippery slope, that was never said. Nobody said you used the word indefinitely.

You are claiming that I made the argument that if someone argues that the government is necessary for handling disasters, than the same person must necessarily later argue that all parts of government is necessary. At least, that's the only way that the slippery slope fallacy could apply to my statement, since (just to make sure that you know its actually definition) it is a fallacy characterized by saying that a process will necessarily continue, without giving reasons for why it must continue.

But am I making that claim? No. You'll note that there's no claim that because someone says that government is necessary in extreme cases they must later say that it is necessary generally.

What I claimed is that there would be people who first argued that government is necessary in extreme cases, and then later would argue that it is necessary generally. But I didn't claim a causal relation between the two. Rather I am suggesting that the type of person who would say that the government is generally in all of its regulations would be the type of person who would lead off their argument with the uncontroversial claim that government is necessary in extreme cases. That is, the person who later says that the government is necessary generally believes that fact from the very beginning of the conversation, they are just to cowardly to state it. That characterization is actually clear from the term "Motte and Bailey technique" which always involves making an uncontroversial claim early to try to bully someone into agreeing to a controversial claim later on (for example early on getting someone to agree to the idea that "science is reliable" and then later on trying to say that they now have to agree to the idea that "strict materialism is true.") The anyone using the Motte and Bailey technique believes the controversial claim from the outset, which makes it obvious that I was not claiming that the uncontroversial claim necessarily forces the controversial claim to be true.

Likely you aren't familiar with the term "Motte and Bailey technique," since if you were none of this would have had to be explained to you in the first place. But if you aren't familiar with the technique that I referred to, it would have been a good idea to read up on it or to ask me about it before you responded to my post.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are claiming that I made the argument that if someone argues that the government is necessary for handling disasters, than the same person must necessarily later argue that all parts of government is necessary. At least, that's the only way that the slippery slope fallacy could apply to my statement, since (just to make sure that you know its actually definition) it is a fallacy characterized by saying that a process will necessarily continue, without giving reasons for why it must continue.

But am I making that claim? No. You'll note that there's no claim that because someone says that government is necessary in extreme cases they must later say that it is necessary generally.

What I claimed is that there would be people who first argued that government is necessary in extreme cases, and then later would argue that it is necessary generally. But I didn't claim a causal relation between the two. Rather I am suggesting that the type of person who would say that the government is generally in all of its regulations would be the type of person who would lead off their argument with the uncontroversial claim that government is necessary in extreme cases. That is, the person who later says that the government is necessary generally believes that fact from the very beginning of the conversation, they are just to cowardly to state it. That characterization is actually clear from the term "Motte and Bailey technique" which always involves making an uncontroversial claim early to try to bully someone into agreeing to a controversial claim later on (for example early on getting someone to agree to the idea that "science is reliable" and then later on trying to say that they now have to agree to the idea that "strict materialism is true.") The anyone using the Motte and Bailey technique believes the controversial claim from the outset, which makes it obvious that I was not claiming that the uncontroversial claim necessarily forces the controversial claim to be true.

Likely you aren't familiar with the term "Motte and Bailey technique," since if you were none of this would have had to be explained to you in the first place. But if you aren't familiar with the technique that I referred to, it would have been a good idea to read up on it or to ask me about it before you responded to my post.

Then you should have said what you meant.

What you predicted was that,

then down the line [they would say] "How can you possibly say that there are any unnecessary government agencies or regulations. You just agreed that we need government!"​

And your prediction is completely wrong. Nobody in this thread argued that there could not possibly be any unnecessary government agencies. Nobody. Your prediction failed.

Nobody here said that the agreement that we need government means we need every government regulation ever made. Nobody. You predicted it, and your prediction was wrong.

Now can you address what is actually said, rather than predict that some day people will say something they have not said, or ever intend to say?

 

[Veritas]

It's amazing to me that of all the people who posted about government and claim to be Christians, not one pointed to God's Word and what He says about government. For me, as a Christian, God's Word (not the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or any other man-written document) is the PRIME authority on what government is and why we have it. All others fall in line UNDER God's Word.

Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

It's all right there in black and white, clear as crystal.

It's amazing further to me how many claim to be Christians and go directly against God's Word by resisting His Authority in government as described in the above passage. That would be the libertarians and anarchists. Those ideologies are diametrically opposed to God's Word and I don't see how someone can be a Christian and against God-ordained government.

In case you didn't know, America is not a theocracy.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

In case you didn't know, America is not a theocracy.

I'm well aware of that. It has no relevance to what I was talking about, so I don't know why you made your snarky remark.

 

[mark46]

In case you didn't know, America is not a theocracy.

You are being snarky.

I would note that there are many who would prefer a theocracy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are being snarky.

I would note that there are many who would prefer a theocracy.

Since everybody seems to disagree on what God wants, who would get to decide what God wants?