A 3,000% Jump in Jobless Claims Has Devastated the US Job Market.

Believe me, I feel the same way. I just don't put it into emoji form.

WRONG. You said "if x then y. Therefore if not y then x." That makes absolutely ZERO sense at all, since you have X being true regardless of whether or not one denies the consequent. So, idk whether you are attempting to simply deny the consequent (which would actually be a VALID form of argumentation) or whether you are attempting to form a paradoxical version of a circular argument (resulting in a circular argument fallacy).

Either way, you are NOT describing the Denying the Antecedent Fallacy, which would involve denying Y as a direct result of denying X, not whatever the heck you were trying to do.

Like I've been saying, you are not in a position to teach others about logic. You haven't the slightest idea about how it works.

Why would I "copy and paste" from a website that I have regularly railed against as a false authority on logic?

I have a rather deep understanding of logic. I don't need to refer to any external source when I type up responses to people concerning logic.

WRONG. What you formed made absolutely zero sense. You were seemingly either attempting to form an argument that denied the consequent, which would be a VALID form of argumentation, OR you were attempting to form a paradoxical circular argument, which would result in committing the circular argument fallacy.

Argument By Repetition Fallacy.
False Authority Fallacy.

The bolded is precisely why you are committing a false authority fallacy. There is no "master list of logical fallacies". Logic is a closed functional system, defined by its axioms. One such axiom is that the conclusion MUST follow from the predicate(s). Such axioms can then be extended into proofs. Those proofs are how we describe and define particular fallacies. There is no "master list" of this. There is no "authoritative reference" of this outside of logic itself.

Yes, it does. It exists because it is a specific form of the contextomy fallacy.

Yes, I do. I've been showing my understanding to you this whole time. You, on the other hand, can't even get the format of the Denying the Antecedent Fallacy correct even when looking directly at a website that spelled it out clearly for you.

Correct.

That's fine, but just be careful to not commit the appeal to authority fallacy or the false authority fallacy when doing so.

Yes, but even quoting the person with the "correct" PhD would be a false authority fallacy. The proper authority in this case is the theories of science themselves, not any particular person or college degree.

My source is logic itself. That is the only authoritative source.

WRONG. Those would all be false authorities.

WRONG. Logic is not "idiotic nonsense".

I agree.

I didn't do that though. I said "WRONG" and then I explained precisely why it was wrong. Apparently you missed that part...

No, you do. Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy. Anything else about logic you wish to challenge me on?

Define "reality". I bet dollars to doughnuts that you can't. That would require knowledge of philosophy, which you also seem to deny.

 

True. Lots of money coming, lots of tax revenue. That makes the facts I posted even more disturbing and unacceptable. I don't blame you for dodging/ignoring those facts. I think having a D or an R by ones name requires ignoring actual results.

 

Do some research about these topics, because otherwise it is a waste of time talking about this. You don't understand these topics and you refuse to consider or refer to evidence, because that would amount to an "appeal to false authority." This claim is so stupid, it boggles the mind. Either do some research, try to understand these topics, and then come back to this discussion, or stop wasting my time.

You are like the dunning-kruger effect personified. A professor of logic at Harvard is a false authority, but I the great and powerful sock puppet for long banned political forum members, and my perfectly honed logical powers, am the only true authority on logic and all topics of note!!

 

NOTE: All of my vast argumentation that is "being replied to" herein was ignored. See my prior response for that argumentation.

YOU are the one who needs to learn about logic. I already have a vast knowledge about logic. Inversion Fallacy.

Yes, I do. I have already displayed such understanding of them. You are just ignoring my explanations of how logic works and have resorted to reciting the "you don't understand" mantra (and other related mantras) over and over again. That is the very point where I know that you have no additional argumentation to offer.

Logic doesn't make use of evidence. It makes use of proofs.

Stop appealing to false authorities and I will stop calling you out for doing so.

Continued mantras that I noted above...

Continued mantras... No new argumentation presented.

 

That’s a pretty juvenile view. It takes a special kind of stupid to be unable to criticize policies you don’t agree with, just because they are promoted by a party you mostly agree with.

 

Did you resort to another cheap insult attempt because you are not able to address the facts I posted? Please demonstrate your intellectual superiority by addressing what I actually posted.

 

No I addressed the notion that somehow supporting a party makes someone unable to disagree with certain platforms.
As you demonstrate, you don’t need to join a party to take hypocritically partisan positions, and you don’t need to take them even if you do associate with one.

 

You are an artful dodger. The results you are running from speak for themselves. None are so blind...

 

I disagree that the taxes have caused the gap or poverty. When you make an argument entirely based on opinion with no supporting data, don’t expect me to spend much time arguing about it. Im

 

You haven't spent any time arguing, only dodging the supporting data I posted and attempting weak, cheap insults.

Results speak for themselves.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/fun-facts/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-taxes/L6HPAVqSF
Taxes are the highest and doesn't include property tax, gas tax, sales tax (Almost 10%) registration fees, not to mention all the hidden taxes.

• California 13.3%
• Hawaii 11%
• Oregon 9.9%
• Minnesota 9.85%
• Iowa 8.98%
• New Jersey 8.97%
• Vermont 8.95%
• District of Columbia 8.95%
• New York 8.82%
• Wisconsin 7.65%

The result is the highest poverty rate:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...alifornia-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

Were you not aware that businesses were leaving CA?
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston...-california-why-companies-are-fleeing-to.html

CA schools rank with the lowest:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/public-school-rankings-by-state/

 

You pretend as if you aren't including those taxes to do some great favor to California. In fact, you are doing it out of dishonesty. You are doing it, because California's effective tax rate is actually much lower than you are trying to pretend.

https://timesofsandiego.com/politic...shows-california-is-actually-a-low-tax-state/

"The WalletHub figures combine state and local property taxes, vehicle registration fees, income taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, and then calculate their combined cost for a household at the median U.S. income."

"the effective rate for all state and local taxes combined on a California household with $58,000 in annual income is a relatively low 8.54 percent.

California has the 12th lowest tax rate by this measure."

So while your claims about poverty are reasonable, your claim about its source is nonsensical. California does have a high adjusted poverty rate, which is largely a result of their extremely high property value (which is mentioned in your own link). That is a result of both positives and negatives about the state. The positives are that California is much nicer than a lot of other states, so the demand for housing is very high. The negatives are that a failure of public policy has exacerbated already absurdly high housing costs, which the overwhelming majority of working people either can't afford or have great difficulty affording. This means that even though the median wage of people in California is quite high, and the rate of poverty by national standards are quite low, when you account for cost of living those numbers fall into the tank.

 

Your false accusation calls for the operation of my mind. Interesting that you would use a false statement to accuse someone of dishonesty. Your opinion piece is interesting, but it uses factors that simply don't apply to the income bracket it claims pays lower taxes. The $58K worker does not benefit from Prop13 and still has to fill their registered cars with gas and buy expensive necessities from businesses paying excessive taxes.

You just can't tax business and not expect them to pass the cost down to the consumer. The middle class you are using as an example is shrinking here.

I grew up and raised 5 kids here. CA is an example of giving the government money/power to solve societies problems. Results speak for themselves.

BTW, I don't report forum violations like yours because I don't get offended. If you don't want to have a polite discussion, don't reply.