Episode 39 Bad Quaker Podcast
with Ben Stone
Podcast Notes on Elizabeth Warren YouTube video (Logical Fallacies)
Her Intro Points
1 trillion dollars on tax cuts for the rich under GWBush
2 trillion dollars on 2 wars that we put on a credit card for our children
1 trillion dollars on a Medicare drug program that (a) was not paid for and (b) is 40% more expensive than it needs to be because it was a give-away to the drug companies
“So part of the way you fix this problem is you don’t do those things!”
(simplistic answer to amuse the crowd)
Blame Bush, even though her party supported those Bush programs and her party continues to support them.
A ~ “It’s not class warfare; there is nobody in this country that got rich on his own.”
(1 straw man, 2 non sequitur – incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another)
No one holds this position. Recall discussion of the 4 achievements of mankind. Also this doesn’t justify funding the governments ever-expanding budget.
She assumes the successes of individuals or of society as a whole are the successes of government.
B ~ “You built a factory out there, good for you… you moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for.”
(1 sweeping generality, 2 fallacy of composition, IOW from each to all or because one is all are, 3 non sequitur)
She assumes the factory builder never paid any taxes prior to building the factory. She assumes taxes not paid during the construction of the factory. She assumes the goods get moved on the roads without paying taxes. She assumes roads wouldn’t get built without government and taxes.
C ~ “You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”
(same 1,2,3 as above)
Assuming “public schools” actually teach something a factory owner would find useful is a deductive fallacy in and of itself.
Again, she assumes the factory builder never paid taxes in the past.
D ~ “You were safe in your factory because of police …etc… the rest of us paid for.”
(same 1,2,3 as above)
E ~ “marauding bands seize everything at your factory”…bla, bla bla…
(hyperbole – the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device)
F ~ “…good for you…keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying social contract …pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
(1 Irrelevant conclusion – unsupported by the rhetoric provided, 2 affirms the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion)
As Bob Murphy said on this topic, “Underlying social contract? Well it’s very convenient for her to discuss this contract, which none of us has ever seen but apparently she can interpret.”
Also, how is it a violation of this “social contract” when GW Bush cut taxes on the rich as opposed to Obama raising taxes on the rich? What page of this mysterious contract explains how one is a violation and the other is not?
Original Intro/Exit music by Grenades?!