Leaderboard

Lying.

If you'd like to discuss immigration there is already an Immigration thread open in Politics. Currently you seems to be using the Composition fallacy:

Whataboutism is it own logical fallacy and a type of tu quoque. The difference between the 2 is whataboutism can be total topic shift. Whataboutism often merely seeks to slander in an attempt to shift focus. Tu quoque specifically criticizes an individual for failure to be consistent with their own conclusions. Tu quoque is a charge of "you too" where whataboutism is plainly just a "What about" plea.

This wasn't the point of the OP, I will not discuss the the validity of the political points you raised as it's not the right section. Snopes* Obama didn't blame anyone for actions against immigrant thus does not apply to the original question about fallacies.

I can wait...

I think you can describe all those as non sequiturs. There is an implication of "because you won't pay the ransom, the hostage will die". But the death doesn't follow from non-payment. It follow from the bad guy being a bad guy. Similarly, "Because of what the Democrats did, we are taking actions against Immigrants" Nope, they are doing it because they want to and would do it whatever the Democrats had done.. The case of Assange is more complex- it essentially depends on who you believe. The facts are not known so it's probably not a good choice to use in a discussion of logic.

In a nutshell: Amazon will screw us all, the more it becomes a monopoly. The plain fact is that it is a shareholder-driven business and in order to keep those shareholders and, hence , its market value, it must perpetually show growth. The trouble with this model is that there is no level where the business can be satisfied with just ticking over, making a steady income. I've lately come to think that family-owned businesses are better because they don't have so many internal competing needs for more growth. .. generally. Contrast this with shareholders that just want to maximise their investment. They don't give a shit how the money is got. Bitcoin is a classic example of the naked greed of people; it's meant to be a trading currency but actually has no stability. I've noticed Amazon is getting ugly, like Facebook. I find myself using Ebay more... it's a less intrusive experience

Normal is subjective, its not ethical for sure but its very common in corporate environments.

The decisions made by the Australian Parliament are, in theory, representative of the general population. "leftovers"? In the past 13 years Australia has accepted about 174,000 refugees. My policy on reps is: I only give positive reps. I never given negative reps. I just lost all my reps, but I'm fine with it. I hijacked the thread, unintentionally though, but I still hijacked it and suffered the consequences.

In an organizational context this is also known as "passing the buck" (which, in the French etymology is the link, is scapegoating) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing

Scapegoating comes to mind

I'm not sure it really counts as a fallacy either. If it does, it is an informal, rhetorical fallacy rather than a logical fallacy. But your point about psychopaths is a good one. The reason the trope works in a thriller is because we (the audience) know The Villain doesn't care about killing people but Our Hero does. And so do we. Therefore, we feel the dilemma (which would exist even without The Villain articulating it so explicitly) of the hero who will feel responsible for their deaths if she/he is unable to stop them.

! Moderator Note Politics hijack has been split off to the trash. The topic under discussion is logical fallacies. Stick to that discussion, please.

Hijacking reported. Can we stick to the example of The Villain in a movie telling Our Hero that she will be responsible for the deaths of all the people that The Villain is about to kill. It looks like there may not be a specific name for this type of argument.

Aside from the point of OP again but I guess that he decided to blame and complain. "B&C"

It is certainly an example of that. I was wondering if there was something more specific. As most examples seem to be from bad action films, I will take a look at TV Tropes (I may be some time....) To take a zero-tolerance approach to immigration which has caused headlines about children being taken from their families. That decision may be right or wrong. It is the fact that he claims it is the Democrats who need to change this, that is relevant to the OP. This is analogous to the prime example (fictional hostage takers) because he appears to be saying something like, "unless you [Democrats] do what I want, I will create more bad headlines" (as opposed to: "unless you give me 20 million helicopters and a dollar, you will be responsible for the death of these kittens")

I am not sure if this is a fallacy. The only thing that comes close I know of is bad faith. At least it is lying about who really is responsible for the situation, denying one's own responsibility.

Blame shifting or psychological projection.

False Equivalance comes to mind but its not exactly accurate in this case.

My favourite Chinese learning website is LearnWithOliver, they send a sentence to your email account for free everyday, and have 4 levels. I find it pretty good, so I don't lose my Chinese. Their twitter account for Chinese is https://mobile.twitter.com/LWO_Chinese This shougi website lets you practice, and uses Western pics. https://japanesechess.org/shogi2014/ But the Japanese one is good once you know the basic moves. You start at ５級(level 5) but 1級 is the best level and 10級 beginers. You can wait from somebody to offer you a game or press one of the rectangle icons (which is a Japanese player) If offered a game just press はい(hai, yes)

It’s like one of those old style film projectors - you project a rapid succession of frames onto a screen, and as a result you get the illusion of motion. But in reality, there is no motion, because the reel of film itself is a completely static construct. All frames are there already, eternalised on the reel, and never change; in fact, the very notion of “change” is meaningless here, except as a relationship between static frames. But neither the frames themselves, nor the collection of all frames (the film reel) ever changes in any way. In the context of GR, there is also not really any such thing as motion, or the passage of time; those are only auxiliary concepts that are “left-overs” (so to speak) from the old Newtonian paradigm. For example, we usually think of the moon revolving around Earth - a dynamic process, described by an elliptic orbit in space, that repeats in time. But in GR, we no longer separate space and time, so the moon becomes a bundle of world lines in spacetime, that looks like a helix winding around another bundle of world lines that is the Earth. This geometric structure encompasses both space and time, and is itself completely static (just like the film reel), because it encompasses all locations in space of these objects at all instances in time throughout their history. Any notion of “past”, “present”, “future” and “motion” is now completely arbitrary, and not fundamental to the universe. Everything that was, is and will be, is there - and that collection of all points in space at all instances in time is not embedded in anything else, and hence the notion of “change” is meaningless if applied to it. As such, GR is a completely deterministic view of the world (ref “block universe”). The same is true for the spacetime geometry that accompanies the world lines (or for gravitational waves) - they are just continuous deformations at all points in space and all instances in time, and themselves completely static. But of course, one can always recover the notion of dynamics, by “slicing up” spacetime into hypersurfaces of simultaneity. You then have slices of 3D space, which are ordered in an oriented way (i.e. from past to future), and which are causally linked to each other by dynamic laws. This is called the “ADM formalism”, and is analogous to the film reel being projected onto a screen. However, such a “slicing-up” of spacetime into hypersurfaces is a completely arbitrary procedure, and not in any way fundamental to nature. One must remember that - in the context of GR - the passage of time is merely an artefact of human perception of consciousness. There is no fundamental mechanism that picks out a particular hypersurface of simultaneity, and gives it any kind of physical property that somehow distinguishes it from any other hypersurface (“the present” as opposed to past and future), or “advances” that hypersurface selection in a linear manner. GR simply treats all points in space and all instances in time in the exact same way. One can impose other structures on top of that, but those will always be arbitrary, and have no real physical significance. To give a very practical example - the process of free fall is not described as a dynamic process. Instead, it becomes a purely geometric problem - we find that world line between two given events on a static manifold, which forms a geodesic of that manifold, given a connection and a metric. Mathematically this is done by finding that world line, which parallel-transports its own tangent vector at all points; so the “process” of free fall becomes a simple concept in static geometry. If you write this statement down in mathematical form, you end up with the geodesic equation. That’s all there is to it. As mentioned before, it can be a useful analogy to explain certain situations in a visually appealing manner. But that’s all it is - an analogy.

This thread has made me consider learning to read Mandarin. So far, the tonal nature has put me off because I''m pretty deaf but I just realised I can still learn to read it without speaking it. My mind works textually anyway.

We’re arriving rapidly to a point in our society wherein if you’re not actively pushing back against racist alignments then you’re complicit in letting it grow and strengthen.

Again, I think white Americans take the emotional stance about immigrants, and in their minds they paint a picture of a family moving here, the husband goes to work at a factory while the wife sets up the house and kids, the husband works his way up by the sweat of his brow until he's the foreman, a man of respect and (limited) prestige. Gold watch, thanks much, job well done. Or you start your own business, work like a dog at it, ignore your family except to buy expensive things, and then sell the business and retire to some place warmer. Then these white Americans see brown people come over and do things differently. The immigrant family is probably extended, might live in a neighborhood far under their budget, but pools their wealth and, let's say, buys a convenience store, then two, then five. They work in shifts around the clock but always spend a lot of time together. They all become successful, they do exactly what any country wants its immigrants to do, yet they're resented because they come from elsewhere and don't do things the same as white Americans. Another problem for our immigrants is the general working class distrust of higher education. Often immigrants (even from poorer countries) have more extensive educations and special skill sets than the average working class American, creating more resentment. Working class Americans are feeling left out right now, that everyone else gets the breaks but them, even the immigrants. They feel they've done things right, but they don't qualify for assistance, and resent anyone who does get aid (because they must have done things WRONG). I can imagine it would be galling to compete for a job you're qualified for, against someone who is overqualified (by a LOT) but needs the job just as badly. I think blue-collar workers have been manipulated to mistrust heavily educated people. It keeps them from demanding better access to higher education. It keeps them paying their medical insurance and also keeps them from going to the doctor regularly. It keeps them ignorant and fearful, ready to trust the first person who seems to speak their language.

An arbitrary point that justifies an immoral position, much like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

I am bored, so I am going to share a to the current ridiculous theory that I believe is in forms the reality of existence. It starts with a seemingly simple question, "what is time?". Which leads to a second question "what is space". Which leads to the question "what is the universe" which leads to the answer "what is conciseness?". Humans have created a reality where they feel comfortable with size relevance, they feel comfortable with time relevance and they feel comfortable with their grasp on the concept of a universe, humanity tends to be ignorant like that. I have heard the argument of if the universe is infinite be made by people I am supposed to think are smart. How can a human have any grasp of size relevance beyond the concepts of the earth. We have no idea how our size is relevant to the universe, no scientific instruments can measure size beyond its relevance to humans. If I ask how big the sun is, I will be told its radius, and its mass as related to human distance, universally small picture information. If asked how far away the sun was I would be told in spacetime how far away the sun is from the earth in miles, if I asked how long it would take to get to the sun I would be told based on a calculation of spacetime how long it would take in human time perception to travel that many miles, all universally small picture concepts. What is human time perception, are we hardcoded and existing in the "time of the change of the universe", or do we perceive the time relevant to distance travel to live and survive on earth. I just experienced the most extreme case of deja vu, I am not going to finish this post. Follow this pattern to find conciseness, see the infinity of time conciseness possibilitys. The reality we are alone in our Universe, but the possibility of simultaneous existences of concisenesses that could never perceive one an other and the multiverse this creates. If all life on earth dies the universe ends. All the things of the Universe would still exist but not in the form, size, or time we perceive it.

Ok. According to this article, the original 'zero tolerance' policy was initiated by Bush #2 in 2005, and the zero tolerance policy was 'scaled back' by Obama, but it is Trump who has re initiated that zero tolerance policy again.

The immigration "problem" in the US has been an ongoing problem for a long time. Under the Obama administration from 2010 to 2012 over 200,000 parents were separated from their children according to this article. (http://www.latinainstitute.org/en/obama-lets-down-immigrant-women) The "Wall" was first initiated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 both Obama and Hillary supported the Act and voted in favour of it. 90% of the wall was built during both the Bush and Obama administrations. Under Obama, 2.5 millions illegal immigrants were deported. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/) But the snoops article does state: Also, the OP is funny because it is pushing a narrative that Trump is a villian, but doesn't push that same narrative against Obama, who was the President of the US when the exact same thing was happening during his term in office.

To an extent yes, eg: Because Obama was President when the same thing was happening under his presidency, there is little difference between Trump's stance and Obama's stance on the subject of immigration. I summerized the NYtimes article in order to clarify the facts. Nothing else is intended. Those facts being Obama eased up on the zero tolerance policy, it was the Republicans who initiated it under Bush and that Trump is responsible for its reinstatement.