Why do liberals want to punish hard work and success?

They go even a step further than this, they demand that these things be considered rights. The right to own a home, the right to free healthcare, etc. Perhaps it's the country's long history of economic prosperity that these people grew up with such a sense of entitlement. They aren't used to being poor, or fighting for their freedom. Everything has been given to them their whole lives, and when they enter the real world, they want the trend their mommies and daddies started to continue. When it doesn't, they rebel like they did in OWS.

 

Well sure, if you want to completely change the definition of ad hominem to support your argument.

So, in this case, you made the issue about him being new to the site to support your claim that is argument was not credible.

Contrast this with the faulty example you gave of an ad-hominem.

 

Back in 2009 we joked about an Obama drinking game. Every time Obama went on one of his straw man arguments "Some people on the right like to say blah blah" you had to take a drink.

Fortunately, none of us was willing to risk fatal alchohol poisoning so we called it off.

 

+1. This is so true. You have to wonder what's being taught in the government propaganda distribution facilitiespublic schools.

 

That definition of ad hominem is perfectly in line with my statement. Ad hominem is where you attack in place of argument or legitimate response to another persons argument. I addressed his/her argument, pointing out the fact that his post was a straw man, therefore discrediting his point. Then gave some friendly advice about learning basic logical fallacies so as to avoid them. It is friendly advice, as when I first joined I very often fell prey to those logical fallacies. Now, despite your silly and dishonest attempts to show otherwise, that rarely happens.


PS. I will admit to mocking and demeaning people from time to time, but almost never in place of argument. I make an argument, and mock people. Is it the best habit? NO, but it isn't ad hominem logical fallacy either.

 

Ad hominems do not necessarily have to replace an argument. Show me a definition where this requirement is stated.

 

Read this if you don't think the rich work hard...

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2011/11/28/i-am-the-1/

 

The one you just posted, it didn't say it explicitly but the implication is certainly there.


To give an example, it would not be an ad hominem logical fallacy for me to say to you, you are fat. That is just a personal attack. IT WOULD be ad hominem, if you gave me health advice, and I said you are fat, as an attempt to discredit the health advice you gave. The fact that you are fat is unrelated to the quality of the health advice you give(obviously I have no idea how much you weigh, I am sure it is clear this is an example, but I will put this just to be certain). Similarly if you said, taxes are good because X. And I said, you are stupid and don't know what you are talking about, that is ad hominem logical fallacy. What is illogical is replacing argument with insult. It is not illogical to insult. A person may be fat, and it is not illogical to point it out(mean certainly, and I think ignorant as well, but not illogical). A person may be stupid, and it is not necessarily illogical to point that out. It is illogical to point it out, in the place of argument. I am sure you understand that now.

 

What is hard working?

Because I know many hard working people that are not rich. And I know many lazy people that are incredibly rich, and according to your parameters susccessful.

Nonsense. Please, specify what is a hard worker and a successful. And we can discuss it properly. Because now, your message is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) repeated one thousand times by the conservatists that only want that great corporations become more powerful and workers become slaves.

 

Workers are not slaves. They are paid fair wages and they have the freedom to leave.

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2011/11/28/i-am-the-1/

 

Yeah. Workers can be even in worse situation than a slave. You're right, they are not slaves because they have "freedom", the freedom to choose my master. Oh. Great freedom.

If I don't have enough to eat, I am dead or I must accept whatever thing. And working 10-12 hours or more, is more close to slavery than freedom. Is slavery. Freedom is not that.

And always that I listen "hard work" theory, that no one has been able to explain what means that hard work. Because if hard work means to work more than 10-12 hours to hope that some day I will be "rich" that is not life, that is pure slavery.

 

The reason people are successful is because they are willing to go that extra mile and work extra to be successful. And because they have a good work ethic. Like this man:

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2011/11/28/i-am-the-1/

 

Absurd propaganda. Ok, what means good work ethic?

And yes, there are "lucky" people that can become one of the exploiters. Yeah, good. Sorry, I don't buy that. And if you're freedom is:

- Be a exploter
- Being exploted

I don't want your freedom. That is the problem, of your idea of "freedom". And that is not freedom, is a (*)(*)(*)(*).

And he is a worker. And he is not the 1% that people talks about. He is a poor ignorant. That doesn't understand anything. A poor slave. Yes a slave, that with the time he became an exploter. No more than that.

Ah, and sorry I couldn't read all that. Was so absurd.

 

We don't. We want to tax people according to the amount of misery it will cause in their lives. That seems practical.

Why? That doesn't make sense. Are you going to get very far taxing people without any money?

That's not true. It requires a lot more money from the government to protect Exxon than it does to protect me. Bill Gates' property rights require billions of dollars, whereas mine, I don't think costs them anything at all.

You're equating not having money with being lazy, which is ridiculous.

Tax people who don't have money, as opposed to those that do. That's your big idea?

 

I don't recall conservatives not taxing people. Didn't Reagan raise taxes? What about BushI? Didn't he raise taxes? Didn't BushII spend more tax dollars than any President prior to Obama?

Are you trying to make the argument that Conservatives are not going to tax the hard working? That seems like a retarded position to take.

 

Which is nonesense. If someone wants to move goods, do they use roads? If a factory is set on fire, do they call the fire services? Do farmers receive farming subsidies? Was your steel industry protected from cheaper foreign steel imports?

 

Wait, corporations want to use the interstate but don't want to pay for it out of their own pocket? Say it ain't so. I'd like to see how many of them would sign up for supporting the US infrastructure of interstate roadways.

 

The rich don't even use government services? Do you have any idea of the range of government services available to businesses in your country? How about government subsidies? Not to mention tax breaks.

You are very quick to label whole groups of people lazy, but it appears that you are too lazy to even do some research before you post.

 

Really? I've been waiting for my monthly check. Since you're a liberal, will you get on to them about that. Oh, I haven't been getting food stamps, medicaid, housing subsidy, or free tuition either.

Don't feel bad, Awryly. I'm sure you're doing the best you can, poor thing. Your first post in response does rather sum up your abilities. Now we know that at least one liberal in New Zealand is boring, dull, repetitive, and simply not bright.

 

Change topic to Authoritarians and not "Liberals"... There are plenty of "Conservatives" who are ass backwards as well when it comes to Economic Policy. The main issue is dealing with Control Freaks & Corporatists who kneejerk at every action and sell themselves to profit...

 

Strawman.

Strawman.

Farmers are not necessarily rich.

Red herring. What does this have to do with taxes?

 

I do have to admit that Awryly is no slouch, he is so witty that it almost seems intentionally aggravating. But he is wrong again.. Likewise, that at least 95% of the people bickering about "liberals" and "conservatives" use the words incorrectly, this whole thread is a mess. It should really be about democrats and republicans. Just sayin.

 

BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY RINOS that those terms are now meaningless.

 

Jealousy and resentment, those are the main two engines that move the left wing movements.