White Privilege and Systemic Racism in Ontario: 2021

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if you had a good reason, that would be a different story

I already gave you the reason, and it is good.

[Yzermandius19]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already gave you the reason, and it is good.

that reason is trash

argument ad populum

appeal to authority

both logical fallacies

 

other people say it's a good idea

and they are "experts"

get better

 

if they want to give the government more money, nothing is stopping them

they simply want their competition taxed more

and you are so uninformed that you buy into it because it plays to your confirmation bias

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

One wonders how it feels to be white and poor, as a single mother perhaps, while watching how moderately wealthy black entrepreneurs help themselves to government sanctioned loans that are given out rather "liberally", but only if you have a certain amount of melanin in your skin.

The loan is based on race. It perpetuates the need to perceive of an applicant to the bank along racial lines.

If it were based on need, and if lots of black applicants were eligible, then I have no issue. As long as she too is eligible. As it stands now it offends my conscious. And we all know what it means when the government offends our concsiouns.

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

and you are so uninformed that you buy into it because it plays to your confirmation bias

Well, I posted some authorities.  What have you got?

[Yzermandius19]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I posted some authorities.  What have you got?

appeal to authority is a fallacy

that scores negative points

here are some facts for you

the top 1% earn 25% of the income in America

and pays 40% of all the taxes in America

the top 1% pays 27% of their income in taxes

the bottom 50% pays 4% of their income in taxes

yet you think the wealthy need to pay more?

maybe you should rethink that stance

and not put your faith into people who claim to be experts

while virtue signaling they should pay more

yet nothing is stopping them from paying more

they just want the competition to pay more, or they won't do it

and you fall for it

Edited July 3, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

maybe you should rethink that stance

Those who genuflect

before symbols of authority

do not

think

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Those who genuflect

before symbols of authority

do not

think

precisely

MH is doing just that

so he doesn't have to think for himself

he just takes the word of the "authority" on faith

because they are saying what he feels is true

even if the facts don't reflect his feelings

he doesn't change his mind

he clings to the feels and retreats to logical fallacies

thinking they are rock solid arguments

Edited July 3, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

he just takes the word of the "authority" on faith

because they are saying what he feels is true

Yes it's much more comfortable to think that way

Or as Timothy Leary says

caution

proper use of the brain is not endorsed by federal governments

nor huge corporations

involved in serious financial profit

from a brainwashed and enslaved population

Mild discomfort may occur

as confusing independent thought arises

to challenge popular views of the world

 

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. appeal to authority is a fallacy

2. the top 1% earn 25% of the income in America, and pays 40% of all the taxes in America, the top 1% pays 27% of their income in taxes, the bottom 50% pays 4% of their income in taxes

3. yet you think the wealthy need to pay more?

 

1.  Incorrect. I didn't use "appeal to authority" to offer evidence of my claim.  If you challenge it, then I will have to provide evidence.  I cited authorities as a reason for ME to believe there should be more taxation of higher earners.  I should add that I have read a lot about the problems with trickle-down economics, the Laffler curve etc.  All of these factor into my opinion.  Good for you, though, for knowing about fallacies.

2. That doesn't answer the question of what the correct amount is.  I also see people citing high tax rates for high earners under President Eisenhower.  These are not evidence, but observations.

3. I already said so.

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Incorrect. I didn't use "appeal to authority" to offer evidence of my claim.  If you challenge it, then I will have to provide evidence.  I cited authorities as a reason for ME to believe there should be more taxation of higher earners.  I should add that I have read a lot about the problems with trickle-down economics, the Laffler curve etc.  All of these factor into my opinion.  Good for you, though, for knowing about fallacies.

2. That doesn't answer the question of what the correct amount is.  I also see people citing high tax rates for high earners under President Eisenhower.  These are not evidence, but observations.

3. I already said so.

you said they need to pay more and offered no evidence they weren't paying enough

just an appeal to authority, to base your claim on

I offered evidence they already pay more than their fair share

yet you still cling to your confirmation bias in the face of actual evidence

Edited July 3, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. you said they need to pay more and offered no evidence they weren't paying enough

2. just an appeal to authority, to base your claim on

3. I offered evidence they already pay more than their fair share

4. yet you still cling to your confirmation bias in the face of actual evidence

1.  Yes, because you asked me where you got my opinion from.
2. I already explained why this isn't so.
3. You quoted tax rates.  That's an observation not evidence.  "Do you cheat on your wife too much ?" "Pfft.  No, only a week or two out of the year.  That's nothing."
4. You don't understand logic.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Yes, because you asked me where you got my opinion from.
2. I already explained why this isn't so.
3. You quoted tax rates.  That's an observation not evidence.  "Do you cheat on your wife too much ?" "Pfft.  No, only a week or two out of the year.  That's nothing."
4. You don't understand logic.

2) your explanation is nonsense, it is so

the experts agree is dictionary definition appeal to authority fallacy

4) throwing stones from your glass house is not advisable

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1) your explanation is nonsense,  

2) the experts agree is dictionary definition appeal to authority fallacy

3) throwing stones from your glass house is not advisable

1) Why ?  Do you think it's normal to just declare things and not say why ?
2) Wow I have explained this to you twice already - do you have anything new to add ?  Or do you think that repeating the same thing over and over brute force make for good discussion ?
3) Sorry I offended you.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Those who genuflect

before symbols of authority

do not

think

Riiiggghhht ... because people with no knowledge, education, skill or experience are much more likely to be right about whatever.

Anyway, you've been "genuflecting" before your personal symbol of authority, some lone scientist-type claiming that there is no point in mask-wearing or shut downs, for the past year+.  So you know, glass houses and stones.

[ironstone]

I think the wealthy in Canada already pay the lions share of the overall taxes.

Measuring the Distribution of Taxes in Canada: Do the Rich Pay Their “Fair Share”? | Fraser Institute

How much of a ‘fair share’ do Canada’s top earners pay? You might be surprised | Financial Post

As for systemic racism in Ontario, I don't buy into that and I question any hiring system that favours one race over another. How is that not racist?