Does this argument make sense? (cause a friend of mine seems not to think so)
The fact that kids who's parents that "live" on welfare also end up "living" on welfare verses the kids who's parents do not live on welfare prove that welfare does not work in getting people off welfare.
Hence welfare does not work unless the goal is to keep them on welfare. So in fact the best way to make people successful is not to put them on welfare.
This argument seems perfectly logical... anyone think it's not? Back up by logical proof and facts.
The US system of giving parents inadequate welfare, so their kids don't live well enough to be able to do well at school is indeed a foolish system.
European welfare is pitched that little bit higher and seems to avoid this particular pitfall.
Hence inadequate welfare doesn't work.
Which is to say, you would let them starve to death - if they were too honest for their own good - or force them into crime if they were not.
Raising the level of welfare suport to a point where the kids aren't being damaged would seem to be a preferrable option on both moral and economic grounds. Europe seems to be able to afford it
To any cheapskate right-winger.
Most people who know something about the real world.
You show me the proof of your assertion that the children of American parents who were on welfare have a higher chance of ending up on welfare than the children of parents who weren't on welfare, and I'll see what I can dig up from the European statistics.
While you are at it, do check out an alternate hypothesis, which is that Americans of African or Native American descent are over- represented on the welfare rolls due to America's pervasive racism, rather than due to the damaging effects of living on welfare (which seems to be the substance of your hypothesis).
This statement has a causal argument flaw. There could be many other reasons why people do not escape welfare. Also, some do escape, (and some newly enter the system) so parental participation cannot possibly the only cause in those situations. There is also a many-to-one relationship problem here. The "fact" that most kids will not escape welfare does not mean a given individual will not escape. You cannot apply the attributes of the entire group to an individual member of that group (or vice versa).
This conclusion is based on a casual argument flaw, and is therefore suspect. Also, the concept of a "goal" in welfare policy is not established in the argument's premise.
Actually, for a more robust analysis to replace the casual argument and many-to-one assertions, I would recommend a review of Max Weber's "life chances"
It's common knowledge in this area that welfare is an inviting life style that migrates onto their off springs. The parents teach their kids nothing more than what they would like to be or think they are able to do them self, which is usually fall of excuses as why they can't and carries onto the offspring.
If the parents are lazy and want no more, the example is presented to the child even though the parent may make attempts to have their off springs not make the same mistake as they did/done.
The simple fact is, children learn how to survive from watching their parents in a natural un conscience order. Parents should make an attempt to set a good example while the child is growing. At least the child could have a chance to make it on their own. As what the parent does afterward I guess does not matter however, we don't see that around here.
Most of these parents are aware of the facts but are not willing to openly admit to it. So they go on blaming society for their down fall mean while, criticize every one else that in their eyes are successful in life and making their life's a living hell when it comes to paying taxes and what ever else the government local or fed can get out of them to yet, pay for some more that just don't want to fend for them self's.
Our town here is a perfect example of this, I may be getting ready to make the move and sell the property and move to a different area where free programs for the unwilling are not so available. This town has placed a large burden on those that pay property taxes and is getting to the point were the percentage of actual property tax payers are not able to support the local free programs which is excessive here.
Welfare was for those that really couldn't work and normally you would have to go through hell to get it. Not like around here.
Lets see, no food stamps because it embarrasses them in the store. They get debit cards pay by us and balances are increased by a simple sobbing phone call. Cell phones are issued because lord knows if they needed to call 911 how could they do it? And the striker is, they need to call some one else other than 911 because their kids may be in trouble so the kids also get CEll phones paid by the Tax payers.
Recently, they demanded cars!. SO the town offered to supply used car's up to a value. They take that as a slap in the face. That one is still standing.
Oh yeah, free medical 100%, anything they want. and now free college does not matter if they do well or not in it. Local businesses were asked if they would consider those first when applying for jobs.. That isn't doing so well either.. Our company is currently fighting an issue where we hired some one over one of these applicants. Now they are trying to get back pay for a job they never got hired for in the first place. Because they say our company is discriminating..
Where is "Our town here..." so that everyone will know where _not_ to move ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It\'s what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
wtf? I do not make any casual argument? It is a probabilistic statement and rests on the statistical facts. What is causal? The fact that the kids are related to the parents?
Now of course I saw that the kids "follow" in there parents footsteps but I do not state why... hence I make no causal connection but base it on correlation. (again, the validity of the argument is in the statistics)
i.e., my argument would be wrong if the correlation between parents and kids on welare was not high. But that has nothing to do with causality. (we all know that high correlations do not determine causlity)
if I would have given some reason why then that is a different story but I haven't.
I know... these are all the reasons why it doesn't work too... and they all coellesc into the high correlation that I'm talking about. But by the mere fact there is a high correlation(Which you give the causal reasons why it is high) it shows that it doesn't work.
The argument I'm trying to make, independently of why, is that if your parents are successful then you will be too(probabalistically speaking). Hence, if you don't want the kids to be successful keep there parents unsuccessful. (the contrapositive argument)
I guess hypothetically welfare is suppose to help make the parents successful and it would then fit nicely into the above statements. But in fact, by all the reasons you gave, it doesn't, and actually seems to do the opposite.
Unfortunately that isn't true in many cases. Kids in our middle class neighborhood are totally spoiled by their parents, they don't have to work for anything. They are getting used to the fact that things are given to them. The effect is the same as with welfare, they learn that money, goodies, cell phones, computers, cars (!) and all that keep coming towards them with next to nothing in effort.
That was VERY different when I was young.
The result? Cocooning. Latest by the time they leave college they move back in with their parents, seemingly unable to strike out on their own in the real world. It is sad.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Thats true. Wasn't thinking about present times. Although it's always been like that it seems more like everything is going down hill.
But welfare hits at the heart of the matter. It's about not learning to work to achieve. These spoiled rich kids are on welfare too... it's just not government subsidized.
So in the general sense of the word welfare is bad. Note that even "sucessful" people can still be completely spoiled and ignorant.
I sorta mean sucessful in the sense of self worth and not necessarily monetary.
After reading Jamie's posts, one wonders if he even had parents. Certainly none that could spell, or think clearly.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you\'re crazy.
"Jon Slaughter" wrote in news:0Wowk.20165$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
It doesn't seem to be a matter of logic, but rather, a matter of statistics - IOW, what is, is, regardless of whether someone chooses to not believe it.
Also, recall that "workfare" was called "making people into wage-lslaves". Uh, as opposed to everyone else who has to do some sort of job for a living?
I don't mind helping people who have gfallen on hard times and need, oh, retraining, job-search assistance, and even unemployment insurance payments so they don't lose *everything* immediately after being laid off. But that's quite different from supporting people forever just because they think they don't want to put any effort into getting and keepign work and 'feel' that they are "entitled" to be supported. It's different becasue helping laid off workers find new jobs contributes to society in the long term, whereas supporting people who merely demand to be supported drains society. What's worst of all is seeing people who wrok two jobs to support their families, and have a lower standard of living than someone who never worked a day. I don't mind tax breaks etc. for teh "working poor", becasue, again, I personally think that all work has some measure of dignity, because it's doing something that needs to be done and therefore contributes to society. But I've little use for people who, when asked to do some minimla work for their welfare, kvetch and holler and bite the hands that feed them, as tho' they're *too good* to do the jobs that other poeple have to do to support themselves and their families.
Maybe that is the difference these days between being "liberterian" and being "liberal"...? One believes in work, and the other doesn't...? I dunno, just posing a possibility.
mpm wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
No, but the statistics also cannot be discounted. However, thsoe statistics don't define the limits of capability for a gruop - what ehy show is that teh group has not been, for whatever erason, motivated to succeed. And the problem is not just that people remain on welfare - the problem is the perceived lack of choice, the hopelessness, and most off all, *the wasted potential*. IMO, it's unwise, unconstructive, and impractical to say "well, some get out so there is nothign wrong". THat's like saying a child who can't learn on their own doesn't deserve an education - some poeple need a bit more, what, input, academic support, education. For every successful person, there is a mentor, someone who gave encouragement. It's very difficult to succeed when family and teachers alike insist that one is doomed to fail, and when their most positive input is indifference. Not impossible, but difficult.
My friend teaches disadvantaged kids, and for more than a few, is the first positive influence they've expereinced, the first person who expected hem to learn rather than merely expected them to fail. For all of the arguers and theorists, my friend actually makes a difference, and has had students come back after 10 or 15 years to say "Thanks for believing in me".
Maybe that doesn't fit into the definition of "logical argument", but then, not every aspect of human being does.
"Jon Slaughter" wrote in news:pjCwk.22263$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:
[snip]
There is that old saying, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime".
Welfare doesn't "teach people to fish".a The problem isn't that poeple are given money, the problem is that they are given a permanent income with absolutely no requirement for them to do anything - IOW, a reward for non- learning, non-adaptability, inability (or refusal) to cope.
In fact, if one is on welfare, one is *not permitted* to take any sort of classes, i.e. job training. Which is just plain stupid - it ought to be largely *contingent upon* people taking job training.
((Different from disability of course - a lot of folks who are disabled
*want* to work, but have limited options re: what they can do physically or even mentally, such as in the case of brain damage.))
On Sep 6, 5:00=EF=BF=BDpm, "Jon Slaughter" wrot= e:
wtf yourself. Did I say "casual" or "causal"? I'm a notoriously bad spellerr sometimes.. :)
But, yes - you most certainly did make a causal argument. You claim X is caused by Y, when X might be caused by any number(s) of other things. Even if X and Y are highly correlated.
Your orignal post cites no statistics. Since you specifically asked for holes to be punched in the argument as presented, I did not consider "facts" outside your original post. However, if I were to do so, I could completely shred this argument into oblivion. (But that is not what you asked for.)
ids
l
Wrong again. You are assuming several things here: In statistics, a correlation is the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together. Here, the attibute is the condition of being on welfare, and you are applying it to two separate populations (namely, parent(s) and child(ren).) Also, you are assuming the correlation is positive, when in fact they might vary together for some other, as yet undetermined, reason.
Let me give you an example: Suppose the economy completely tanks into a deep, deep depression. Workers get laid off and there's no work to be had anywhere. Parents go on welfare. Later, because conditions have not improved, the offspring are also forced to welfare. Now, is the latter on welfare because the parents were on welfare, or because external conditions had not improved to the point where they (the kids and/or parents) could be off welfare?
Is X causing Y, or is X simply tracking Y due to some other CAUSE? Granted, it's a ridiculous example, but the logic flow is still intact.
Back to your original statement: (I'll paraphrase). Parents on welfare, and so are kids, so that must prove welfare is self-perpetuating. WRONG! You ascribe only 1 of potentially many causes, hence a causal flaw in your argument.
Now comes an astounding leap of faith unsupported by anything you posted, namely, that the best way to make people successful is not to put them on Welfare. (This is a causal flaw too, for reasons mentioned in the definition above.)
But it's much worse that that. It also assumes that people on welfare are in fact NOT successful. Logically, you can not rule that out based on your original post. And while we may not yet have a working definition for what constitutes "successful", it is certainly possible (in fact likely!) that at least some highly "successful" offspring do exist and are engaged in committing fraud against the welfare system (itself yet another cause!) But I digress.....
Maybe the best way to make people successful is to hand them a Million dollars of entrapreneur seed money at graduation? Maybe the best way is to have them spend a year in the Peace Corps? Maybe the best way is to have them work as year an apprentice with Ray Kurzweil, or Donald Trump, or Oprah? Maybe the best way it to paint them blue and velcro them to the produce aisle at the local supermarket??
My guess is you wtf'd me because you don't really understand what a causal argument is, and therfore don't know how to discredit it (which is what you originally asked us to attempt).
Therefore, please take 5 minutes out of your life and listen to the following:
formatting link
I think that will answer your questions and you can stop wtf-ing people.
Jon did not provide statistics in his post. And even if he did, it would not matter. He still makes the causal flaw in his conclusions, particularly the one about the intent of welfare (to be self-perpetuating to its participants). Completely unsupported.
mpm wrote in news:cbb0387e-5b13-47f3-a8ab- snipped-for-privacy@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
I did some searching re: statistics, but couldn't find any (probably a flaw in my search strategies). I've known of some instances, and have heard otehr people say they've often observed it, but it *would* be informative to have some statistics.
wtf yourself. Did I say "casual" or "causal"? I'm a notoriously bad spellerr sometimes.. :)
But, yes - you most certainly did make a causal argument. You claim X is caused by Y, when X might be caused by any number(s) of other things. Even if X and Y are highly correlated.
Dude, re-read the statement, where do I say or even imply that unsuccessful parents leads to unsuccessful kids.
I said :
"The fact that kids who's parents that "live" on welfare also end up "living" on welfare"
I did not say causal fact or statistical fact. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE! You want to read in causal fact because that is your bias. For me, all I have is statistics on such things(sure it is a sorta mix between causal thinking, personal experiences, general knowledge, etc...).
Basically you are also implying that any argument that uses casuality is wrong:
e.g., if I was talking about gravity and said: If a ball falls because it is dropped then ....
and you would say that it has a causal fallacy because there could be any number of reasons why the ball falls and not just cause it's dropped.
Sure, it could be thrown and one wouldn't need gravity for that!
But that's not the argument... logic doesn't depend on statistics. I could say "Since all cats are white and all dogs are green then all birds are grey" and if it was logically true(which it isn't) it still could be false in reality because maybe not all cats are white.
e.g., you are confusing logical validity with statistical validity and then trying to mask it by saying it is a causal mistake which itself is not a logical device:
on wiki:
"Conditional statements are not statements of causality. "
"Another sort of conditional, known as the counterfactual conditional has a stronger connection with causality. However, not even all counterfactual statements count as examples of causality"
formatting link
I think you need to get over the idea that logic and causality are somehow the same. A implies B is a logical statement and says nothing about causality.
What you are arguing is wrong with my statement is not my logic but my "facts". This is fine, you can disagree, but once and for all please realize that it what you are doing.
======================================= Your orignal post cites no statistics. Since you specifically asked for holes to be punched in the argument as presented, I did not consider "facts" outside your original post. However, if I were to do so, I could completely shred this argument into oblivion. (But that is not what you asked for.)
I didn' t state the statistics cause I do not know it but surely this is common knowledge? Surely I could be wrong but it doesn't effect the logical argument but only the factual validity of the result. I suspect this is what you disagree with but are mentally confusing probabilistic validity and logical validity.
If you disagree with the implication that there is a high correlation then simply prove me wrong by supplying your own proof the statistics.
IN FACT: you are making the exact same fallacy I'm making by claiming my statistics are wrong and that I must provide them but you do not do the same.
Wrong again. You are assuming several things here: In statistics, a correlation is the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together. Here, the attibute is the condition of being on welfare, and you are applying it to two separate populations (namely, parent(s) and child(ren).) Also, you are assuming the correlation is positive, when in fact they might vary together for some other, as yet undetermined, reason.
Um, you are wrong again. You should really do a little research on these things that you don't understand
"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, (often measured as a correlation coefficient), indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables."
formatting link
In fact, your statement shows you know nothing about correlation because it is explicity the covariance divide by the standard deviations(it is essentially a normalized covariance). If you knew what covariance was then you wouldn't have made such a statement.
========================================================= Let me give you an example: Suppose the economy completely tanks into a deep, deep depression. Workers get laid off and there's no work to be had anywhere. Parents go on welfare. Later, because conditions have not improved, the offspring are also forced to welfare. Now, is the latter on welfare because the parents were on welfare, or because external conditions had not improved to the point where they (the kids and/or parents) could be off welfare?
Is X causing Y, or is X simply tracking Y due to some other CAUSE? Granted, it's a ridiculous example, but the logic flow is still intact.
Simply ask yourself this: Did I argue anything about why the kids were on welfare? Or why the parents were on welfare? I'd like to know if your making such mistakes because of bias(actually you need to be the one to realize this) or because of some ignorance on understanding arguments. Both are pretty bad mistakes though ;/ It would do you a lot if you could figure out the reason. I'm not saying this to be mean but if it's cause of bias and you an realize it then you can stop causing so many logical problems.
========================== Back to your original statement: (I'll paraphrase). Parents on welfare, and so are kids, so that must prove welfare is self-perpetuating. WRONG! You ascribe only 1 of potentially many causes, hence a causal flaw in your argument.
lol... parents are on welfare and so are kids? yet it is causal? Seriously?
if you said Parents on welfare caused kids to be on welfare, then I agree. But I didn't say anything of the sort.
First you maked a logical mistake in your argument.
It should be A => B => C and not (A & B) => C which is what you wrote. But again, neither case is causal.
I think you are confusing implications and causlity(among other things). Hopefully by now you will see there is some imperfections in your logic and might try to remedy them so we won't get off on tangents.
I'll try to help a little:
implication - a logical relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true and the second is false. causal - the relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena.
Which in the second case proves that I am not wrong causally either(if you use that definition) because I am talking about correlations. I call it the "fact". You mgiht disagree with it but if we assume the fact to be true(because I was talking about the logical validity and not the statistical validity) then my statement is not causally wrong.
You hopefully see that causality has to do with probabilities and logic is independent of probabilities(although they are almost always mixed).
============================= Now comes an astounding leap of faith unsupported by anything you posted, namely, that the best way to make people successful is not to put them on Welfare. (This is a causal flaw too, for reasons mentioned in the definition above.)
But it's much worse that that. It also assumes that people on welfare are in fact NOT successful. Logically, you can not rule that out based on your original post. And while we may not yet have a working definition for what constitutes "successful", it is certainly possible (in fact likely!) that at least some highly "successful" offspring do exist and are engaged in committing fraud against the welfare system (itself yet another cause!) But I digress.....
Maybe the best way to make people successful is to hand them a Million dollars of entrapreneur seed money at graduation? Maybe the best way is to have them spend a year in the Peace Corps? Maybe the best way is to have them work as year an apprentice with Ray Kurzweil, or Donald Trump, or Oprah? Maybe the best way it to paint them blue and velcro them to the produce aisle at the local supermarket??
My guess is you wtf'd me because you don't really understand what a causal argument is, and therfore don't know how to discredit it (which is what you originally asked us to attempt).
No, I said wtf cause you don't seem to understand the difference between logic and probability and keep pretending you do.
My guess is that you completely disagree with statement I made, and the impliciation, and hence being biased you must try to find someway to falsify the argument. Because I asked what is the logical validity of the argument you saw an opening to weasel in and pretend to have an answer but disguised it as your own bias. This is my guess cause I have given facts as to why you are wrong on the logical side. (you have done nothing to address the logical validity or statistical validity of my statement)
For example, goto
formatting link
and try to find any fallacy on causlity... much less a formal fallacy.
About the only thing you might say is
formatting link
but of course my whole argument rests on the facts. I do not claim the facts are true.
================================
Therefore, please take 5 minutes out of your life and listen to the following:
formatting link
I think that will answer your questions and you can stop wtf-ing people.
haha... a podcast made by another moron? haha... "logic empowered skepitcs" huh? This is the same logic you use to argue other issues? No wonder. Maybe if you didn't learn logic from a "podcast" you might actually be intelligent? This is pure unadulturated ignorance! Jesus christ! Please get a clue. I'm serous! This is ridiculous! I'm arguing with some that learned logic from a podcast!!! Did you get your brain out of a crackerjacks box too?
I suggest if your going to learn logic from the net atleast you start at wiki... by maybe you still haven't learned to read?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.