Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[JonNC]

Well, as long as you insist on using Prager’s definitions, nothing you say about labels applied to Democrats or Republicans really matter, do they?

Where did I say Prager’s definitions, unless you are agreeing that his definitions are the historic ones?
Labels mean nothing when their definitions are in flux with the intention of changing policy.

 

[MonteRCMS]

How old is Medicare now? About 50 years? Like social security retirement, nobody knew the cost of it when it was established. Indeed, it was quite low compared to today. And there have been “add-ons” like Part D and Medicare Advantage. Medicare was designed for old people who couldn’t afford healthcare, and it was assumed few would be able. Medicare is also “discounted” well below “reasonable and necessary” that providers charge. So now everybody will get approximately a 33% discount? How is that going to work?

But it’s a big mistake to think the government doesn’t control medical care in this country. All pricing is based on Medicare and “standard of care” is as well.

worth repeating

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

MarlboroMan:

LeafByNiggle:

William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan.

Neither were all that “conservative” to be perfectly honest. They were status quo liberals who had some right-wing tendencies.

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

What?

Are you claiming that no true Scotsman would be a status quo liberal or that none would have right-wing tendencies?

Or are you claiming that no true status quo liberal could possibly have some right-wing tendencies?

Or that there is no such thing as a Scotsman?

No status quo liberal?

Just where, precisely, are you going with this, Louis?

When I said “look up” the No True Scotsman fallacy I did not mean to deduce from the name alone what it might mean. It meant type it into google. Then you would have found this. Note especially the Origin.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

What?

Are you claiming that no true Scotsman would be a status quo liberal or that none would have right-wing tendencies?

Or are you claiming that no true status quo liberal could possibly have some right-wing tendencies?

Or that there is no such thing as a Scotsman?

No status quo liberal?

Just where, precisely, are you going with this, Louis?

When I said “look up” the No True Scotsman fallacy I did not mean to deduce from the name alone what it might mean. It meant type it into google. Then you would have found this. Note especially the Origin.

Yup. I read that.

Why don’t you answer my questions?

Especially the last one. People who appeal to that fallacy often don’t understand its scope. It isn’t clear that you do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Are you claiming that no true Scotsman would be a status quo liberal or that none would have right-wing tendencies?

Or are you claiming that no true status quo liberal could possibly have some right-wing tendencies?

Or that there is no such thing as a Scotsman?

No status quo liberal?

No, no, no, and no respectively.

 

[HarryStotle]

MarlboroMan:

LeafByNiggle:

William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan.

Neither were all that “conservative” to be perfectly honest. They were status quo liberals who had some right-wing tendencies.

Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

So are YOU claiming that Buckley and Reagan were “true” conservatives?

And that @MarlboroMan is incorrect in claiming they were status quo liberals?

Do you have a clear definition for “conservative” that you are reticent to apply to the words “liberal” and “leftist?”

Or do you want to leave all definitions squishy and opaque in order to claim whatever about whatever?

That certainly seems to be the case, which is why “no true Scotsman” is right up your alley as a one-size-fits-all response to any claim.

We seem to want to resort to nominalism when the meanings or reality of things don’t quite suit our perspective, don’t we?

The problem with “no true Scotsman” is that it is essentially a category mistake since it makes a move to ascribe morals, behaviours or ideals to what is a geographical and/or biological term. It also relies on a somewhat vague or squishy application of the term. If Scotsman is defined in a clear and acceptable way from the start, the fallacy loses any superficial plausibility it might appear to have.

Since you won’t accept any attempt at defining terms like “conservative,” “liberal” or “leftist,” from the start, your punting to a “no true conservative” fallacy is assured, isn’t it? Whose problem is that?

You won’t accept Prager’s attempt exemplify the terms precisely so you can throw the “no true leftist” or “no true liberal” back in the face of anyone who brings it up, even though Prager doesn’t attempt to define the terms, only shed light on them by exemplifying how liberals, like Dershowitz himself, acted or claimed. To be consistent with your dismissal of Prager, you would have to claim Dershowitz was “no true liberal,” which is you falling into your own fallacy trap.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first get squishy with what words mean.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The precision with which a term is defined is valuable, but accuracy is also important. Precision does not guarantee accuracy.

I am happy with the standard dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative. By those definitions Buckley and Reagan were conservatives. Ben Shapio and Milo Yiannopoulos are not.

(By the way, “status quo liberal” is an oxymoron,…,like “giant shrimp.”)

 

[HarryStotle]

The precision with which a term is defined is valuable, but accuracy is also important. Precision does not guarantee accuracy.

I am happy with the standard dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative. By those definitions Buckley and Reagan were conservatives. Ben Shapio and Milo Yiannopoulos are not.

Funny how you punt to “standard dictionary definitions” when it suits your argument, but default to “modern usage,” when it doesn’t.

Let me remind you of a past post of yours…

…but in modern usage, the term “liberal” as a political position means nothing more or less than: “ open to new behavior

By your own definition, Milo Yiannopoulos, who appears very open to new behaviour is a “liberal,” and a “flaming” one at that, while Shapiro has quite a few liberal tendencies.

(By the way, “status quo liberal” is an oxymoron,…,like “giant shrimp.”)

This would all depend upon how “written in stone” the status of the quo is that is being liberalized. What status quo timeline are we forcing into this “oxymoron?” Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years?

In order to be an “oxymoron” values and perspectives would positively have to be Paleolithic.

And this claim coming from a person who claims values and perspectives, and definitions themselves – i.e., “modern usage” – are constantly changing?

By your “modern usage” definition everyone is a liberal and only the fossilized remains of the brain cells of cave persons are conservative.

I suppose a “centrist” position is also an oxymoron,…like “giant shrimp,” since it attempts to reconcile the changing with the static? How much more oxymoronic can it get?

Perhaps your definitions are too squishy, which is why you keep jumping back and forth between them to defend your flexible position by citing one definition at one time and another at another? Which is why you are so hesitant about anyone, like Prager, attempting to nail down a definition of liberal or left by examples.

You seem to embody the spirit of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by refusing to submit to any definitional accuracy. Unless, of course, the definitions are too vague to serve any purpose.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The precision with which a term is defined is valuable, but accuracy is also important. Precision does not guarantee accuracy.

I am happy with the standard dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative. By those definitions Buckley and Reagan were conservatives. Ben Shapio and Milo Yiannopoulos are not.

Funny how you punt to “standard dictionary definitions” when it suits your argument, but default to “modern usage,” when it doesn’t.

As far as I am concerned, they are the same thing.

Let me remind you of a past post of yours…

…but in modern usage, the term “liberal” as a political position means nothing more or less than: “ open to new behavior

By your own definition, Milo Yiannopoulos, who appears very open to new behaviour is a “liberal,” and a “flaming” one at that, while Shapiro has quite a few liberal tendencies.

Yes, they are more liberal than they are conservative. And not all liberals believe the same thing.

(By the way, “status quo liberal” is an oxymoron,…,like “giant shrimp.”)

This would all depend upon how “written in stone” the status of the quo is that is being liberalized. What status quo timeline are we forcing into this “oxymoron?” Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years?

In order to be an “oxymoron” values and perspectives would positively have to be Paleolithic.

And this claim coming from a person who claims values and perspectives, and definitions themselves – i.e., “modern usage” – are constantly changing?

Yes, definitions do change over time. But not so fast you can’t have a pretty good idea of what someone means just by knowing when and where they spoke or wrote. In the case of Prager’s definitions, if Prager speaks about liberal and conservative, I will use his definitions to understand what he means. When anyone else speaks about liberal and conservative, I will use the dictionary definitions to understand what they mean. They trouble comes when Prager tries to apply his definitions to what other people say about liberal and conservative. He is mistaken when he tries to use his definitions to interpret what they mean. (“They” being, for example, Pelosi or Obama or Sanders.)

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

By your own definition, Milo Yiannopoulos, who appears very open to new behaviour is a “liberal,” and a “flaming” one at that, while Shapiro has quite a few liberal tendencies.

Yes, they are more liberal than they are conservative. And not all liberals believe the same thing.

I see, so it was actually the “conservatives” on the campus of Berkeley, those who wanted to maintain the “status quo” at Berkeley, that were protesting and causing mayhem and destruction because of the “liberal” beliefs of Yiannopoulos, Shapiro, Coulter, and others.

Squishy!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

By your own definition, Milo Yiannopoulos, who appears very open to new behaviour is a “liberal,” and a “flaming” one at that, while Shapiro has quite a few liberal tendencies.

Yes, they are more liberal than they are conservative. And not all liberals believe the same thing.

I see, so it was actually the “conservatives” on the campus of Berkeley, those who wanted to maintain the “status quo” at Berkeley, that were protesting and causing mayhem and destruction because of the “liberal” beliefs of Yiannopoulos, Shapiro, Coulter, and others.

Squishy!

The world is squishy. It does not divide neatly into categories no matter how precise you or Prager try to make those categories.

 

[JonNC]

The precision with which a term is defined is valuable, but accuracy is also important. Precision does not guarantee accuracy.

I am happy with the standard dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative. By those definitions Buckley and Reagan were conservatives. Ben Shapio and Milo Yiannopoulos are not.

(By the way, “status quo liberal” is an oxymoron,…,like “giant shrimp.”)

To speak of Yiannopoulos and Shapiro in the same breath is silly.
Shapiro is clearly a conservative.

 

[HarryStotle]

MonteRCMS:

[
The Prayer University Youtube is OUTSTANDING …particularly for its clarity!!

It is not a university.

I suppose the fact that it doesn’t charge its students tens of thousands of dollars per year for the privilege of being indoctrinated into the current socially and politically correct trends is the reason you claim it isn’t a university.

Well, okay. It isn’t. But it does offer some very valuable learning at essentially no cost.

Free education, Leaf. You ought to be on side with that!

Or are you just on side with free education of the kind that indoctrinates individuals into thinking everything ought to be free?

PragerU does, in fact, provide some very useful and informative thinking and facts from a host of visiting lecturers, many of whom are professors at accredited universities or experts in their respective fields.

Here is a Brazilian journalist who appreciates what PragerU does.

And his lived experience regarding socialism ought to be taken seriously, no?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

 

[Inisfallen]

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

Allow me to second Leaf’s question. What accreditations does Prager U have?

 

[HarryStotle]

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

Inisfallen:

LeafByNiggle:

And I can identify as the King of France. That doesn’t make me King.

Louis? Is that you?

Oui bien sûr.

I hate to break this to you Louis, but your crown has no jurisdiction in these parts.

No one owes you, a foreign monarch, an explanation or justification for what they do.

Besides, as you pointed out, words are always changing and Prager can use words like “university” any way he wishes.

Who died and made you king of the dictionary?

See how things go when you permit squishy to rule?

 

[HarryStotle]

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

And there are a growing number of colleges and universities, previously accredited by those “well-respected” certification boards, that will lose all respect from thoughtful, intelligent, people because of what they have become. Like this one…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

And there are a growing number of colleges and universities, previously accredited by those “well-respected” certification boards, that will lose all respect from thoughtful, intelligent, people because of what they have become.

So,…,no accreditation means not a university.

Not an authority on anything, really.

 

[dvdjs]

And there are a growing number of colleges and universities,

What number?

Mehta claims his termination letter cited issues that “were wide-ranging and include failure to fulfill academic responsibilities, unprofessional conduct, breach of privacy, and harassment and intimidation of students and other members of the university community.
https://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2018/09/07/oh-word-rick-mehta-was-fired

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

There are several well-respected college certification boards that rate colleges and universities. Which one has certified Prager U?

And there are a growing number of colleges and universities, previously accredited by those “well-respected” certification boards, that will lose all respect from thoughtful, intelligent, people because of what they have become.

So,…,no accreditation means not a university.

Not an authority on anything, really.

So the fact that many of the videos express the ideas and work of accredited university professors still doesn’t make them authoritative?

Interesting view, Leaf.

You aren’t actually claiming that it is the university administrative bodies which are the authorities on matters that are important to know, but the professors themselves and their work carry no weight?

By implication, your claim seems to be that only universities are “authorities on anything, really.”

What about independent scholars, researchers, authors, etc., etc.?

All are NOT “authorities on anything, really?”

Something seems very amiss with your position.

The phrase, “You have gone overboard!” seems quite appropriate.

Just out of interest, here is a very brief list of some of the contributors to PragerU, along with their level of education and accredited university or faculty where they currently teach or do research

Allan Dershowitz - PhD, Harvard University
Carol Swain - PhD, Vanderbilt
Jordan Peterson - PhD, University of Toronto
Burt Folsum - PhD, Hillsdale College
Anthony Esolen - PhD, Thomas More College
Christina Hoff Sommers - PhD, American Enterprise Institute
Heather MacDonald - PhD, Manhatten Institute

I could go on, and add to that a who’s who listing of well-known politicians, journalists, artists, professional writers, etc., such as Douglas Murray, Nigel Farage, Ayan Hirsi Ali, to name just a few.

Not authorities on anything? Really?