Tristan Scott

Here are some more statistics from HHS to help the conversation along.

Of all the families receiving public assistance about 60% have only one adult receiving assistance, about 37% have no adults receiving assistance and only about 4% have two or more adults receiving assistance.

98% of all the children who receive assistance are US citizens. The other 2% are qualified aliens.

Only 10% of the adult recipients are men.

Born Free

An awful lot of people want the higher standard of living they get from not buying insurance.

From the UK point of view insurance to cover yourself for accidents or illness is not really the done thing at all although it's getting more common. The only reason my partner did it was because he was a self employed contractor. One of the reasons it's becoming more popular is for people to bypass the NHS queues and obtain private care.

I do agree that some people don't want to lower their standard of living for the what ifs in life.

Jat

That is also one of the reasons why many younger Americans don't want universal health care as well. They think that they are immortal. The ironic thing is that they would have a higher standard of living if they did have it.

Gravity

Your point comes across loud and clear. My answer?

There is no hypocrisy in my statement and my actions.

I am self-suficient in my life, I gladly pay taxes, I eagerlyinvest in the growth the economy, both local and national(which I get returns on, just like the government should). I stand by my statement. In my life, I will more then pay back the government for its help, somewhat medicore as it was.

I just desire the government, that I consent to, to be pragmatic and rational. People have to take care of themselves. The world isn't fair, but no one owes anyone anything automatically. You can -want- to help, just not force others to bear the yolk, unless they desire it sincerely.

Tristan Scott

No, the world isn't fair, but I don't think that absolves us of the responsibility to make it as fair as we can. Fair play is as American as Mom and apple pie.

In the first three quarters of the last century the US became the largest manufacturing nation the world has ever seen or will ever see again. During the last quarter of the century we transformed away from a manufacturing economy to being a financial/tech/services economy. We did this with our eyes open in an attempt to strengthen our economy and we did it through a series of draconian measures by the Fed. There were and still are many casualties that resulted in this action. Also, as machines take over the tasks of human beings casualties will continue to mount as we, as an economic community try to find things for these people to do and help them obtain the skills neccessary to do them. We are not only obligated morally to do this, but we will benefit from it in the end. If you understand how capitalism works, and if you support a market based economy, then I don't understand why you could feel otherwise.

When I hear people say that everyone should just take care of themself, and that they don't owe anyone anything, it makes me wonder what kind of a person they are. How were they raised? Do they have children of their own? Do they live in a neighborhood? When they see someone being mugged or raped, do they look away?

Gurdur

Weird.

Since when does a lack of putative necessity mean invalidness ?
hmmm ?
Illogical.
Unless someone disagrees. And I disagree.

oh dear, you seem to be dragging us way offf course, but never mind.
Just to state the obvious:

It's perfectly OK to draw deductions, contrary to your ideas.

The important point is whether or not the deductions are in fact correct --- not that they are made.
Your attempt to illogically attack deductions being made at all just because you ex cathedra declared it "wrong" and declared ex cathedra connections between principles "remote" means you are not dealing with the point, but instead trying to substitute a different (erroneous) argument about the issue and players.
This is what is called a strawman.

Dr. Retard

Gurdur:

Suppose someone has a certain set of personal values, stances about what (s)he personally ought to do. This fact, whatever it is, is consistent with any number of political positions. So any move from these personal values, etc. to any particular political position is an invalid deduction. This is true just by the nature of validity; valid deductions always preserve truth; valid deductions are such that, necessarily, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. This necessity is what validity is. It's precisely what "being a valid deduction" amounts to.

Do you have some Sherlock Holmes conception of 'deduction' in mind? Something like abduction, an 'inference to the best explanation'? An educated guess? Because I allow that you can run an educated guess from someone's personal values, etc. to political positions. Someone who loves hunting is more likely to oppose gun control, for example. But this is just an inference to the best explanation, based on observations about people, their personal values, etc., and their political positions. But, since there's no inconsistency in loving hunting and yet favoring strong gun control, it's not a deduction. And, political debate being what it is, such 'educated guesses' often devolve into stereotyping.

Gurdur

Wrong !
As you get older, you will appreciate ever more the probabilistic nature of deduction as it is used commonly in life.

Your argument is erroneous for two entirely different reasons.

1) you assume perfect information (as well as valid syllogisms) is necessary before making valid deductions.
Dear me ! Meet Karl Popper and G�del.

William Poundstone also wrote a couple of good introductory but comprehensive books on this subject

2) you assume an erroneous view of formal logic in the real world.
The real world runs on probabilistic calculations, and exclusive reliance upon deeply precise formal logic is rare.

Naaaaaaw, just the dictionary definitions.
I.e., what is commonly understood by the man in the street and on public forums.

Dr. Retard

So, first, some dictionary definitions, since you seem to think they undermine me.

* the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning; specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises -- compare INDUCTION b : a conclusion reached by logical deduction

* The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing. Logic. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific. A conclusion reached by this process.

* in logic, form of inference such that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. For example, if we know that all men have two legs and that John is a man, it is then logical to deduce that John has two legs. Logicians contrast deduction with induction, in which the conclusion might be false even when the premises are true. Deduction has to do with necessity; induction has to do with probability. The famous Aristotelian syllogism is one species of deductive reasoning, which was greatly extended by the development of symbolic logic.

Second, I don't assume that deductions are terribly common in the real-world. I don't know how you got that idea.

Third, I don't know how my being young or old affects the truth of my claims. You're welcome to your empty rhetoric, though.

Fourth, I'm not assuming perfect information is necessary before making valid deductions. I assume that valid deductions are such that the premises' truth contradicts the conclusion's falsehood.

As far as Popper goes, I'm no expert, but I think part of his project was to discard induction and replace it with a specific form of deductivism -- the criteron of falsification. Goedel, I'm told, undermines the completeness of certain minimally adequate mathematical systems, yeah. I don't know that he undermines what a valid deduction is. I don't know anything about William Poundstone.

In any case, this is now clearly a verbal dispute over the word "deductive". I think I'm entitled to employ the standard definition, Vienna Circle notwithstanding. But, perhaps with enough smilies, you can rewrite the textbooks and spout "oh dear" at those poor benighted tyros who cling to outdated concepts like "validity".

Clutch

Since always, if you're talking about deductive validity. ("Invalidness" not being a word.) This is about as basic as it gets.

Let's just check some elementary texts. The nearest ones on my shelf:

"A [deductive] argument is valid if and only it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false."
-- Kelly, Thinking Well; An Introduction to Critical Thinking, p. 81

"A valid argument has this characteristic: It is necessary, on the assumption that the premises are true, that the conclusion be true."
-- Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, p. 267

"If the premises of an argument deductively entail its conclusion, then it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Such an argument is known as deductively valid."
-- Govier, A Practical Study of Argument

Need we go on?

Too basic, maybe? (Notwithstanding that "person on the street" business...)

Let's look at Richard Jeffrey, one of the foremost logicians of recent time and author of a brilliant little text called Formal Logic. Page 1: "A valid argument is one whose conclusion is true in every case in which all its premises are true."

Indeed, look at any logic text, the definition is the same. Even Popper never doubted that deductive validity is so defined.

Gurdur, if you meant to say that an argument can be a good one without being deductively valid -- which everybody agrees on -- then why not say so instead of trying to bullshit your way out of something about which you haven't the foggiest idea?