- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Woodrow Wilson
The 16th Amendment
The 17th Amendment
The reconstituted Federal Reserve Bank (1913)
as possible causes of the growth of government
However, if you walk into your average high school today, the talk is not about female achievement. The girls dress to impress the guys, they offer the football players BJs, esp. after Clinton, they fight over boys. The idea of getting pregnant to trap some guy is still very much alive. It almost seems as if the girls have devolved.
Then there are the moms I saw when our daughter was growing up. Nobody wanted to make waves if academics were lacking, just so long as Susie was popular. Have you seen the recent condescending ad about a girl buying a car, and how hard it is to choose, but one agency makes it so she does not need a "dude" with her? Excuse me, I bought my first car in 1966, arranged financing and picked it out, alone! Even as an old lady, I walked in with a filled out accessory sheet to order ny Camaro just as I wanted it when the 5th generation came out. All females should do it as second nature, not as someone's dependent.
My husband expects as much of me. Over the years we have both worked, I stayed home to make sure our daughter leaned something, then went back to work to set and example for her high school years, since she was required to work part time also.
I see women at WalMart, kids from numerous fathers, in line with their government assistance, and I see what the video was saying. They are married to government, and they are sleeping with anyone and everyone -, and they have no self-respect at all. The fellows have little desire to leave home, much less marry these gals, and more and more don't want to work at all. I am afraid, as quirky as it at first appeared, this video actually makes sense, sad sense, but sense. He presents it as women are the cause, but women must own their role in being that cause,before anything will improve, if it can, before the country collapses. Most of the women I know, really could not tell you the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, and one college educated one, reuses to e-mail me now , as her son, who works in a bank, told her it was government owned. I wish the video had gone farther and offered some solutions, in the same quirky fashion, of course.
As I just posted to to BambiB:
This fellow never mentioned
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Woodrow Wilson
The 16th Amendment
The 17th Amendment
The reconstituted Federal Reserve Bank (1913)
as possible causes of the growth of government
This fellow never mentioned
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Woodrow Wilson
The 16th Amendment
The 17th Amendment
The reconstituted Federal Reserve Bank (1913)
as possible causes of the growth of government
no fireplaces needed in the gulch. just banging surf and sea breezes and fresh produce picked today for the beef stew. carminere accompaniment
The only reason Obama might be a better choice is because when he effs everything up, there's no way to blame it on anyone else. I'm hopeful that the 2014 elections will see a massive change in the makeup of Congress and Obama will be done. Who knows? Maybe even impeached.
As for Romney, he was a butt-ugly choice. But someone thought he would appeal to women.
My personal preference was Ron Paul and I consider the fact that he wasn't elected in 2008 and 2012 proof that the vast majority of voters - male and female - are morons.
Real tribal societies that are left follow the boom/bust paradigm: If they have a lot of food they tend towards higher birth rates. Less food, lower birth rates. In South America where a lot of tribes have been uprooted and relocated, birth rates suffer and in a few generations, the tribes die out.
No successors, though.
I said a BETTER solution!
Division of labor is simply that. In the military, a lot of women are promoted to fill quotas. Many reach pretty high rank yet few show any real leadership quality. On the other side, many men who get promoted to field grade or higher have even less leadership ability. They do have one thing in common and that is the ability to middle-manage which is a pretty dismal state of affairs for everyone. But it's nice to know that both men and women can be completely incompetent when it comes to leadership and leadership is a division of labor.
You'll find (if you bother to check) that the logical fallacy occurs when the sole or primary factor considered in concluding A->B is that A preceded B. So, for example, if all women got the vote at the same time, and deficits began to rise, it would be a logical fallacy (in the absence of other evidence) to believe that A->B. Note, it may be true, but the evidence is lacking.
In that instance, it's entirely possible that some OTHER factor influenced the result. For example, if women had all gotten the vote in 1938, the debts that accrued over the next 7 years MIGHT be the result of female voting patterns -OR- they might be the results of some other factor… like WWII. Post hoc - one event (usually), no other factors. Not applicable here.
It is NOT a logical error to conclude causality when other evidence exists. You might mix hydrogen and oxygen together, toss in a match and get a flash, noise and water. The match being lit occurred BEFORE the gases ignited. It is an improper application of post hoc to conclude that because A occurred before B, A did NOT cause B. In science, the proofs are similar to anywhere else. You don't generally rely upon ONE experiment to determine a general rule. For example, when the OPERA scientists announced "faster than light neutrinos", the rest of the scientific world called for verification testing. When they conducted further tests, they found the OPERA folks were in error.
Conversely, the Michelson-Morly experiments determined that the speed of light in a vacuum was a constant. Independent tests proved them correct.
Fortunately, for determining the impact of the female vote, we have 49 separate tests conducted in a variety of places over an extended period of time - all with the same result.
WRT the female vote in America, over a period of 50 years, as women got the vote, governments controlled by those votes began to run debts. Two adjacent states: Female vote in one, the debt rises, no femme vote in the other, no increase in debt. 49 times in a row. It was even considered that states that granted women the vote might somehow have undergone a societal state-wide change that made them more amenable to debt, and which also brought on the approval of the female vote. In other words, some other factor both drove up debt AND made the state amenable to granting the female vote (which would be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical error).
We know that's not true because at the passage of the 19th Amendment, roughly half the remaining states still OPPOSED the female vote. So whether a state was inclined to grant women the vote or not, once they got the vote, deficits began to balloon. The hypothetical outside factor driving both the vote and the debts did not exist.
But I welcome any other explanation that explains:
1) Deficits rising ONLY in states where women got the vote
2) Deficits rising ONLY AFTER women got the vote.
3) Applicability to states REGARDLESS of whether the state was in favor of women getting the vote or not.
4) Explains all the deficits over a period of 50 years (which would be a case akin to WWII lasting 50 years, in concert with women being accorded the vote).
5) Why the phenomenon occurred in all 48 states and at the Federal level.
I doubt any other explanation will suffice - unless you want to invoke space aliens and mind control. Then you have to ask yourself whether Occam's Razor applies.
The fallacy you mention pertains to limited situations that disregard empirical evidence. Obviously just stating that "every time women start voting the state grows, ergo women voting causes the state to grow" falls into a fallacy. However, you can measure how women vote, what they vote for, and why they vote for it. At that point the statement makes both logical and empirically sound sense.
Thanks for the post hoc ergo propter hoc definition, I remember that from long ago, but I was using the short hand "correlation does not mean causation."
If this logical fallacy applied to everything the scientific method would mean nothing.
Women vote for big government? √
Women are biologically predisposed to vote for welfare? √
Women are "marrying" the government? √
Women have reduced the incentive for men to be responsible? √
Women are primed to get stuff for free? √
Women are the primary reason for the excessive growth of government? √
When you give women the vote, women will vote for free stuff? √
Men don't want government to become big? √
Women are risk-averse compared to men? √
He doesn't seem to disagree with ANYTHING I've said with the possible exception that women not voting is the resolution of the problem of women voting.
So the problem is well-defined. Step up, women… what's the solution?
It will be replaced. Either by a single-payer system, if we really are as foregone as we seem... or it will be replaced by another national health insurance scheme, this time favored by republicans (translation: a different set of cronies will benefit) that will do nothing to restore individual liberty, and *must* remain in effect (for the sake of those in power of both factions) in order to retain the precedent that the government has the authority to intrude on every aspect of the individual's life, and that we live at sufferance of government, not the other way 'round.
Load more comments...