Comment 26167

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 01, 2008 at 11:30:38

A Smith,

Your reasoning is so loaded with fallacies I'm not sure where to begin.

The reality is that welfare and other government handouts encourage poverty, and it is this poverty that destroys neighborhoods. Conversely, in areas of the city where there is less reliance on handouts, the streets are lined with the shops and restaurants everyone wants downtown.

Correlation != causality. It makes as much sense to claim that ice cream causes sunstroke.

Poor people live in poor neighbourhoods because they can't afford to live in rich neighbourhoods (that is, as a result of the market forces you believe can solve every social problem). People in poor neighbourhoods receive more social assistance than people in rich neighbourhoods because poor people need more social assistance than rich people.

This says nothing about the causes of poverty, which are far more complex than your model suggests (and in any case, poverty long precedes the advent of social welfare).

Just think about the human body, when we stop exercising them, and we allow others to carry us, we become weak, while the person carrying us becomes stronger.

Analogy != proof.

Aside from the fact that it supports your thesis, you've provided no argument as to why we should believe that a social class is 'like' a human body in the way that you described.

Why is your analogy better than, say, an analogy to carrying someone whose legs are broken?

I realize that everyone on this board will disagree with these ideas, but that just makes me more certain that they are the correct ones.

This is a straightforward ad homimem fallacy, not to mention an inverse confirmation bias.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools