Originally Posted By: Derid

And regarding your links, they were mostly picked apart pretty well.


Lets be clear with something - they were shouted down, discussion topic changed, definitions shifted, and points never addressed. To date we had discussions on wealth inequality, government regulation and its role in wealth creation, health care reform, constitutionality of social program and progressive taxation and not once have you adequately addressed any of my points.

Specifically...

Quote:
I am thinking of your income chart, and instead of labeling it blasphemy - I seem to instead recall giving a pretty detailed account as to why the conclusions you were attempting to draw from it, with your fat-cat pictures was not in step with the reality presented by the chart.


Specifically, very predictably you attempted to dismiss the data and redefine argument. First you said, "Your graphic includes anyone who makes over 100k. Thats not rich in many areas" and "geography would have a lot to do with the earnings" and then "the scale keeps pretty smooth and steady down to a lot larger segment than that top 10%". This is logical fallacy, you can ether attack definitions or address the argument from within set of presented definitions, not both at the same time. Then you shifted argument to tell me "That people closer to the bottom can still live well".

[Linked Image]