Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:

The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.

Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.

It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*

Comments

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That doesn't really answer the question.

reproductive health is legislated against receiving funding for on any other level

Citation needed.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Being that you dispute this point, the ball is squarely in your court to prove that it does exist at some other level.

If it's true, I'd imagine it can't be terribly hard to prove. Proving that it doesn't anywhere on the other hand would be an unreasonable burden, because you could always simply protest "but you didn't look hard enough, I'm sure it's there somewhere".

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The claim was that it is legislated against, not that it's merely not done. That should be easy enough to cite.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

A fair point.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Wow. It does not take but 5 minutes to Google and find out that only 17 states provide limited funding for reproductive care on the state/local level and of those, 13 were forced to it by court order. And that 'limited' funding means, in general, none for abortions and perhaps contraception for Medicaid patients, with the majority (being 75%+) going toward pregnant women who have already birthed and only the remainder for pre-pregnancy reproductive care.

Citation needed, my fine white ass. More like "I'm too lazy to Google common knowledge that's available at my finger-tips in order to participate in any real debate."

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Citation needed means that I've never heard of such a thing, so I don't know how to start looking for it, and since the other person mentioned it, they would likely know where they got the information from and be able to find some reference to it again.

So get off your fucking high horse.

And your comment is useless to me as it's more claim without reference.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

so I don't know how to start looking for it

If you don't know how to Google and/or do basic research, then I seriously question your abilities as a software engineer. Literally, all it takes is typing 'reproductive health funding state local' in the search bar and the first five pages has enough information for you to go through and learn.

And yet, you constantly fail to do so, always going back to "Citation needed." in what comes across as the most smug tone possible from this guy:



So get off your fucking high horse.
And your comment is useless to me as it's more claim without reference.

I've given you the methodology to verify the information. You can use it or go on believing I'm a liar, your choice.

And I deserve my high horse if I can friggin' Google better than you can. You're older than me; you should be responding to me with whitepapers and theses on the damn subject.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

First, I don't assume Google is the answer to anything.
Second, I don't need to take the time to verify someone else's assertions.
Third, that's not the search term I would have used, and I don't know what information is in the mind of the person making the assertion to compare to, so no matter what I find, it doesn't matter, because there's no way to know what the other person is using as their basis, which is the important thing to know. Looking up random information that's similar to the assertion doesn't help me come to a conclusion about the other person's argument.
Fourth, your absolutes are always wrong.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

First, I don't assume Google is the answer to anything.

It isn't. But it's a fucking handy tool to help find the answers. Hell, even Wikipedia is a good starting point if you use it AS a starting point and not an end-all, be-all.

Second, I don't need to take the time to verify someone else's assertions.

Or your own, for that matter.

Third, that's not the search term I would have used, and I don't know what information is in the mind of the person making the assertion to compare to, so no matter what I find, it doesn't matter, because there's no way to know what the other person is using as their basis, which is the important thing to know. Looking up random information that's similar to the assertion doesn't help me come to a conclusion about the other person's argument.

The current discussion in Fizzy's thread that you go citation needed at is about how reproductive funding is on the state and local level as compared to federal. Are you telling me that's random? I think it's pretty damn specific.

Fourth, your absolutes are always wrong.

Here, give me a second to put on that sneer you're wearing when you do this.
"Citation needed."

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The current discussion in Fizzy's thread that you go citation needed at is about how reproductive funding is on the state and local level as compared to federal.

No, that's not the assertion that I said needed a citation.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Uh huh. Whatever. I think you debate dishonestly and disingenuously and that's all that needs to be said.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If you say so. Whereas I would say that you just misunderstood the issue and ran with that, and you have too much of an ego to accept it.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

No, what I mean is that I think and believe you actively lie and deceive. And that you do so deliberately. I think you already knew the information and are pretending you didn't and I think you do that in the majority of the situations where you go "citation needed". Is that direct and blunt enough for you?

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Sure, and I'll directly tell you that you're wrong. I don't lie on here, ever. The worst you can say is that sometimes when I ask for a citation I do already know that their information is wrong, but I want them to show where they got their information from so that I can refute it.

Also, you're showing some odd kind of illogic by tying asking for a citation for a claim to some kind of assumption of nefariousness by knowing information already. I don't even know how to express how silly your thinking is there.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Sure, and I'll directly tell you that you're wrong. I don't lie on here, ever.

This isn't going to convince me your aren't lying. So I would stop.

Also, you're showing some odd kind of illogic by tying asking for a citation for a claim to some kind of assumption of nefariousness by knowing information already. I don't even know how to express how silly your thinking is there.

Standard dishonest debate tactic, used continuously to cause the opposite party to tire of having to constantly provide a thesis for every sentence made and get them to drop the debate, therefore 'winning'.

Re: Here's your Clue-x-Four

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The dishonest debate tactic doesn't require knowledge of what's being asked about. Also, I haven't done that. Asking for a citation once for an obscure claim is not that. I don't believe I've ever asked for a citation more than twice (and I don't think I did even that more than once) in a single discussion, and every time it was in response to an outlandish claim that was not common knowledge and therefore I needed to see some source for it.