U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-08-2013, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,052 posts, read 99,018,950 times
Reputation: 31544

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
A strawman is an argument that your opponent didn't make, which you then knock down. In this case, I am repeating your own argument back to you. Why not a minimum donation level along the same lines as the minimum wage? That's not a straw man. If the principle works for wages, why not for donations? If it's a boon in one case, why not the other?
You are the one who set up this strawman of "mandatory donation level". That's not what we're talking about.

Donations are by their very name VOLUNTARY! Minimum wage is THE LAW!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2013, 10:08 AM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,666,708 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You are the one who set up this strawman of "mandatory donation level". That's not what we're talking about.

Donations are by their very name VOLUNTARY! Minimum wage is THE LAW!


You can lead a horse to water. Even get him to go out into the middle of the river... But you can't make him drink.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,333,873 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
A strawman is an argument that your opponent didn't make, which you then knock down. In this case, I am repeating your own argument back to you. Why not a minimum donation level along the same lines as the minimum wage? That's not a straw man. If the principle works for wages, why not for donations? If it's a boon in one case, why not the other?
It is still a strawman, you are trying to connect one thing with something completely different and try to pass it off as being the same to try and deflect away from the original arguement.

If you wish to talk about a minimum donation, then you should start a thread about that topic because it is much different than this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,333,873 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Nobody is obsessed with anything except you.

Hiring someone is voluntary. Working is voluntary. What the hirer and hiree ( snicker ) want to agree on should be voluntary.

You're pointing out that donations are voluntary, accepting them is voluntary, and that you have no right to interfere with what other people do.... Unless, of course, one is working for the other, in which case you insist that YOUR wishes be imposed on them about what one must pay and the other must accept.

You even want there to be PUNISHMENT if it's too high, in the form of higher taxes.

Why is ONE relationship voluntary and should not interfered with, and the other your business to demand your way?
One requires you being compensated for your hours worked, therefore has a minimum requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,621,618 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post


You can lead a horse to water. Even get him to go out into the middle of the river... But you can't make him drink.
It appears that they actually cannot see the analogy. If a minimum wage is effective and useful, why not a minimum donation level law for charitable donations?

In both cases, we're talking about setting a minimum monetary level in an exchange that is otherwise entirely voluntary. That describes both. Same description, ergo, same thing, at least at that level of detail.

I think they can see why the minimum donation level would not be helpful, but they can't cross the bridge to see how the same applies to the minimum wage. It's interesting, actually--I think I've just learned something here about how political persuasion works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:13 PM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,666,708 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
One requires you being compensated for your hours worked, therefore has a minimum requirement.
Why?

You still can't explain why. Why is it YOUR business to tell someone they can't freely trade time and money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:16 PM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,666,708 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
It appears that they actually cannot see the analogy. If a minimum wage is effective and useful, why not a minimum donation level law for charitable donations?

In both cases, we're talking about setting a minimum monetary level in an exchange that is otherwise entirely voluntary. That describes both. Same description, ergo, same thing, at least at that level of detail.

I think they can see why the minimum donation level would not be helpful, but they can't cross the bridge to see how the same applies to the minimum wage. It's interesting, actually--I think I've just learned something here about how political persuasion works.

No, you have learned something about how the left thinks. There is no principled mechanism by which they arrive at their policy demands. Nothing is rationally connected, they are merely emotional reactions to things which they want to change.

Of course it makes no sense to say that unless you're willing to donate at least 60 dollars, you should not donate anything. But they can't grasp why it makes no sense to say "unless the work you do is worth (insert X amount) you are prohibited from working". It's because a liberal has never learned critical thinking at ANY level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:20 PM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,666,708 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
One requires you being compensated for your hours worked, therefore has a minimum requirement.
Actually, you still don't understand what you're saying. There is no external force applied. One party agrees to trade his time for dollars, one party agrees to trade his dollars for someone's time. It's a free, VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT. There is no compulsion on the part of EITHER party to enter this agreement and make this trade.

So, again, tell me why I am prohibited from offering my time and talents to someone for $2 per hour. Tell me why I must be PROHIBITED from doing so. Explain what right you have to FORBID ME FROM DOING SO and tell me why the choice belongs to YOU and not ME.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,333,873 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Why?

You still can't explain why. Why is it YOUR business to tell someone they can't freely trade time and money?
They can, as long as it is at or above the minimum wage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,333,873 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Actually, you still don't understand what you're saying. There is no external force applied. One party agrees to trade his time for dollars, one party agrees to trade his dollars for someone's time. It's a free, VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT. There is no compulsion on the part of EITHER party to enter this agreement and make this trade.

So, again, tell me why I am prohibited from offering my time and talents to someone for $2 per hour. Tell me why I must be PROHIBITED from doing so. Explain what right you have to FORBID ME FROM DOING SO and tell me why the choice belongs to YOU and not ME.
The choice doesn't belong to ME, the choice belongs to US. Clearly you don't understand that. If you had a business, you could pay an employee whatever you want as long as it is above the minimum wage that WE have agreed on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top