Ah, the Argument from Scoff. Like, it's so stupid I can't even!
I think she may have changed her mind about releasing a video response? http://s10.postimg.o..._08_11_1422.png
Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board
If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at email@example.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
[YouTube] Defending Adam Carolla: The Young Turks Rebutted!
Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:59 PM
Posted 12 August 2014 - 08:46 PM
I've seen Stef's vid and now Ana Kasparian's response and here is quickly what I have to say (bear with me and my typos):
- First, she says she never heard of Stefan (is she employing the condescension she dislikes in Stef's video) and then feigns difficulty in pronouncing Stefan's last name properly. Way to start!
- Her objection to Stef's "condescension" does not stand as she herself acknowledged condescension as a way of rebuttal of Carolla's ideas on TYT youtube channel. Furthermore, Stef only employs "condescending" descriptions after elaborately arguing the intellectual bankruptcy of her arguments; therefore, it might be more accurate description than condescension.
- She appears to be misguided in a good part of her response to Stef in the way she thinks his position regarding sexual activity amongst the socially disadvantaged is one of religious celibacy when it is only conservative to the extent of common sense: do not (re)produce more than you can sustain. Talking to Stef as though he is opposed to the use of contraception and all kinds of sex even that which is protected, is a straw man and a waste of her time.
- Stef may be right to an extent in saying it is wrong to provide people with access to higher education beyond what is reasonable and the demand of the market for highly educated workers, because ultimately it will be a useless program and a waste of resources through subsidisation and inflation (and a source of statist indoctrination like Stef so cleverly points out).
However he seems to be exaggerating in saying that it's pretty much decided at an early age who should and shouldn't pursue higher education because IQ doesn't change (not that I think he is close to endorsing determinism -- but I remember him saying achieving a level of intellectual prowess such as his is all about hard work and never talent). Therefore, I think he gave Ana a bit of gratuitous ammo in this one.
- Ana then goes on about how Stef is against education for poor people -- just as he is so against them having sex -- because he reasons from the anarcho-capitalist principle which would have all economic activity regulated by the free market and thus to be consistent with his ideas he has to be against the public funding of schools, a measure that with mathematical certainty will lead to lower costs in education and therefore to being more affordable to poor people. This is a point that is deliberately misunderstood by all lovers of the state (in this case, the TYT lovers for Obama's pseudo-leftist socialist-oriented state -- Bill O'Reilly shows the same kind of blind love when it's a republican that is in office).
- Then Ana proceeds by saying Stef not being from the US is actually an argument against what he has to say about the politics of the US. I wonder if she realises this is one of the most classic fallacies a beginner in debating would make (no condescension meant in case she's reading this (I know I'm flattering myself in thinking the drop dead gorgeous Ana would give me the time of day.))
- Then she talks about how Stef is acting like some sort of knight attempting to rescue Carolla when I'm sure he's only interested in defending a couple of ideas he happens to share with him. I'm saying this as someone who didn't know Carolla (not feigning) before today. So again, Ana needs to forget the person or the ill motivations she would like to ascribe to him and to focus on the arguments, at least for a short time, after which she too may use name calling if she logically arrives at it as a form of accurate description.
- Then she makes the argument that some states have decreased public funding for education and as a consequence that proves Stef wrong, the cost of education went up, not down. This can easily be explained away by (1) the global policy ensuring an ever increasing inflation and (2) the absence of any change in policy and of any decrease in demand for higher education as the universities are still full of students.
- Then she says, "is college worth going? here is my opinion despite the fact Molyneux (now she has no difficulty saying his last name as she gets angry) thinks I'm a fucking moron."
She follows by stating how it is her dream to make higher education free so that poor people who are intellectually curious can afford it, unlike the evil Molyneux that thinks the cost of education should be as high as the markets decide and that necessarily means unaffordable for the poor, i.e., the Molyneux (that incidentally spent over a decade advocating a cohesive voluntaryist societal model) is according to Ana necessarily a proponent of "individualistic bullshit".
- She agrees with Stef that there might be a strong pressure on young ones to pursue higher education when it might not be the right thing for them (wasn't it TYT's favourite president Obama that participated in pressuring them when he said in today's society you have to have higher education or something along those lines?)
- Ana then in a predictable conclusion appeals to the American dream and how the land of the free (mind you, not in the sense of gratuitous) was founded on giving everyone equal opportunity (I'd love to see her provide a philosophical basis for this one).
So yeah, basically, she just repeats fallacious arguments and easily refutable statist indoctrination that she learned by heart when she did her degree in politics. Throughout the entirety of her 15-minute response, there is barely one half-valid argument, and that's me being generous.
I think Stef shouldn't waste any more of his time with her just like he didn't bother to answer her on twitter. After all TYT are state loving warmongers (Cenk supported the war on Afghanistan!)
A good one to always keep in mind: argumentum ad populum
Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:57 PM
Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:37 PM
I don't understand the left-liberal/progressive obsession with "education."
Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:11 PM
4chan has been following this and they are having a ball ripping into Ana
It's sad when a board of anonymous clowns make better arguments than a celebrity 'journalist'.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 03:45 PM
"Should people just work at Mcdonalds earning an un-livable wage"
The funny thing is that McDonalds, Costa and Starbucks are full of liberal arts post grad students, who can't get a job elsewhere.
It's typical of the liberal snobbery against the trades, which typically always helped the working classes aspire to the middle class.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 04:19 PM
Having a shitty job that pays a Non-Living Wage™ is a helluva motivator to get a better job. I never wanted to be a graphic designer more than when I was loading metal stampings into boxes coming off a deafeningly loud sorting machine. Is every job on the planet supposed to be a permanent career choice that you can buy a car, house and support four kids with? Sheesh.
"The government always sneaks in when I'm half seized-over and purloins the very thread from my hanky!" - Joad Cressbeckler