Tucker Carlson Appearance Debriefing and More, TODAY at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT)

Doing a live show solo today for the first time in a while! If you’d like to join me live, this is the link to use (assuming everything works):

If for some reason that doesn’t work, try looking at my channel page here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJpH0hofCrXXO7-D0soCkLQ

Talk to you soon!

Oh, I almost forgot. In case you haven’t seen the appearance yet, the video is here.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

2 responses to “Tucker Carlson Appearance Debriefing and More, TODAY at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT)

  1. C R A I G

    Wage rates are determined by supply and demand for the productivity and skill level of the worker. Neither the needs of the worker nor the whims or virtues of the employer are relevant. Both the wealth of Bezos and the profitability of Amazon (which, by the way, is nill to the best of my knowledge) on the one hand and being glad (not grateful like an altruist) for the public value created by Amazon and appreciating of the innovation of Bezos on the other hand are false issues in this context.

    If the food stamp program causes the supply-demand equilibrium to produce a lower wage that fact can only be changed by eliminating that cause.

  2. C R A I G

    The following form of unresponsive argument is common these days. It is so common that it should figure prominently in your class on logical fallacies. However, it is not one of the classical fallacies that concerned the Greeks.

    Host: A implies B
    Guest: (I believe B implies C.) But D implies not C.

    The guest did not really respond to the host’s argument since she did not address ether the truth of the host’s premise or the validity of his reasoning (but only the truth of an unstated conclusion). Even addressing the truth of the stated conclusion would not be any more responsive to the argument made.

    To put the non argument in a slightly less abstract manner:

    Mr. T: For reason R, Mr. B is responsible for outcome X. X is reprehensible for reason S. Because of T, Mr. B could produce not X.

    Ms. A: (I believe that attributing a reprehensible outcome to Mr. B is an attack on his character.) But for reasons U, V and W Mr. B is a good and admirable person.

    Note that Ms. A did not address the validity of R, S or T.

    Realistically, I have to admit that probably neither Tucker Carlson nor many of his viewers would know the difference or would care if his argument had actually been addressed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.