the logic of max raskin
great example of the entitlement that afflicts LRC writers through lew’s unusual method of perma-imprimatur (i.e., when you’re in at LRC, you’re in):
Re: Get Us Outa Here!
Posted by Max Raskin at October 18, 2007 03:56 PM
National Review is actually featuring Ron Paul on its cover.
The Troops Don’t Support the Troops
Because he has the most donations from the military (and given the small amount a soldier makes, this is saying something), National Review is bitterly attacking the anti-troop troops.
i hesitate to explain the error, but i find that explaining things to morons can avert multiple rounds of obfuscatory crap as they struggle with their offended intellectual inadequacy via comments.
max the twattish dumbbell child is taking a single class (donations from milfare recipients), analyzing only comparisons within that class, and then implying that somehow relative donations from milfare recipients have been compared favorably to those outside the class.
given the small amount a soldier makes, this is saying something
no, it says nothing in relation to the alleged “small amount a soldier makes”, since the only class analyzed was “soldier”, and that poorly. what is significant in this case: apparently (for the data’s allegedly generally sloppy), “donating” milfare recipients overwhelmingly (considering ron paul’s comparatively minimal MSM exposure) support the most vocal and consistent antiwar candidate. that’s a fact worthy of mention.
since the donation amounts and distribution aren’t discussed in the instant post, no evidence has been offered indicating that which candidate got the most donations is related to the size of individual plunder allocations from which they came. ron paul came out on top, so let the irrational hype fly.
for comparison, assume some kindergarteners are given the chance to select a new DVD to watch before nap time every day. they’re told that if they bring in pocket change and apply it to their favorite candidates, it’s more likely the school can buy those DVDs to have them available for voting. if only one child elects to participate, donating a single penny in the name of SpongeBob SquarePants – Sea Stories, how is that significant given the little discretionary cash available to kindergarteners? it isn’t. if those kindergarteners donated $722 or something, most of it for the SpongeBob DVD, then perhaps you have a significant story.
no such exception is alleged in the milfare plunder re-redistribution story. no true analysis of the component donors is made or even referred to. one probably doesn’t exist. some milfare pukes are damned comfortable financially. either analyze that in regard to individual donations or don’t mention it. the hope, of course, is that RP slurpers will adopt uncritically the term “soldier” so it can be assumed that each donation tagged milfare was from a sad grunt eating cat food to save a buck.
the typically unsound LRC RP ejaculation does say at least two things loudly, however.
- lew rockwell shouldn’t give undeservedly smug high school boys uncritical publication access.
- RP droolers are comfortable composing and forwarding brazen illogic the same as any other coercionist.
[update: more here.]
October 18th, 2007 at 22:59
Curious though … I’ve yet to see significant amounts of ad hominem spout forth from Raskin. Of all the formally catalogable fallacies, ad hominem annoys me most, since it’s the one that is easiest to avoid and noticably loudest.
Okay, facts: The instant blog post did not give any kind of breakdown, but the associated link in Lew’s original post (to which Max had responded):
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html
gave $500 as the average military donation to the Paul campaign.
And it is true that most soldiers *don’t* make a lot of money. Here are some quick links:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2007paycharts/l/bl07enlbasepay1.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2007paycharts/l/bl07warbasepay1.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2007paycharts/l/bl07offbasepay1.htm
You need to go up pretty high in seniority and rank before you are sitting “comfortably” with only a soldier’s income. Yes, there is no analysis of donation by pay grade. The data to perform any such analysis simply isn’t available. How could it be? Even if it were, it would not be complete — to get the level of “individual” analysis you seem to want, you need to take into account each soldier’s family budget, other sources of income, etc. and compare donation versus available funds per quarter or something.
His conclusion may be a leap, but it’s not an olympic leap.
I’m still looking forward to your bloggy response to my scratchpad entry. Let me tag on another question for you: if the LRC blog, nay, even a single sentence fragment in a parenthetical remark made by a high school kid on that blog, causes you to vent out six full paragraphs of visibly steaming fury, why do you continue to read that blog at all? That can’t be good for your stomach lining! Is your blood pressure okay?
In the words of Zappa, “You’ll hurt your throat, stop it!”
October 19th, 2007 at 00:03
Jaq,
Salty used to write at LRC. In that sense, perhaps he has some kind of ingrained loyalty to his alma mater, in the sense that it pisses him off seeing what it’s become?
Don’t know if that’s the correct metaphor, but I think it’s close. You spend some time, energy and most importantly, SOUL, somewhere for long enough and you become deeply concerned with the bullshit they spout, whether you want to be concerned or not.
October 19th, 2007 at 06:41
Taylor,
The question really wasn’t addressed to you, but let me see if I can respond to your idea anyway.
One’s soul — however one cares to define it — cannot be shared. Do I really need to explain this on a libertarian blog?
I’ve designed and built some highly complex system over the course of my career. A few times, as I’ve gone from one concern to another, I’ve heard horror stories from former coworkers about how the new owners of these multimillion-dollar systems I lovingly crafted together pissed it away into utter trash over the course of a scant few years. These former coworkers can’t understand why this doesn’t bother me.
In short order, those systems aren’t me, they don’t own me, and they don’t belong to me. Why should I be concerned with them? I left these projects because I saw what was going to happen. The worst punishment I could ever dole out to the idiots who took over was to walk away and let them try to figure out how to maintain it without me beating them about the heads.
Funnily enough, these are working principles I learned in no small part from Ayn Rand, Harry Browne, etc, ie some of the same folk you all hail from philosophically.
I can understand some level of miffedness, but to the point where it’s the only thing you’re talking about? The House failed to veto SCHIP. Doesn’t that strike a chord anywhere? The latest edition of Hillarycare has hit the streets — less interesting than Max Raskin? The EU managed to get their icky constitution after all, in spite of the failed referenda — but no, Tex McRae doesn’t quite understand statistical significance, this makes him eville most vile.
It’s like, Salty spends so much of his time trying to prove the sheer irrelevance of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, the odd conglomeration of RP supporters in general and the bloggers at LRC specifically, that simply the amount of effort he’s putting into yelling about it *alone* shows just how relevant Salty thinks they are — whether they are or not in the outside world.
I’m trying really hard to understand you guys… Elucidate!
October 19th, 2007 at 06:45
duh! Failed to *override* a veto. I really should learn to proofread before I post. That, or finally realize I’m getting too old to pull working all-nighters effectively anymore…
October 19th, 2007 at 11:27
Jaq,
I was giving an abstract, non-literal possible answer to your question. I don’t think someone can divide their soul into parts and give them away or lose parts of them willingly or unwillingly. I was trying to put into words that kind of “attachment” people sometimes experience when spending a lot of time/energy with someone or something. For instance, when people spend a long time in a relationship with another person, and then get betrayed by that person and break it off, despite the betrayal many people continue to find themselves interested in news about the other person.
However, another explanation could be that RP, LRC and LvMI are incredibly influential within libertarian circles. As Charley knows that is mostly the type of person who reads his blog (and it’s the type of person he is), maybe it is just an attempt to do a good service by pointing out their errors. I know another conservative blogger who rips on Greg Mankiw all the time because the guy claims he is some kind of conservative economist, and as the other blogger points out he’s more like a socialist idiot as he has his economic principles thoroughly fuxored.
I don’t appreciate you talking down to me like I am a little child who talked out of turn, asshole. This is a public blog and more people read the comments (I, for one, do) than just Charley. You didn’t even specifically address him at the top of your comment. Even if you had, I still would’ve taken a stab at it, because you sound like a new reader around here and I am guessing you didn’t have the background info I provided. I regret doing so now because I didn’t expect to get attitude for trying to be helpful.
October 19th, 2007 at 15:16
Curious though … I’ve yet to see significant amounts of ad hominem spout forth from Raskin. Of all the formally catalogable fallacies, ad hominem annoys me most, since it’s the one that is easiest to avoid and noticably loudest.
and you mention that because why?
His conclusion may be a leap, but it’s not an olympic leap.
you’ve apparently missed the dual steps of the leap. to be significant, two things must be demonstrated: that those specific milfare recipients donated extra special amounts in comparison to non-milfare at similar (to those specific donors) “salary” levels, and that donations for ron paul were much higher than other candidates (and which ones). BTW, obama is hardly an antiwar candidate, as is being spun elsewhere on the LRC blog.
why do you continue to read that blog at all?
why do you think, smart guy? let’s hear your theories. make it make many, many paragraphs so i can snark back with similarly irrelevant pussified bullshit. apply your criteria globally or fuck off. yes, i know that might be difficult for you to understand.
maybe trying to understand “us guys” isn’t something you should spend your time on. i’ve said i’ll answer your scratch pad comment, and i will. if while i’m working on that you’re going to keep hacking at the same subject, it tends to slop the results all around.
frankly, i think you’re a stupid motherfucker. many of the questions you’re asking, the answers are self-evident to a thinker who’s not simply shouldering a miff. pisses me off there’s any pressure for me to explain my position at all. it’s common, however. you said you thought i was a rabid jizzlioni supporter. now, seriously, why sort of moronic asshole would conclude that from reading what i write? whatever kind, it’s a group you’re in.
at least you haven’t unleashed the usual dreck i hear: “salty, i know what you’re against, but what are you for?”
i’d be just as happy if people that foolish and unobservant, and people at your level of stupidity, don’t drop by.
so you can fuck or of not, of course. i’ll still answer your scratch pad comment, since — unlike many who claim to honor liberty — i don’t evade criticism or refuse to correct proven errors.
you ever find a clear or provable error in anything i say, i’m all ears and will address it. as for why i comment so much about lew’s various enterprises, that’s a subject you’ve about drilled into the ground without respect for me telling you already that i would answer. if it continues, i’ll simply refer back to this comment. not going to address it any further, piecemeal style.
October 19th, 2007 at 15:16
Taylor,
I find it hilarious that you feel you must resort to namecalling in the same sentence that you demand that I not treat you like a child.
I’m sorry I offended your apparently paper-thin sensibilities with my “attitude”. I never realized you were quite that hemophiliac, or I would have pulled that devastating punch.
Not all of life is a pissing contest, Taylor. I hope you realize that before you grow up.
And if this is how sensitive you can get to a “new reader” who has done very little but ask questions, I find myself asking … do I want to be a continuing reader? If this is a fair sample of what passes for debate around here, then I think perhaps not.
Buh-bye.
Oh, if it makes you feel better, you can go certainly ahead and post in the last retortive word. I shan’t be coming back around to read it.
October 19th, 2007 at 19:34
If this is a fair sample of what passes for debate around here,
ROFL. that from the same dickless trawnk who came up with this gem here.
maybe you should start calling people names, loser douche. can’t hurt!