Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

An up front 18k demand is not the same as an 18k amount amortised over many years. Rationally of course they're the same (given a suitable adjustment for interest and inflation), they're perceieved different as often you wouldn't have the cash today.

They aren't the same at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

I just don't think you can compare tuition fees with our hypothetical 18k demand.

Ha!

I'm about to take my new trouser for their first ride.

Ha!

You've lost me now ?

I'm about to take my new trouser for their first ride.

You've lost me now ?

I'm going out on my bike wearing my new trouser.

They aren't the same at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

I meant that an amortised payment that NPV'ed to 18k was rationally the same as 18k today.

You've lost me now ?

I think that's happened before now.

There is a fundamental incongruence taking place here. I don't have any more energy to throw at explaining a throw-away comment (which, to keep everything in perspective, was, the students are one of the most vocal and angry groups because they are a group that is taking it harder than most - if other groups were asked to take a financial hit like they are about to, and receive no benefits for it, they would be just as pissed off).

I wouldn't lightly dismiss that as a straw man.

The straw man is the "They are not horrible little greedy monsters that should shut up and do what they're told." line.

I don't think peppering the conversation with this kind of stuff really helps when no one has said anything of the sort, it just kind of colours things in badly.

For me the implication is that this is something being levelled against your opponent's argument - plus having the paragraph start with an unambiguous reference to me runs the obvious risk of attribution. (intended or not).

horatio's main point from the last few pages: that it's reasonable for students to protest given what they see as happening to them.

He might well be right, I don't really know enough about that side of things to comment.

I'm going out on my bike wearing my new trouser.

It's 'bikes'.

I'm going out on my bikes wearing my new trouser.

The straw man is the "They are not horrible little greedy monsters that should shut up and do what they're told." line.

I don't think peppering the conversation with this kind of stuff really helps when no one has said anything of the sort, it just kind of colours things in badly.

You misunderstood me. That had nothing to do with you and everything to do with my original point. It was a response to Vinylvillain, who initiated the whole conversation with this:

I think if the student leaders had condemned the violence, they would have retained a lot more public sympathy. Everyone is getting hit by cuts at the moment, yet you dont see people lobbing bricks at the police, smashing up public buildings and defacing national monuments.

You misunderstood me. That had nothing to do with you and everything to do with my original point. It was a response to . . . . .

I see.

I could have made that clearer perhaps, but I did reference the fact that this was my original point:

*I've made my point, and I believe I'd made it clear for anyone to read*. The students are getting a bum deal, they're pissed off about it. Just like other people would be. They are not horrible little greedy monsters that should shut up and do what they're told.

Anyone who was to go back would see that it all began with VV, and my response (original point) to him.

tynan, fair enough to defend your position, but i think the dissonance you felt at horatio's emotional characterisation of what he felt he's arguing against is more a sign that you've been arguing past each other (and maybe him attempting to make that obvious) than him trying to smear you with an opinion you don't hold.

The imposition of a mandatory, non-optional and immediately payable (regardless of income) bill of 18k for no discernible reward with the threat of imprisonment for non-payment would, without a doubt, see people take to the streets.

I think we can all agree on that.

And so would such a bill of 18k paid of a period of years, in my opinion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

tynan, fair enough to defend your position, but i think the dissonance you felt at horatio's emotional characterisation of what he felt he's arguing against is more a sign that you've been arguing past each other (and maybe him attempting to make that obvious) than him trying to smear you with an opinion you don't hold.

I know what he is arguing against, he has stated it clearly, I have said I understand his point in response to him restating it.

Question for you: Did you like Margaret Thatcher as a politician ?

And so would such a bill of 18k paid of a period of years, in my opinion.

I understand that is your opinion.

It may be crap notation, but you're obviously meant to see the > as an arrow and read it as 'to', so the whole label reads as a range. Replace the > with < and it still wouldn't make sense as a label. 10,000<your income<20,000 might appease you but would be rather unwieldy.

i see what you mean by the arrow now and obviously i'm the odd one out for not seeing that in the first place. i just thought the way i wrote it was fairly standard. anyway, point taken. i'll withdraw to my world of semantics now ;)

@ tynan. no.

@ tynan. no.

Would you say she was attractive (not now, but during her reign of terror) ?

Seriously though, it's like reading one of Plato's dialogues. You know he's going somewhere with his line of questions, but you just don't know where!

I'm happy with either.

This thread doesn't have enough Straw men:

I've got your card marked Tynan, pretending to be Pluto for your own nefarious ends…

This is absolutely true. Discussions will often morph into something else completely, with two people still taking their sides, even though they never meant to argue about such-and-such thing, and may not even believe what they've been led to argue about. This cool little trick is often used by people on purpose. Most famous of them was Socrates. Because of it, he got the reputation of a gadfly and was put to death by Athens. In this situation, you're reminding me a bit of a gadfly, Tynan.

Mark, I think by all contemporary interpretations of what happened, it really wasn't so simple and this way of summarising the situation also borrows heavily from the 'literary Socrates' (the 'gadfly' seems to be a Platonic image; I myself suspect that Socrates never quite had such a massive political importance other than through having taught Plato, who was from one of the most influential families, and who was clearly profoundly shaken by Socrates' execution). I can't pretend to be an expert in the huge industry surrounding the 'real Socrates' and the 'literary Socrates', but I'd advise steering clear.

It is true that Socrates' argument patterns are sometimes are shown by Plato as unnecessarily confrontational, fallacious, or otherwise problematic, but on the whole they are so varied as to paint a very complex picture, and there are plenty of aggressive, ridiculous, side-tracking, pompous, and other argument-patterns deployed by his interlocutors.

And it's 'tynan' with a small 't', FBMMFS.

I've got your card marked Tynan, pretending to be Pluto for your own nefarious ends…

That's a cartoon dog. We were talking about Straw men. You're just trying to introduce this as a straw man.