`<snip></unsnip>WELL DONE LEFTY'S - Deep six all those mom and pop stores as well as those start up businesses. The only one's left standing will be the large, evil corporations. :lamo So much for the law of unintended consequences!
Proof of what? Government regulation being burdensome on small business? Are you serious? :lamo`
Aside from the fact that the corporations are the worst enemies of the mom and pop stores, how about some proof? No?
Well, I have some proof to the contrary;
Proof That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Not Put Mom and Pop Stores Out Of Business
Opinion Poll: Small Businesses Support Increasing Minimum Wage
How a powerful rightwing lobby is plotting to stop minimum wage hikes | US news | The Guardian
ALEC strikes again! Who cares what city residents vote for! Race to the bottom and permanent poverty FTW
the issue is can states prohibit their cities from setting MW higher than state establishes.
Au contraire mon frere, many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. It's only us non-union schlubs who get screwed. It's no mystery who is behind the push for minimum wage hikes. Once again, lib policies hurt the people they pretend to care about.When minimum wage is raised, the prices for goods and services rise. This often results in minimum wage getting a raise but anyone already making above minimum wage does not, thus actually reducing the value of the wage that is paid. All raises in minimum wage hurt non MW workers and those on fixed income. A hike in MW causes inflation of costs to adjust, thus MW workers, though earning more, end up in the same economic position while others are dragged down as their wages devaluate.
circular logic detected.
`Proof of what? Government regulation being burdensome on small business? Are you serious? :lamo Allow me to retort:
I accept your resignation and inability to discuss the topic.`
All I needed to see in your first link was this phrase; "Research conducted by the Heritage Foundation in 2003 found..." The Heritage Foundation is so ideologically biased that the only people that take it seriously are conservatives and the TP. I'll pass.
Now, on the second think, under "About us" and "Advocacy" I found this: " Our mission is to defend the right of small business owners to run their businesses without undue government interference...." More right wing propaganda."
Please find sources like mine that are not associated with political ideology.
`I accept your resignation and inability to discuss the topic. No need to give up the subject twice. I get it. You can't discuss the subject without the fallacy of attacking the sources, both of which are small business focused. I'm sorry for your loss.
`
You don't understand what a fallacy is.
How a powerful rightwing lobby is plotting to stop minimum wage hikes | US news | The Guardian
ALEC strikes again! Who cares what city residents vote for! Race to the bottom and permanent poverty FTW
`Actually I do. Again, sorry you cannot discuss the topic without attacking the source, otherwise known as ad hominem. Here's a link for your education, since I'm expecting I will be teaching you going forward given your lack of basic understanding.Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source) - by Steve Watts - NewsvineNow... back to the subject at hand, do you have any factual verifiable evidence to dispute the links I've provided or shall you continue on with the senseless ad hominem attacks against the information and facts provided? Doing so could be considered trolling... which I would suggest you avoid.
`Actually I do. Again, sorry you cannot discuss the topic without attacking the source, otherwise known as ad hominem. Here's a link for your education, since I'm expecting I will be teaching you going forward given your lack of basic understanding.Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source) - by Steve Watts - NewsvineNow... back to the subject at hand, do you have any factual verifiable evidence to dispute the links I've provided or shall you continue on with the senseless ad hominem attacks against the information and facts provided? Doing so could be considered trolling... which I would suggest you avoid.
`
All I needed to see in your first link was this phrase; "Research conducted by the Heritage Foundation in 2003 found..." The Heritage Foundation is so ideologically biased that the only people that take it seriously are conservatives and the TP. I'll pass.
Now, on the second think, under "About us" and "Advocacy" I found this: " Our mission is to defend the right of small business owners to run their businesses without undue government interference...." More right wing propaganda."
Please find sources like mine that are not associated with political ideology.
`Pretty hilarious post from someone that used a labor organization and an Internet poll to "prove" his point.
`
It obviously doesn't take much to amuse you and as to your reading skills, I'm not a "his."
That's yes ANOTHER fallacy example - VERY GOOD! I never claimed you attacked my character I specifically stated and linked to ad hominem as an attack on the SOURCES provided. Apparently not only didn't you read my previous post, you ignored the link I provided which clearly states attacking the source as the problem. See, by you mischaracterizing my previous post, you've now created what is called a STRAWMAN fallacy - Congratulations! No, I never claimed you attacked my character... but you are now the only one claiming that and a nice strawman indeed.Paxaeon said:That's twice you are wrong. At no time did I attack you or your character.
Yet you provided no foundation for those questions other than the source itself. You provided no refutation of the claims in either link, only the source itself. Therefore, your logical fallacy problem. If you wish to refute a source, then you need to do so with verifiable evidence that is not just factual but convincing. When can I expect that happen? :lamoPaxaeon said:I questioned the accuracy, legitimacy, and bias of your sources.
It is if you provide legitimate verifiable evidence that contradicts the facts presented. It's not enough to simply state "Mother Jones" is a hack site (which it is) but the facts within the article have to be refuted in order to lend credibility to such an opinion. Because you cannot find a Steve C Watts on an internet search that states what you want it to state is not verifiable evidence.Paxaeon said:Evaluating an opponent's sources (Evaluating Internet Research Sources) is an inherent and legitimate facet of argumentation, whether you accept that or not. Rather than defend the "Heritage Foundation" as an unbiased source, you are crying that I am attacking you (ad Hominem), which in itself is a "red herring".
Actually this is about the REAL topic at hand, which you may not have noticed is, Minimum Wage hikes.Paxaeon said:This isn't "all about you" or your character or beliefs. It's about providing unbiased facts, from objective, legitimate and credible sources in an argument. Your failure to adequately prove your thesis by misdirecting my arguments is your problem, not mine.
I don't want a minimum wage hike. I'm making above minimum, and raises would put me back on minimum wage. How does that benefit me?
LOL Why does it matter to you whether what you make is minimum wage or not? You still make the same money. You also will be more likely to get a raise if the minimum is raised to what you make now.
`
It obviously doesn't take much to amuse you and as to your reading skills, I'm not a "his."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?