LESSONS IN APPLIED LOGIC: Equivocation, Bias and Omission in the Debate over Income Inequality

One of the biggest problems I have with those who complain about income inequality is the fallacious way they construct their arguments.  They intentionally construct their argument so that their conclusion is the only one the audience can be expected to make (fallacy of confirmation bias) they often try to deceive their audience by equating things that are not equal (fallacy of equivocation); and they never explain the other side of the issue(s), let alone admit to the objections to their arguments.  One of the most recent examples of this practice is illustrated in a YouTube video that has been going around the Internet titled “Wealth Inequality in America:”

There is so much wrong with this video, but you can get the idea by watching and listening to the explanation in this video (it is an excellent and devastating critique of the ‘inequality’ argument):

Now, you are free to believe whatever you want, but not if you want to hold beliefs based in logic and sound reasoning.  If you want people to consider you to be a rational, reasonable person, then you are no longer free to believe whatever you want.  You must have a philosophy based in logic and sound reasoning or the proper application of the rules governing logic (right reasoning).  The people who are trying to make the argument that income inequality represents some sort of comment on American society are not practicing the principles of right reasoning.  In fact, they are intentionally misusing those principles.  This is what the first video represents: bad reasoning.  But the second video, while still leaving room for a moral discussion on this issue, demonstrates the proper application of logic.  As a result, the second video takes the same information that was available to the people who made the first video but the second video paints an entirely different – and much more accurate – picture of the real world.

This is what you really have to decide: will you believe whatever you ‘fell’ like believing or will you do your best to believe the best understanding of reality you can find?

5 responses to “LESSONS IN APPLIED LOGIC: Equivocation, Bias and Omission in the Debate over Income Inequality

  1. Richard M Nixon (Deceased)

    Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.

  2. I know that 16,000 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 80% of Americans and if you have $277,000 in savings you’re part of that 80%.

      • re: “and the people who vote for politicians who promise to take from others and give to them can also be part of that corruption ;-)”

        Agreed, 35 years of Reaganomics stealing wealth from the middle class and handing it over to the banksters is proof that the GOP (and a lot of Dems) are completely corrupted.

        The pendulum swings, and every few generations lessons have to be relearned. Our forefathers fought and died to break up the trusts and we’ve allowed them to reform, forgetting the lessons.

        16,000 Americans = 250,000,000 Americans? That’s a recipe for disaster.

        • please, put this ‘Reaganomics’ lie to rest. The banker theft started under PROGRESSIVES in the early 1900’s. That makes it the work of people who think in Communist/Socialist terms — NOT the free market, as Reagan did.

          Also, there was no ‘middle class’ in this country until the Progressives (America’s term for Communist/Socialist). Before that, Americans did not think in terms of class. We aspired to be businessmen, and we did not begrudge the successful; we sought to be among them.

          As for who the thieves are, they are lawless people. They are not JUST Republicans, but also — in fact — more so Democrats.

          But I will agree with you about trusts, and I’d even add corporations to the mix. But, once again, it is more a matter of lawlessness. By creating artificial entities so that people could get around the law and shield themselves from responsibility, ALL Parties have acted lawlessly — but only IF we are talking about Natural Law. Otherwise, everything has been done by the letter of the laws of men, in which case, we cannot complain as we allowed it all to happen. Nay, the majority of us actually voted for people who made it happen simply because they promised to give us someone else’s bread. Now, if we allow our own greed to blind us to what is right and wrong, who are we to complain if we elect people who enslave us? After all, we were seeking to enslave those we thought had to much, ourselves. So all we’re getting is what we intended to do to others.

          In a very real sense, this is its own form of justice.

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