Comparing the stimulus pieces to ones diet trends is off base. Reason be, you are associating "fat and cholesterol" with fiscal spending, and associating "salads" with tax deductions. In a zero bound interest rate environment, tax cuts will definitely have a negative multiplier effect due to deflationary fears (lack of monetary velocity). It is for this reason alone that fiscal spending is more effective in this environment, it begins to stimulate monetary velocity.
If anything, you should reverse your roles between salad and fatty foods
Congratulations, you took an analogy in a literalistic sense and attempted to debate it on its literallistic rather than symbolic association. You may as well be saying "You can't compare the two because ones food and ones money" with your argument.
The statement remains the same. Stating that someone believes OVERALL that something has failed/is ugly/is bad/doesn't work/etc does not constitute the belief that
everything within it is will fail in
every way that it could ever be tried.
I'm done dealing with OC, as he's reduced to a point of giving no actual attempt to debate or counter an actual argument, instead grabbing onto your strawmans or just outright ignring things while stomping his feet repeating his claim over and over again that strikes against all logic and common sense, let alone reasoned objectivity. Yet he did give a potential good example
If I see a painting, and contained within that painting are the colors Red, Blue, and Yellow, and I say “That painting is utterly and completely ugly”. Does this somehow mean then that, based on me finding the entire Sum of the Parts ugly, that I must now find ugly from here until eternity each of the various parts that made up that picture? Because it included Red, Blue, and Yellow…and because I found that picture completely ugly…does that mean the next time I see a picture that is predominantly using the color blue that I somehow much immediately ALSO think that is completely ugly? Could it not be the WAY in which the colors were used? Could it not be the WAY in which the colors played off of each other? Could it not by the way one color overwhelmed the other that could’ve had a chance to be pleasing to the eye, but its overwhelming nature condemned the whole thing to be a monstrosity? Are you telling me that no, somehow, someway, because I found the picture made of those three colors ugly I therefore must find those three colors ugly in
EVERY use of them?
The unparrelled ignorance, and arrogance, in stating the notion that one cannot believe that a specific plan...the entirety of the plan, the way it was handled, the way it has worked, the way it plays off each other, and its OVERALL EFFECT...is an abject failure but that individual PRINCIPLES found within that plan can actually work and function in other aspects if done in a different manner, in conjunction with a different set of situations, or in a manner that is varied from the way it was done.
Essentially, what you and more precisely he is saying, is that one may not judge something based upon the Sum of its Parts but that
everything must be judged by its individual parts lest you be unable to
ever use said part again.
That’s abject stupidity. It strains reality or any form of credibility.
To believe that to be true one must actually come to believe that there is only one way and one way only to give "tax cuts" of any form, to believe that other actions in conjunction with "tax cuts" have
ZERO affect on their viability, that a programs NET gain cannot be rightly measured and that a piece of legislation...or anything else for that matter....cannot be judged AS A WHOLE while also being able to separately speak about its individual parts of principles.
This can go on, and on, through all works of life. The Detroit Lions were the worst football team ever in 2008. They were a complete, and utter failure. That TEAM was horrible, the worst of its kind. And yet, Calvin Johnson is an amazing player, with great skill, and talent. As a singular entity, Calvin Johnson could be very much a success. But as a portion of a larger entity, he is included in that abject failure because when you judge the SUM of that team it was an abject failure.
I believe St. Anger to be an abject and complete failure on the part of Metallica. An atrocious album that is a slight upon their amazing and vast musical library. That said, if I took a particular song…say St. Anger…complete on its own or perhaps as a song on another of their CD’s I could perhaps acknowledge it as being a decent song. However, when part of a whole…as part of the entire album, and more the entirety of their musical selection…the album is an abject, complete, musical failure.
TV? Back to You was a sitcom that had Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton as the stars. It was an incredibly boring and unfunny show, poorly written and subpar acting due to seemingly very poor chemistry from the bit I watched it (and judging on how quickly it went off the air). And yet, individually, both Grammer and Heaton have shown in the past and current in the case of Heaton that placed in a different environment, in a different situation, that a different result can occur.
Hell, overall, I feel the Bush Administration's entire run in office was rather poor. By stating that does that somehow mean that I must believe
EVERYTHING he did was poor? Does that mean I can't be in favor of certain things he did, actually very much like some things he did, but believe that OVERALL it was a poor administration?
Yet how is me saying "The Bush Administration's run in office was poor" but thinking say, his THEORY behind the majority of the patriot act was good, any different than saying "The Obama Stimulus is a failure" while believing the theory behind tax cuts to stimulate the economy is good?
I can go on, and on, and on. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to sit here and watch people try, with a straight face, to state that it is absolutely, completely, impossible to state that a particular thing that encompasses many other parts is bad/failure/ugly/etc while thinking that individual parts of it in a different situation could be good. There is absolutely nothing illogical, nor hypocritical, in believing that a specific thing is ultimately bad while believing that some of the things found within it….if done in a different way, or in conjunction with different things, or even attempted at a different time…could be a success.
