BBC Blog Network

User Profile

strategycall

Listed below are comments made by strategycall between Friday, 18th September 2009 and Wednesday, 28th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Blair and the non-presidential campaign 4:05pm on 28 Oct 2009 Unfortunately for Blair, the job-selection criteria are likely to include
Honesty, Integrity, Demonstrable Ethics, Ability to Accomplish, Societally Directed, Democratic.

As opposed to a job-spec as invented by Milliband of
Able to ride around in a Motor-cade, Ability to lie to the People, Able to declare War and turn a blind eye to the Casualiites, Ability to rip up expense claims to avoid any future comebacks.

Blair falls short in some of the former Ethics driven criteria but gets a Full House on the latter Milliband criteria.

He is unsuitable.

In fact.... if the EU allows the appointment of any unelected person, then why Blair and not any of the other 600 million citizens ?

What is the EU actually saying to its voters 'Blair is the best we can do on integrity honesty etc'???

As an unelected representative (which is what Blair is), my claim for EU President is stronger than his claim, as I didn't lie to the People about WMD and then walk away and foist the consequences on the families of both sides.
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 10:21pm on 16 Oct 2009 update to #177

'Have a look at 38...'

That is meant to be 'schopenhauer strategem no38'
(not blog post #38)

regards
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 9:49pm on 16 Oct 2009 #173, DistantTraveller

I think the benefit of the article is to show the methods that others might use.
If the stratagems can be recognised then they can be counteracted.

Have a look at 38 and see if it is ever used on here; and if so, when and why.
And ask yourself is it meant to produce a distraction from the main argument.

To recognise distractions and false leads is part of the challenge.
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 3:08pm on 16 Oct 2009 DistantTraveller ref #170 and #167

If you do decide to follow the reading suggestion in #167 (fallacies), then an almost companion reading recommendation from me would be for Schopenhauer's 'The Art of being Right' ( his 38 ways to not lose an argument)

the outline is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

the content is here
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

AC Grayling does a neat little pocket sized book on it for about 6 or 7 quid - which incidentally is also on sale at the House of Commons bookshop. So by reading it, one can easily see the squirms and false arguments as practiced by our MP's.

Both fallacy-spotting and argument persuasion come under the general heading of Rhetoric and an easy-read, slightly quirky, general intro to practical Rhetoric is in Heinrichs 'Thank you for Arguing'- which is not a standard text-book by the way.
(10 or 12 quid ?)

If you do read both of the above, I can almost guarantee that you will watch all future interviews and statements from Politicians and the so-called Authority figures with eyes anew. Not too mention blog discussions.

All in all, modern Rhetoric makes for a fascinating subject in identifying manipulation of the people. So if you do read the above and subsequently get hooked on identifying good argument from bad argument, then the Cicero attributed second century text 'Ad Herrenium' which although might be mainly for the theorists, is not too bad an insight either.
(the last statement is a litotes btw)
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 1:15pm on 14 Oct 2009 Stephie,

I am with DJLazarus (#75) on this one in that the logical processes employed by your 'an economist' can be questioned, as follows

a) The fact that money is fungible is a given.
Fungibility is in the nature, the definition and the purpose of money.

From this it is not logical to leap to a conclusion that if money is fungible then we must ignore how the money was obtained or how the money was spent in relation to expense claims, as only size matters.

This is not a conclusion which could be based on any valid argument, syllogism or enthymeme.

The how and what of the expense claim is the real issue, not the fungible quality of money.

Therefore if one wishes to look at the validity of obtaining cash for expenditure, and if one wishes to look at the validity of retaining that cash....then one needs to look at the acceptability of the methods of obtaining that cash.

If the cause is justified then the reimbursement is allowable.
If the cause is unjustified then the reimbursement is not allowable.

Fungibility is a red herring in respect to validity of claim and therefore your 'economist' is guilty of presenting a misleading argument.

b) To test out the logic processes it is sometimes useful to insert similar elements into the logical process presented.

For example, the logic of your 'an economist' goes

Money is fungible
For things which are fungible, Economists and MP's state that we must ignore any values relating to acquisition or usage, as the quantity is the only consideration.
Therefore we must ignore any values as to method and usage in obtaining cash for claims.

(It is always considered as failed rhetoric when the argument is unconvincing and your 'an economist' has failed to convince)

However, using the logical structure of your economist and by transposing other items of fungibilty into the economist's logical processes, might give us for example

AK47 bullets are fungible items in an AK47 rifle
For things which are fungible, Economists and MP's state that we must ignore any values as to acquisition or usage, as the quantity is the only consideration.
Therefore..... (need I continue?)

The obtaining, possession, control and appropriate usage of the bullet is not dependent on the fungibility of a bullet.

Similarly, the validity of an expenses claim is not dependent on the fungibility of money.

Therefore the fungibility argument as presented by 'an economist' in relation to claims could be considered as somewhat squiffy.
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 2:30pm on 13 Oct 2009 #12 JJ

'Mushrooms are fungi. ;-)'

Quite right.
It is so writ in the MP's Secret Charter for expense claims regarding mushroom management in ripping-off the Populus.

Keep them in the Dark
Cover them with ample spreadings of Manure*
Pick the fruits of their labour Daily - or at every opportunity

*I would be prohibited from using the OED Anglo-Saxon technical term for Manure so...
...clue for crossword lovers- This might be dumped on your head by a flying pig or a flying cow (anagram)
(answers next week in the fraud section of the magazine)
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 1:01pm on 13 Oct 2009 ...and another thing Steph (following on from #9)

It might be that you and the generic 'an economist' misunderstand the difference between salary and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties.

Salary is for discretionary spending - 7 wall mounted TV's, etc

Necessary and allowable reasonable expenses are for ..well, necessary and allowable reasonable expenses in the performance of duties, as it says on the tin.

Anyone claiming that expenses are part of salary so spend it as you wish regardless of proper cause, is without ethics.
(didn't Blair propose that one ?)
Count it, don't follow it (redux) 12:43pm on 13 Oct 2009 Not really Steph, I think you (and 'an economist') have both got it skewed. It must lie in the thinking processes.

It DOES matter what the spend is on. It is ethically important.

For example, two MP's claiming the same total amount (say 20k).

MP A claims his money on proper and necessary and allowable and reasonable expenses.
MP B claims his 20k on 7 supersized wall mounted TV's scattered around the home (an 'allowable until now' but unreasonable and unnecessary spend).

Both claim 20k but only MP B is laughing at, and ripping off the Public with his 'vanity spend'- so he should be sent to Prison for robbing the People and possibly then hung drawn and quartered to avoid any future rip-offs.

So Economists might need to examine their underlying assumptions

and additionally, Economists evidently need to take a course in Ethical behaviour - so sign yourself quick and don't be swayed by their avoidance of responsibility in the real world.

ps And following on, if Economists discount ethical behaviour, then does robbing Banks seem like a sound business plan to Economists ????
What next from Economists - mug a Pensioner for a short term improvement in cash flow ?

If not - why not other than it is against the Law ?

Those economists you are keeping company with sound more and more like the irresponsible Bankers - 'it wasn't illegal to claim rip-off expenses and therefore we and the economists propose doing whatever isn't illegal'.
Not illegal but anti-societal.
Gotcha 8:30pm on 20 Sep 2009 This years Conference slogan from Balls and Brown will be

Education Cuts
Education Cuts
Education Cuts

personally I would rather hear

ex-Quango
ex-Quango
ex-Quango

but those are overflowing with Brown's money-grabbing appointees on monster salaries, so it makes sense to hit the education of the 'people' or 'masses' instead
(according to Brown).

Keep the bright ones down and in their 'place' whilst New-Lab jackboots over the populus.
No wonder Brown has ever 'every confidence' in his ever-erring ministers who support Laws and Principles which they then proceed to ignore.

They continue to benefit whilst the People are asked to pay more and more for the delivery of less and less.

Whither Justice for the commonwealth of the People ?
Gotcha 2:30pm on 18 Sep 2009 mrsbloggs13c2 (#127)

I would think the answer to your question is 'Yes'

Whereas JJ's #133 'response' as opposed to an 'answer' consists of

Read.... Then read.... Then look up.... Then look up....Then look up...
Then look up .... Then read....

(but the answer is still 'Yes')

So you are probably correct without the necessity to read any of 7 submissions on JJ's reading list

As others have indicated, he does have some difficulty in answering questions.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

strategycall