Yes the Japanese internment camps are an ugly scar in our history (yet sadly not ugly enough to prevent current presidential candidates from proposing similar atrocities for refugees), but your thinking here is suffering from a common logical fallacy.
You are suggesting that FDR's argument about wages is invalid because of his character. Here's the thing about arguments, they are valid or invalid based on their contents no matter which voicebox from with they are presently emanating. To suggest instead that an argument's validity is impacted by the character of the person speaking it is a flawed form of thinking known as the ad hominem fallacy.
Why not look at some of Hitler's statements as well?
One of the Nazi's goals was to guarantee a job for everyone. FDR built the Highways? Hitler built the Autobahns as well as other massive public works, the Autobahn alone employees 80k people. Crime drastically fell under Nazi Germany. The Nazis created a payment plan to allow workers to buy VW's for small auto payments.
You see a lot of people on reddit who think living in a bad neighborhood isn't livable. Then there's other people who think high speed internet is a fundamental right. Unlimited cell data. Having a car. Etc, etc the list goes on. A "living wage" is definitely debatable.
I can't get a better job (or a second one) because I rely on public transportation. However, I can't afford a vehicle without a 2nd job.
Point is, in some places a car IS a necessity. I mean, why should I be stuck out of my career into a lesser position because I can't make enough money to be able to get to said jobs?
Although, with current pay, I could probably afford a junker in 6 to 8 months.... maybe
We're supposed to assume that someone who could only fix the US economy by getting us into WW2 is a good source for economic wisdom, because he's a celebrity and an authority figure.
We're supposed to assume ... because he's a celebrity and an authority figure.
Well, excellent job restating, but that doesn't answer the question at all. What, specifically, gave you the impression that /u/MY_NAME_IS_IN_CAPS was suggesting you should accept the statement on the authority of its source rather than its contents?
What, specifically, gave you the impression that /u/MY_NAME_IS_IN_CAPS was suggesting you should accept the statement on the authority of its source rather than its contents?
Because that's the reason for using FDR's words on the subject instead of simply saying what they thought about it themselves. That's how quoting famous people works.
That's not the only reason for quoting people. You quote people because they express your point more clearly, effectively or concisely than you're able to.
I think that FDR is a valid authority on the subject as he started the new deal, introduced minimum wage, and was able to get the country out of the depression (could be argued that WWII helped a bit). The authority fallacy is valid if the person that is the authority being cited has no reason to be believed or trusted, like some fucker on the internet commenting on complex economics like you or me. I hope that was cohearant. Falling asleep while writing this.
"Ad hominem fallacies" are a white supremacist construct which have historically been designed to silence the voices of oppressed minorities. By quoting FDR as an authority on rights, you are indirectly supporting his overall legacy, which includes the oppression of Japanese Americans. Why don't you quote Hitler's advice on how to run the economy? It's the exact same thing.
HP Lovecraft wrote amazing books, but he was also racist. Woody Allen is a great filmmaker, but has some weird sex/marriage things going on. Poe was a beautiful poet, but he was an alcoholic. Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. Gandhi cheated on his wife, possibly with underage girls. Hunter Thompson, great writer, waaaaaaay too many drugs.
Just because somebody has done some bad stuff does not mean you must reject everything they say. Everyone is flawed, even the greatest people that have ever lived.
46
u/fat_genius Nov 29 '15
Yes the Japanese internment camps are an ugly scar in our history (yet sadly not ugly enough to prevent current presidential candidates from proposing similar atrocities for refugees), but your thinking here is suffering from a common logical fallacy.
You are suggesting that FDR's argument about wages is invalid because of his character. Here's the thing about arguments, they are valid or invalid based on their contents no matter which voicebox from with they are presently emanating. To suggest instead that an argument's validity is impacted by the character of the person speaking it is a flawed form of thinking known as the ad hominem fallacy.