What is the one key assumption in the waiter example? From that one assumption, I can prove that 1=0. And my argument will seem beautifully logical the whole way. Except, the axiom is standing on air. The true thinkers have a nose for bullshit, and when the conclusion smells, they start out by looking at the argument and making sure they didn't make a mistake. Working back from the conclusion to the premise is a good way to start.However, if they are certain the argument is air tight, the only thing left is the axioms.
Where is the mistake in this argument? (the two means squared) Code: x = y. Then x2 = xy. Subtract the same thing from both sides: x2 - y2 = xy - y2. Dividing by (x-y), obtain x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that 2 y = y. Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero. Subtracting 1 from both sides, 1 = 0.
All of this and you still have not directly addressed why in your opinion the waiter example demonstrates a flaw in critical thinking.
I don't know whether socialism would ever work our not. It's irrelevant. What I know is that leftism can never work. Their ideology goes against all laws of nature. There is no equality, anywhere, ever. There are tremendous successes and horrible failures throughout our individual lives, throughout our entire universe. That's how it works. It's in everything. There's no changing it. I would think that those who so strongly support evolution would be able to see the obvious. Must be ego to think that we mere mortals can change the very laws of all that we are, ever were, and ever will be, on this planet, or anywhere else.
Whether you go deductive of inductive the conclusions we are seeing have been flawed. The real issue is that most of what we see in the press and from politicians is binary cause and effect thinking. We need to be abductive... --- For instance tax cuts may decrease or increase revenue depending on a number of factors. The vast majority of lefties deny that tax deductions can a do sometimes results in revenue increases. We always see a ton of deductive and inductive reasoning when it come to tax cuts... Abductive Realty... in a system where govt borrows to spend money but the FED creates money independent of what the govt spends... revenues are almost always going to go up because the FED has created system inflation. Conclusion for those who think in systems and realize we have limited knowledge.. if revenues are going to rise anyway... why not cut taxes some more until revenues cease going up within a few years or isolate the FED variable and have them cease creating excess money for a few years to see if tax cuts hurt revenues. -- Now if you wish we can go over the same issues in other areas... say the impact of man made co2. Perhaps a more simple area would be the impact of increased labor supply on wages. A interesting one would be the impact of criminalizing marijuana on crime and urban communities or the impact of a govt handout cliff on upward mobility. Or the increase of wealth mal distribution on the 99.5 percent of tax payers... when you increase taxes. Or the impact of taxes on the ability of cronies to buy the govt.
Sanders on the attack Sanders: Clinton too willing to use U.S. military Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders unleashed a sharp attack on Hillary Clinton over foreign policy on Sunday, casting her as too eager to use U.S. military force and saying her family charity's acceptance of foreign countries' contributions could be a conflict of interest. The Vermont senator told CNN's Jake Tapper the former secretary of state is too quick to "rush in" and remove dictators and he criticized Clinton's approaches to Iraq, Libya and Syria... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy/index.html
The coronation of The Queen of the USA has started. Super-delegates; What a farce. The people hve not spoken until every ballot is counted. The real issue is just how weak a candidate Clinton is. Clinton will call Sanders Tuesday night ...In a response, the Sanders campaign said it was wrong to count the superdelegates - party leaders free to support either candidate - before they actually vote at the Democratic National Convention in July. "It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer," the campaign said. During the Maddow interview, Clinton called Sanders's quest to sway superdelegates "perplexing" and said her campaign is not lobbying them. "I find it perplexing. What he basically seems to be saying is that the will of the people should be overturned," Clinton said, noting that she has 3 million more votes than him. "That's hard for me to understand. The people have already spoken."... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-will-call-sanders-tuesday-night/ar-BBtWBSd?li=BBnb7Kz
But she wasn't wearing her crown jewels. Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06/hill...-jacket-during-a-speech-about-inequality.html
As I mentioned in the past, I like Sanders. I think he's a good guy who really wants to do right by his country. America could do a lot worse (think Orange). But Hillary Clinton is more qualified and realizes that successful change is more likely to be incremental. I was watching and listening to some of Bernie's supporters being interviewed on TV. While there were normal folks among them, I was taken aback by the level of crazy exhibited by a number of them. They seem to have been cut from the same cloth as their Trumpeteer counterparts; same cloth, different cut. That they would abstain from voting if Clinton is the nominee cements the premise. When Clinton inevitably does become the Democratic nominee, I trust that Sanders will do the right thing and heartily endorse her among his supporters.