snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 31 January 2008, 06:57 PM
alanp
 
Posts: n/a
Default Father-Daughter Talk

I got this today from my sister in law. Can anyone help be craft a response to help me both a) discredit this analogy and b) discourage this kind of thing without hurting her feelings or making her angry?

Quote:
A Father Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year
of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to
be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather
staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the
lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a
professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil,
selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his
opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more
government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by
her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her
father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she
had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain,
insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was
constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party
like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a
boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she
spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is you
friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, " Audrey is barely getting by. All
she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a
2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's
always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even
show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't
you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA
and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will
both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's
suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have
worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and
a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off!"


The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
"Welcome to the Republican Party"
  #2  
Old 04 February 2008, 02:18 AM
Tantei Kid's Avatar
Tantei Kid Tantei Kid is offline
 
Join Date: 10 March 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,636
Teacher

Previous posts on this stinker mentioned how everyone would be giving up a tiny fraction of their GPA to help the unfortunate- not one person giving a whole point. There were other good arguments on the threads too.
  #3  
Old 04 February 2008, 03:06 AM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 5,852
Default

Oh yes, one of my least-favorite forwards. It's wrong on so many levels, I've lost count. For the purposes of this analogy, let's assume that there's no malfeasance or dishonesty on the part of anyone involved.

First of all, grades and money are in no way analogous. Grades are not apportioned out from some finite source, and there's no worry of depleting it if too many good grades are handed out.

This means that grades are given solely as a reward for good work. They're not exchangeable for anything, they're a representation of the work you've put in and the understanding you've acquired. If you acquire extra grades you didn't earn, it doesn't help you because it's a false representation of your ability to do the work. Therefore, there's no reason to give grades to someone else; it wouldn't do anyone any good and a whole lot of bad.

And I love how Audrey is so clearly portrayed as a useless loser who doesn't do any work. This is a common portrayal for conservatives about poor people. We don't have to help them; it's their own fault! All they need to do is work harder!

Except I don't know anyone on welfare who lives this way. The poor didn't start out on the same level as the rich, in contrast to Audrey and the unnamed star of this trainwreck. Nobody is poor and on public assistance just because they feel like it; poverty is a generational cycle, passed down from parent to child repeatedly. By making Audrey and the other girl students in the same year, at the same college, the author has set up a seriously flawed analogy. In this case, he's right; Audrey doesn't deserve better grades. But what does that have to do with poor people in the real world?

Finally, this is a side issue, but it bears mentioning. How can the author expect anyone to listen to him when this entire piece is so laden with smug, self-satisfied arrogance? The professors "self-professed objectivity," which is hung onto by the obviously-naive little freshman? Too bad she's not more practical and realistic, but I guess liberals are just dumb.

And then there's this little gem at the end:
Quote:
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
"Welcome to the Republican Party"
I can imagine this look being the same as what's on the author's face as he sits back from his computer, quite pleased with himself, thinking he's made some kind of Earth-shattering, irrefutable point. Wipe that pompous sneer off your pasty face until you've actually succeeded in making a point. Ass.
  #4  
Old 04 February 2008, 03:48 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,144
Default

You could send this back:

Quote:
A Father Daughter Talk

A middle aged man was about to finish his first year as a member of the senior management team of his company (with stock options as part of his salary package). Like so many others his age, he considered himself to be a very fiscally and socially conservative republican, and was very much in against the redistribution of wealth.

He was deeply ashamed that his daughter was a rather staunch democrat, a feeling he openly expressed. Based on the long business lunches that he had participated in, and the occasional chat with an executive vice president, he felt that his daughter had for years harbored an evil, socialist desire to take what he thought should be his.

One day he was challenging his daughter on her belief in higher taxes on the rich and the introduction of universal health care. The self-professed rationalism and ‘real world experience’ proclaimed by his management team had to be the truth and he indicated so to his daughter. She responded by asking how his company was doing in it expansion plans.

Taken aback, he answered rather haughtily that he had a 12% market share, and let her know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that he was working within a very difficult economic environment and was constantly cutting costs and investing in new technology, which left him no time to offer huge discounts like other companies he knew. He didn't even have time for a vacation, and didn't really have time to spend on his yacht or the golf course because he spent all his time working.

His daughter listened and then asked, "How is you friend Arthur doing with his business?"

He replied, "Arthur is raking it in. All he does is buy up smaller companies which are vulnerable to take-over, fire all the staff and outsource the labor overseas, producing what we produce at half the cost and taking our market share with slick advertising and shoddy products - he never works, and makes a mint. He is so popular with Forbes, business for him is a blast. He's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times he doesn't even show up at his office because he skiing in the Alps."

His wise daughter asked her father, "Why don't you go let him know your company is vulnerable to take-over and negotiate a deal for him to buy you out. That way you will both get a wad of money and certainly that would be a logical thing to do within a free-market economy."

The father, visibly shocked by his daughter’s suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be right! I have worked really hard to build up my company and I owe something to my colleagues and to our employees! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Arthur has done next to nothing to build or make anything meaningful. He played while I worked my tail off! The government should stop that kind of behaviour"

The daughter slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Democrats"
Dropbear
  #5  
Old 04 February 2008, 02:55 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigone201 View Post
Grades are not apportioned out from some finite source, and there's no worry of depleting it if too many good grades are handed out.
Actually there is. It's called grade inflation. If everyone does get a "A", then that "A" is worthless. So money and grades are analogous in that way.

Besides, they wouldn't give the 4.0 student's grade to a 2.0 student, that 2.0 student is still a "C" student (middle class). They would give the grade to the jock who is getting a 0.0 (i.e., welfare).

The student who now has a 3.0 is not as strongly hurt as the 0.0 moving to a 1.0.


ETA: and I would say the "smug, self-satisfied arrogance" cuts both ways.
  #6  
Old 04 February 2008, 04:17 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
Actually there is. It's called grade inflation. If everyone does get a "A", then that "A" is worthless. So money and grades are analogous in that way.

Besides, they wouldn't give the 4.0 student's grade to a 2.0 student, that 2.0 student is still a "C" student (middle class). They would give the grade to the jock who is getting a 0.0 (i.e., welfare).

The student who now has a 3.0 is not as strongly hurt as the 0.0 moving to a 1.0.


ETA: and I would say the "smug, self-satisfied arrogance" cuts both ways.
Yes, but the comparison of grades to quality of life is insulting in a way that "smug, self-satisfied arrogance" is not.

It does point out a rather interesting difference in philosophy, though, namely that the conservative mindset considers human life to be of no real importance when stacked against the maintainence of "personal property;" whereas the progressive mindset considers life first and personal property second.
  #7  
Old 04 February 2008, 06:55 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
It does point out a rather interesting difference in philosophy, though, namely that the conservative mindset considers human life to be of no real importance when stacked against the maintainence of "personal property;"
I wouldn't put it that way. They just feel it is not the government's job to do such things. It is the job of private charities. One should not be forced by the government to give up their hard earned property to help someone who is not willing to help themselves. If the person wants to give up their stuff voluntarily, that is a different matter (and a moral one).
  #8  
Old 04 February 2008, 06:57 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
I wouldn't put it that way. They just feel it is not the government's job to do such things. It is the job of private charities. One should not be forced by the government to give up their hard earned property to help someone who is not willing to help themselves. If the person wants to give up their stuff voluntarily, that is a different matter (and a moral one).
You disagree with the philosophy, though, right?
  #9  
Old 04 February 2008, 06:58 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post

It does point out a rather interesting difference in philosophy, though, namely that the conservative mindset considers human life to be of no real importance when stacked against the maintainence of "personal property;" whereas the progressive mindset considers life first and personal property second.
Ah, that explains why so many conservatives are pro-choice. Thanks for clearing that up.
  #10  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:00 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Ah, that explains why so many conservatives are pro-choice. Thanks for clearing that up.
It surprises me that more aren't.
  #11  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:02 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
You disagree with the philosophy, though, right?
Oh I feel there very much is a place for government intervention, both with carrots AND sticks. Maybe not as much as some others, but there are places.
  #12  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:04 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Ah, that explains why so many conservatives are pro-choice. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart View Post
It surprises me that more aren't.
That's where you get into the difference between social and religious conservatives.

And, of course, we haven't even covered the fiscal conservatives.....
  #13  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:09 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
I wouldn't put it that way. They just feel it is not the government's job to do such things. It is the job of private charities. One should not be forced by the government to give up their hard earned property to help someone who is not willing to help themselves. If the person wants to give up their stuff voluntarily, that is a different matter (and a moral one).

Then, in that case, they're deathly naive and need to come into firm contact with reality.
  #14  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:10 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought it was about fiscal conservatives.
  #15  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:10 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Ah, that explains why so many conservatives are pro-choice. Thanks for clearing that up.
No, but it does explain why so many conservatives are anti-choice.
  #16  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:11 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
I thought it was about fiscal conservatives.
"It"? What is "it?"

Communication often requires, well, communication. Vague pronouns aren't really communication.
  #17  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:20 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"It" is subject of the OP, and you were talking about, and Doug4.7 was talking about. "It"; the discussion, the point, the definitions being applied to "conservative"; were generally of a financial nature. I didn't see anything about "social" or "religious" in the discussion, only fiscal conservatives. "It" might (in this case) be more finely defined as "the point being attempted".
  #18  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:23 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
No, but it does explain why so many conservatives are anti-choice.
Well, actually it doesn't explain it because it isn't factual, it is an editorial gereralization based on stereo-types.

ETA: "It" in this post is not the same "It" in the previous one.

Last edited by Sly Dog; 04 February 2008 at 07:24 PM. Reason: clarification
  #19  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:25 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
"It" is subject of the OP, and you were talking about, and Doug4.7 was talking about. "It"; the discussion, the point, the definitions being applied to "conservative"; were generally of a financial nature. I didn't see anything about "social" or "religious" in the discussion, only fiscal conservatives. "It" might (in this case) be more finely defined as "the point being attempted".
So, in this case, you were referring to the OP. You might want to designate that next time.

Unclear pronoun reference suck, as we were taught in middle school or before.
  #20  
Old 04 February 2008, 07:29 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 23,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Well, actually it doesn't explain it because it isn't factual, it is an editorial gereralization based on stereo-types.
Have you ever come in contact with philosophy?

The philosophy of "personal property" being paramount, even over life, is indeed a major feature of "Conservative" philosophy.

That isn't an outlandish statement. It isn't even really contraversial.

That works with abortion in a pretty simple way. Under traditional Western mindsets, women and offspring are the property of some male (husband, father, brother, etc.). Though not currently manifested in our laws in such a bald manner, it's still a common cultural feature and is reflected in many areas of our society.

A woman's choice to abort violates ownership. Ownership of the woman and any potential offspring is more important than allowing a woman to make a choice based on her life and the quality thereof.

It's a pretty simple link.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.