Speakpigeon
Valued Senior Member
Many people think that retirement after a professional career opens the right to pension. However, what should be the basis for it exactly?
Thank you to try and contribute to untangle this issue through formal logical argument and only through formal logical argument.
A post in this thread has to offer one and only one argument at a time, for example:
You can't comment on, or reply to, other posters' arguments, but you can post alternative, modified, or redacted, arguments. To do so, you can re-use or re-cycle other posters' ideas, by referencing the origin of a premise or a conclusion.
Start with a short and straightforward argument. Don't try to make it a full thesis from the start.
When you think somebody else's premise is false, you can use its negation in your own argument:
When you think somebody's premise may be true but needs justification, you can offer an argument with this premise as its conclusion.
If you don't know how to justify it, use a dummy premise:
Use the proper American or English vocabulary (retirement plan, pension scheme etc.)
Use the right term to express the notion you have in mind: "retirement plan" or "retirement savings plan"?
I will only intervene to keep the debate going smoothly and conclude. After which you will be able to comment.
Thanks to all.
EB
Thank you to try and contribute to untangle this issue through formal logical argument and only through formal logical argument.
A post in this thread has to offer one and only one argument at a time, for example:
Joe lives in this country;
Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme;
Therefore, Joe should benefit for this country's pension scheme.
Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme;
Therefore, Joe should benefit for this country's pension scheme.
You can't comment on, or reply to, other posters' arguments, but you can post alternative, modified, or redacted, arguments. To do so, you can re-use or re-cycle other posters' ideas, by referencing the origin of a premise or a conclusion.
Joe lives in this country; (Jeeves)
Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
Therefore, Joe should benefit for the pension scheme.
Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
Therefore, Joe should benefit for the pension scheme.
Start with a short and straightforward argument. Don't try to make it a full thesis from the start.
When you think somebody else's premise is false, you can use its negation in your own argument:
Not anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (not wegs)
When you think somebody's premise may be true but needs justification, you can offer an argument with this premise as its conclusion.
(...)
Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
If you don't know how to justify it, use a dummy premise:
(Premise)
Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
Use the proper American or English vocabulary (retirement plan, pension scheme etc.)
Use the right term to express the notion you have in mind: "retirement plan" or "retirement savings plan"?
I will only intervene to keep the debate going smoothly and conclude. After which you will be able to comment.
Thanks to all.
EB