You can't defeat an argument you do not understand.
It's not so much about not understanding it as trying to bring idiots around without being so condescending that it becomes alienating.
Well, that and the fact that most liberals/leftists/progressives are simply too polite and too keen on inclusivity to stop couching their arguments in politeness, social niceties, and tact.
Universal healthcare, which means, effectively, ZERO COPAY healthcare supported by tax dollars, is already working everywhere else in the first world. The arguments against are uninformed and fear mongering. The most valid thing anybody can come up with is "Waaaah there's a wait for certain surgical procedures" as if we have walk-in heart transplants in the US.
Anyone else ever feel like, sometimes, a forum member is posting as if they were talking to themselves? Anyway....
It looks like Boehner is asking the House for a short term debt ceiling increase (while keeping the government shutdown). (AP)
Notice he is "asking" the House, doesn't sound too confident.
Boehner has the votes. He just wants to make it seem like he's putting out this great effort so he has political points to score. It's all grandstanding.
Anyone else ever feel like, sometimes, a forum member is posting as if they were talking to themselves? Anyway....
It looks like Boehner is asking the House for a short term debt ceiling increase (while keeping the government shutdown). (AP)
Notice he is "asking" the House, doesn't sound too confident.
Boehner has the votes. He just wants to make it seem like he's putting out this great effort so he has political points to score. It's all grandstanding.
In terms of contraception, I'd much rather be forced to pay the upfront cost of providing no barrier (cost or otherwise) to access than the result of not having it available. Lack of contraception/abortion rights has a direct link with increased crime, welfare costs, and chances of the individuals living in poverty. Sure, it may not feel right to conservatives to pay for such things, but it's certainly more fiscally responsible than not providing free (as in beer and speech) access to such items.
You can't defeat an argument you do not understand.
It's not so much about not understanding it as trying to bring idiots around without being so condescending that it becomes alienating.
If you truly understand the other side's argument then you will also understand what forms the basis of the thought process behind their argument. Which in turn will help you defeat their argument in a way that makes sense to them and thus gives you a chance to persuade them to your point of view.
Saying the other side is crazy or ascribing their belief to something that is not part of their belief does everyone a disservice and only serves to exacerbate the disagreement.
For example stating that Republicans are against abortion because they hate woman and women's rights does not help move the argument further. All it does is make each party more entrenched and destroy any chance at a dialog. This is akin to Republicans saying that Democrats are for abortion because they hate babies. Neither view is correct.
While I can understand Muppets view that anything other than free constitutes a block for certain parts of the population I see our disagreement being akin to the classic glass half empty or half full argument. The difference here is that I am not looking at the glass in one static moment of time but I am instead looking at the glass over a period of time. If the glass was empty and water was just poured in half way I would state that the glass is half full because it's previous state was empty. The converse holds true if the glass was previously full.
Using that same logic I see anything that lowers the cost of health care as a way to increase access to health care. Just because there is still a cost does not make it blocked by my way of thinking. I can understand that to some anything other than free is just as bad as no cost reduction but I can't logically call it blocked access because I know that every time the cost comes down more people are now able to afford that health care. So to me access is expanding and not staying static or getting worse.
In this case understanding the other side's argument is akin to studying theology. It's an oubliette. It's a dead end. It's years of commitment for the sake of proving something that has already been objectively proven. It's a red herring and a waste of time.
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but it's like trying to teach physics, biology, and western morality to someone with their hand on the nuclear launch key. We don't have time for this shit anymore.
As much as you may refine your message, billionaires are expending the full force of their assets to hobble your efforts. We have social wedge issues in this country that are nearly a century old at this point, for this reason.
Steve, everything past your first paragraph is MOOT. The numbers contradict your beliefs. This is a solved problem. It's done. The US is the only western, first world hold out. Smarter people than you and I have rebutted all of your psuedo-moralistic crap.
Well, your morals can't be objectively contradicted, they're your morals. What can we do about that? Just point and laugh, really.
But your implied belief that there will be dire negative consequences of free healthcare, free birth control, etc... that's pretty much done for.
In the absence of dire consequences, you're left arguing that people shouldn't have it that way because you believe it's wrong. That's a thin platform to stand on, Steve.
Lay it out. In recent posts you seem to be saying that a nominal fee for birth control is not a burden. OK... so what? What is the utility of a nominal fee for birth control?
Lay it out. In recent posts you seem to be saying that a nominal fee for birth control is not a burden. OK... so what? What is the utility of a nominal fee for birth control?
I said a nominal fee is not the same as a block on access. I never said it was not a burden and I even acknowledged in this thread that a nominal fee can be a burden on a subset of the population.
Your position appears to be binary in nature. Either something is free or it is blocked. You do not appear to be willing to see the issue as anything other than an on/off switch while I see the issue as a dimmer switch. Am I seeing your position correctly?
My position on this single aspect of healthcare is pretty binary, yes. If it's not free, then it's blocked for *somebody*. It doesn't matter at all in my opinion how small that subset of people is. I don't think it should matter for anyone.
So, your argument is about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, essentially. You want to nitpick one tiny aspect of the entire thing... or have you got more?
My argument is that the issue is not binary and that to represent it as such only serves to exacerbate the divide.
This almost mirrors the problem between Obama and the Republicans regarding the ACA. Obama sees the ACA fight as a dimmer switch while Republicans see it as a binary switch. Obama is saying, "we can change what is not working" (adjust the switch) while Republicans are countering that we have to shut the light off entirely because of 'reasons'.
Dude, I'm rolling my eyes at you over here. I'm sorry, but I am. Nobody said the larger issue of universal healthcare is binary in this thread. There are lots of potential solutions, but in my opinion, any solution that leaves anybody out is a bad solution.
Again, this is a solved problem in the rest of the first world.
Dude, I'm rolling my eyes at you over here. I'm sorry, but I am. Nobody said the larger issue of universal healthcare is binary in this thread.
I didn't say the larger issue is binary. We are talking about a specific issue (birth control pills). Which is an issue that you are seeing as binary. An issue that is also a moot point because under the ACA insurance has to cover 100% (at least for the cheaper pills.)
I used an anaology to show you how wrong your binary thinking on this issue is. You are using Republican logic... You are ignoring the distance traveled because we have not yet arrived at the destination.
You're using euphemisms and not making a lick of sense.
I'm not arguing that broader access to medicine is not better. I'm arguing that anything less than universal access is not enough. I'm also arguing that anything less than full access is socially damaging.
You're the one seeing *my* position as binary in a broader sense than it is. I agreed that one thing about my position is binary: if it's not free, then it's blocked. Well, it IS.
We're not. You keep changing the scope with each comment. You argued that healthcare isn't a binary issue when I said that charging for birth control was, then you went back to birth control when that suited you, then back to the broader issue again. Go ahead, go read it back yourself.
In any case, I'm not sure what you're still driving for here. If birth control is not free, then it is exclusive. Do you disagree with that? If not, what are we arguing? If so, your trouble is the definition of English words.
And exclusive birth control has major implications for society. Negative ones. There's no coherent argument in favor of having birth control be exclusive.
And now, some stupidity from the general public AKA my facebook, regarding ACA/Obamacare Vs Medicare Australia(which it isn't equivalent to at all, which I'd pointed out earlier). Only edited to add formatting, because fuck's sake paragraphs dude.
" It is still socialism though, why do you thik we don't have a healthcare system? No one wants it lol It causes taxes to go through the roof which in turn causes prices, as in Australia, to go through the roof. I would rather stick to my 80 dollars a month health insurance rather than paying triple the price on everyday goods, cars, and houses."
"Look up the labor party, another name for it is the socialist democratic party. As for higher cost, yes the minimum wage is higher for retail workers, hamburger flippers, low class jobs in general make a lot more than people back home doing the same job. That is nothing to brag about, it just makes prices way more expensive than what they should be. Professionals make the same in both countries such as dentists, doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on but you can buy a whole lot more with that money you earned back home than what you can here.
When the AUD drops back down to its actual value (60 cents) then you all will be making alot less actually, but for right now it is the same across the careers that require a degree, in both countries.
Higher minimum wage for low class workers is nothing to be proud about, we just have to pay for it in everyday life. If people want to make alot of money then they should get a degree. I do not think it is fair for a business owner to have to pay somebody to flip their hamburgers for 20 dollars an hour. While my wife with two degrees only makes 24 dollars an hour. It is a socialist country, get over it.
While your at it, google the labor party and look in their constitution. It has socialist written all over it. I would prefer to pay my 80 bucks a month then have government healthcare and most Americans would agree with me, but I am glad you are proud of your system. IF that is the way Australians want it, then that's the way they should have it and not be so worried about other countries."
And exclusive birth control has major implications for society. Negative ones. There's no coherent argument in favor of having birth control be exclusive.
And now, some stupidity from the general public AKA my facebook, regarding ACA/Obamacare Vs Medicare Australia(which it isn't equivalent to at all, which I'd pointed out earlier). Only edited to add formatting, because fuck's sake paragraphs dude.
Next time can you edit for content next time? Or at least spelling and grammar? I didn't get past "thik"!
Comments
Well, that and the fact that most liberals/leftists/progressives are simply too polite and too keen on inclusivity to stop couching their arguments in politeness, social niceties, and tact.
Universal healthcare, which means, effectively, ZERO COPAY healthcare supported by tax dollars, is already working everywhere else in the first world. The arguments against are uninformed and fear mongering. The most valid thing anybody can come up with is "Waaaah there's a wait for certain surgical procedures" as if we have walk-in heart transplants in the US.
Saying the other side is crazy or ascribing their belief to something that is not part of their belief does everyone a disservice and only serves to exacerbate the disagreement.
For example stating that Republicans are against abortion because they hate woman and women's rights does not help move the argument further. All it does is make each party more entrenched and destroy any chance at a dialog. This is akin to Republicans saying that Democrats are for abortion because they hate babies. Neither view is correct.
While I can understand Muppets view that anything other than free constitutes a block for certain parts of the population I see our disagreement being akin to the classic glass half empty or half full argument. The difference here is that I am not looking at the glass in one static moment of time but I am instead looking at the glass over a period of time. If the glass was empty and water was just poured in half way I would state that the glass is half full because it's previous state was empty. The converse holds true if the glass was previously full.
Using that same logic I see anything that lowers the cost of health care as a way to increase access to health care. Just because there is still a cost does not make it blocked by my way of thinking. I can understand that to some anything other than free is just as bad as no cost reduction but I can't logically call it blocked access because I know that every time the cost comes down more people are now able to afford that health care. So to me access is expanding and not staying static or getting worse.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but it's like trying to teach physics, biology, and western morality to someone with their hand on the nuclear launch key. We don't have time for this shit anymore.
As much as you may refine your message, billionaires are expending the full force of their assets to hobble your efforts. We have social wedge issues in this country that are nearly a century old at this point, for this reason.
Steve, everything past your first paragraph is MOOT. The numbers contradict your beliefs. This is a solved problem. It's done. The US is the only western, first world hold out. Smarter people than you and I have rebutted all of your psuedo-moralistic crap.
But your implied belief that there will be dire negative consequences of free healthcare, free birth control, etc... that's pretty much done for.
In the absence of dire consequences, you're left arguing that people shouldn't have it that way because you believe it's wrong. That's a thin platform to stand on, Steve.
By all means, lay it out.
I feel like you have created a strawman.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/10/04/abortion.rates.plummet.with.free.birth.control
Your position appears to be binary in nature. Either something is free or it is blocked. You do not appear to be willing to see the issue as anything other than an on/off switch while I see the issue as a dimmer switch. Am I seeing your position correctly?
So, your argument is about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, essentially. You want to nitpick one tiny aspect of the entire thing... or have you got more?
This almost mirrors the problem between Obama and the Republicans regarding the ACA. Obama sees the ACA fight as a dimmer switch while Republicans see it as a binary switch. Obama is saying, "we can change what is not working" (adjust the switch) while Republicans are countering that we have to shut the light off entirely because of 'reasons'.
Again, this is a solved problem in the rest of the first world.
I used an anaology to show you how wrong your binary thinking on this issue is. You are using Republican logic... You are ignoring the distance traveled because we have not yet arrived at the destination.
I'm not arguing that broader access to medicine is not better. I'm arguing that anything less than universal access is not enough. I'm also arguing that anything less than full access is socially damaging.
You're the one seeing *my* position as binary in a broader sense than it is. I agreed that one thing about my position is binary: if it's not free, then it's blocked. Well, it IS.
Less blocked is good, but it is NOT UNblocked.
I have made no comment about your broader view because it is not under discussion.
In any case, I'm not sure what you're still driving for here. If birth control is not free, then it is exclusive. Do you disagree with that? If not, what are we arguing? If so, your trouble is the definition of English words.
I wonder who would be who?
" It is still socialism though, why do you thik we don't have a healthcare system? No one wants it lol It causes taxes to go through the roof which in turn causes prices, as in Australia, to go through the roof. I would rather stick to my 80 dollars a month health insurance rather than paying triple the price on everyday goods, cars, and houses."
"Look up the labor party, another name for it is the socialist democratic party. As for higher cost, yes the minimum wage is higher for retail workers, hamburger flippers, low class jobs in general make a lot more than people back home doing the same job.
That is nothing to brag about, it just makes prices way more expensive than what they should be. Professionals make the same in both countries such as dentists, doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on but you can buy a whole lot more with that money you earned back home than what you can here.
When the AUD drops back down to its actual value (60 cents) then you all will be making alot less actually, but for right now it is the same across the careers that require a degree, in both countries.
Higher minimum wage for low class workers is nothing to be proud about, we just have to pay for it in everyday life. If people want to make alot of money then they should get a degree. I do not think it is fair for a business owner to have to pay somebody to flip their hamburgers for 20 dollars an hour. While my wife with two degrees only makes 24 dollars an hour. It is a socialist country, get over it.
While your at it, google the labor party and look in their constitution. It has socialist written all over it. I would prefer to pay my 80 bucks a month then have government healthcare and most Americans would agree with me, but I am glad you are proud of your system. IF that is the way Australians want it, then that's the way they should have it and not be so worried about other countries."