We support the separation of church and state, but do not endorse candidates or parties.The DNC Convention. Discuss
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I checked a few times and it had appeared this was a dead topic.
Apparently you want to get the last word and don’t mind creating an echo chamber as long as you can have your way.
The Cato Institute is a biased source.
One should not trust a biased source.
One should not trust The Cato Institute.
To spell this out for you, it is an ad hominem to insist there is bias and then refuse to prove that any point being made is incorrect.
Ad hominem means “argument against the man” which is exactly what you are doing. Rather than disprove the point I, or they, are making you would rather attack us. In my case, it is more direct, you insult and degrade me with your typical derisive sneers. In their case, you call foul and claim bias (and don’t prove it).
You have no principles. Either prove that the statement is false, or don’t. But don’t resort to a strategy of ad hominem attacks and expect that any intelligent person is not going to see right through your “argument.”
P.S. The CATO Institute is a libertarian think tank. There is a difference between the meanings of libertarian and Libertarian. As for being able to tell which is which, I’ll leave that exercise to you.
So your blathering about forcing “everyone to pay into everyone else’s medical costs” is mute [sic] then isn’t it.
The word is “moot.” I guess that’s what your education amounted to.
You (supposedly) possess college education but you use middle school vocabulary and an have an elementary school grasp of debate. Worse, when you are losing arguments you respond with elementary school insults.
As for your comment,
The only remaining question, for most of us, is how best to deal with the high costs of taking care of those that have no insurance because the cost gets passed on to all of us. So how do we do that?
We don’t. We repeal all of the laws that are preventing competition for medical insurance. If the government did not create this problem to begin with by setting up tax benefits for group insurace plans (forever tying insurance to employment and creating all kinds of problems – like gaps in coverage when you are unemployed) we would not have this mess to begin with.
Insurance would be a lot more affordable if insurance companies had to compete for customers, rather than compete for corporate accounts. Why do you support a law that takes away your ability to individually choose your own insurance provider?
Nuclear Nads,
I said in my post that I was going to get trashed. To accuse me basically of presenting myself as a messiah, since I did no such thing, would basically be an admission that that you had no logical or relevent response to my line of reason. I have downloaded your impotent response, cropped it, and posted it on my wall of shame. Now your high school buddies can take this response and shove in cavities already stretched by each others strap ons.
I said in my post that I was going to get trashed. To accuse me basically of presenting myself as a messiah, since I did no such thing, would basically be an admission that that you had no logical or relevent response to my line of reason.
Huh? Where did I make a claim that you were presenting yourself as a messiah?
I have downloaded your impotent response, cropped it, and posted it on my wall of shame.
I think I’m going to cry – I have a fan! Maybe I’ll start an emo diary and write some shitty poetry about how liberals hate me. Would you post that on your wall too?
I’m not really sure if you meant “impotent” or “impudent.”
Now your high school buddies can take this response and shove in cavities already stretched by each others strap ons.
I can’t really think up a retort for this that doesn’t sound homophobic, and homophobia isn’t counted among my flaws (thankfully).
All I am left with is that I can comment on your style. That’s some vivid imagery, though a little low-brow for humor (I imagine that’s where you were headed – I am trying to be optimistic), don’t you think?
What does it have to do with atheism or any of my points?
To spell this out for you, it is an ad hominem to insist there is bias and then refuse to prove that any point being made is incorrect.
My syllogism was valid. You just don’t like the premise that Cato is bias. Do you see now why your beloved fallacies are nothing more than arbitrary rules for argumentation? Are you claiming that your rules of argumentation are self evident. Nothing is self evident outside of the minds of religious fanatics, Or are yopu claiming that these rules of yours derive logically (classical logic) from self evident premised. There are none. You are a mental midget. Want more proof. Here ya go.
We don’t. We repeal all of the laws that are preventing competition for medical insurance. If the government did not create this problem to begin with by setting up tax benefits for group insurace plans (forever tying insurance to employment and creating all kinds of problems – like gaps in coverage when you are unemployed) we would not have this mess to begin with.
All major studies show that if insurance companies were free to reject whoever they wanted to (your repeal would allow this) then at least 15 percent of Americans could not afford insurance and whats more that 15 percent would be the same fifteen percent that presently accounts for the majority of medical expenditures. This would result in a larger percentage of americans getting their care through the ER.
Really man YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
See my more current post about mental midgets that criticize spelling and grammar on blogs.
It was fun playing!
It is clear that your brain is not cut out for this logic thingy.
You (supposedly) possess college education but you use middle school vocabulary and an have an elementary school grasp of debate.
Is that one of them their ad d homoneme attacks you bean talk’n on.
Bachelor degrees in Math and Chem, M.D. and a Ph.D. in physics. Thank you very much.
I was a street fight’n kid that grew up in a neighborhood where one considered themselves lucky to have survived to age 21. So I didn’t have much interest in school. That all changed at age twenty one – longer story. After deciding that my life must change I went back to school where I very quickly caught up and then overtook all others. The rest is history.
So you’re right. The roughness around the edges from my unconventional youth still shows a bit. But hey despite my rough edges I have smoothly disassembled your nonsensical understanding of the US health care imperative.
Chalk up another for the highly educated street fighters.
I apologize for equating you with people who ream each other with strap ons. They must be extremely insulted. I don’t blame them. If I had a strap on I wouldn’t want to be connected to you either. My most sincere apology.
And you’re correct, it has nothing to do with free thinkers, nor has most of the posts you have made so far. Patiently we wait for you to be relevent.
Nothing but silence from Atomic. How telling.
I checked a few times and it had appeared this was a dead topic.
Apparently you want to get the last word and don’t mind creating an echo chamber as long as you can have your way.
To spell this out for you, it is an ad hominem to insist there is bias and then refuse to prove that any point being made is incorrect.
Ad hominem means “argument against the man” which is exactly what you are doing. Rather than disprove the point I, or they, are making you would rather attack us. In my case, it is more direct, you insult and degrade me with your typical derisive sneers. In their case, you call foul and claim bias (and don’t prove it).
You have no principles. Either prove that the statement is false, or don’t. But don’t resort to a strategy of ad hominem attacks and expect that any intelligent person is not going to see right through your “argument.”
P.S. The CATO Institute is a libertarian think tank. There is a difference between the meanings of libertarian and Libertarian. As for being able to tell which is which, I’ll leave that exercise to you.
The word is “moot.” I guess that’s what your education amounted to.
You (supposedly) possess college education but you use middle school vocabulary and an have an elementary school grasp of debate. Worse, when you are losing arguments you respond with elementary school insults.
As for your comment,
We don’t. We repeal all of the laws that are preventing competition for medical insurance. If the government did not create this problem to begin with by setting up tax benefits for group insurace plans (forever tying insurance to employment and creating all kinds of problems – like gaps in coverage when you are unemployed) we would not have this mess to begin with.
Insurance would be a lot more affordable if insurance companies had to compete for customers, rather than compete for corporate accounts. Why do you support a law that takes away your ability to individually choose your own insurance provider?
Nuclear Nads,
I said in my post that I was going to get trashed. To accuse me basically of presenting myself as a messiah, since I did no such thing, would basically be an admission that that you had no logical or relevent response to my line of reason. I have downloaded your impotent response, cropped it, and posted it on my wall of shame. Now your high school buddies can take this response and shove in cavities already stretched by each others strap ons.
NeoWolfe
Huh? Where did I make a claim that you were presenting yourself as a messiah?
I think I’m going to cry – I have a fan! Maybe I’ll start an emo diary and write some shitty poetry about how liberals hate me. Would you post that on your wall too?
I’m not really sure if you meant “impotent” or “impudent.”
I can’t really think up a retort for this that doesn’t sound homophobic, and homophobia isn’t counted among my flaws (thankfully).
All I am left with is that I can comment on your style. That’s some vivid imagery, though a little low-brow for humor (I imagine that’s where you were headed – I am trying to be optimistic), don’t you think?
What does it have to do with atheism or any of my points?
Atomic
Take a class in logic.
My syllogism was valid. You just don’t like the premise that Cato is bias. Do you see now why your beloved fallacies are nothing more than arbitrary rules for argumentation? Are you claiming that your rules of argumentation are self evident. Nothing is self evident outside of the minds of religious fanatics, Or are yopu claiming that these rules of yours derive logically (classical logic) from self evident premised. There are none. You are a mental midget. Want more proof. Here ya go.
All major studies show that if insurance companies were free to reject whoever they wanted to (your repeal would allow this) then at least 15 percent of Americans could not afford insurance and whats more that 15 percent would be the same fifteen percent that presently accounts for the majority of medical expenditures. This would result in a larger percentage of americans getting their care through the ER.
Really man YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
See my more current post about mental midgets that criticize spelling and grammar on blogs.
It was fun playing!
It is clear that your brain is not cut out for this logic thingy.
Atomic
I thought this would be fun to address.
Is that one of them their ad d homoneme attacks you bean talk’n on.
Bachelor degrees in Math and Chem, M.D. and a Ph.D. in physics. Thank you very much.
I was a street fight’n kid that grew up in a neighborhood where one considered themselves lucky to have survived to age 21. So I didn’t have much interest in school. That all changed at age twenty one – longer story. After deciding that my life must change I went back to school where I very quickly caught up and then overtook all others. The rest is history.
So you’re right. The roughness around the edges from my unconventional youth still shows a bit. But hey despite my rough edges I have smoothly disassembled your nonsensical understanding of the US health care imperative.
Chalk up another for the highly educated street fighters.
Nuclear Nads,
I apologize for equating you with people who ream each other with strap ons. They must be extremely insulted. I don’t blame them. If I had a strap on I wouldn’t want to be connected to you either. My most sincere apology.
And you’re correct, it has nothing to do with free thinkers, nor has most of the posts you have made so far. Patiently we wait for you to be relevent.
NeoWolfe
And we wait … and wait …