• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

JoeEllison said:
I've read or heard every single one of them... including here, on this site.

So, I'm pretty much done with you.
Click to expand...
Oh, well, damn, I didn't realize that it was that easy to defend a straman argument. Thanks, I'll remember that in the future.
 
skeptigirl said:
How do you have a strawman when you aren't presenting an argument?
Click to expand...

That's really the point, now isn't it? I haven't presented a argument for or against national health care, yet you keep arguing back as if I had. Ergo, you are erecting strawmen.

And are you simply unwilling to clarify your position?
Click to expand...

Since I have not expressed an opinion on national health care, there is nothing to clarify.
 
The resolution is actionless.

It seems to me to be more of a case of senators exercising their own right of free speech, rather than trying to somehow "prevent" any one else from doing the same.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
The resolution is actionless.

It seems to me to be more of a case of senators exercising their own right of free speech, rather than trying to somehow "prevent" any one else from doing the same.
Click to expand...


But they do have a purpose besides "exercising their own right of free speech":

These resolutions offer a means for elected officials to publicly air the concerns of their constituents[3] and are closely followed by major media outlets. Additionally, these resolutions can be used to state the position of congress, showing a preview of how they will vote on future legislation and budget allocations.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution
Click to expand...
 
Sure resolutions can foreshadow things, but given its language I'm sure this resolution doesn't have any budgeting or legislative implications. They're simply patting someone on the back despite a bad rap.

And everybody has a purpose besides exercising free speech. Typically that purpose is to change peoples' minds.
 
jsfisher said:
That's really the point, now isn't it? I haven't presented a argument for or against national health care, yet you keep arguing back as if I had. Ergo, you are erecting strawmen.

Since I have not expressed an opinion on national health care, there is nothing to clarify.
Click to expand...


Returning to the original post,
jsfisher said:
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the US does not have national socialized education, fire or police services.
Click to expand...
this statement is incorrect. We have the FBI, federal fire fighting departments, and the federal government subsidizes education as well as sets minimum standards and some rules.

The point of my statement is not weakened by yours. Government run fire fighting, police services, and public education, regardless of whether the control is local or national is still not perceived as making any country closer to having a socialist or communist government. Many countries with capitalist economies include health care in the same category as police, fire and education -> government run in some fashion. Ergo a national health care system is not automatically a socialist or communist entity unless you believe government run police fire and education are as well.

Local control vs national control is the straw man here, not my analogy. Even if the argument were state health insurance vs national health insurance, it still remains an American misperception that government sponsored health care or health insurance is a radical leftist idea. You can agree or disagree with the proposed changes in the health care system, but that again does not make proposed national health care system a radical leftist idea.

Privatizing police, fire, education, public infrastructure, and social security, now that would be a radical right wing idea. Again, the definition of radical or extreme is distance from the norm. And it is the claim that supporting national health care makes MoveOn a radical group which this discussion pertains to.

As far as my asking you to clarify if by the above statement you would consider state run health insurance acceptable but not national health insurance, a simple comment that you were only replying to my statement about national police, fire and education would have saved both of us about 10 posts each. It was a legitimate question on my part to ask you what your post quoted here implied. It was you who put all the incorrect innuendo into my comments. I was asking, not implying.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Returning to the original post, this statement is incorrect.
Click to expand...

In isolation, my wording is not as precise as it could have been, so let's put it back in context. You said:

skeptigirl said:
Oh and of course you didn't notice we have socialized education, fire and police services.
Click to expand...

You were trying to parallel a national health care program to existing government services which are substantially not national in nature. My point was to draw attention to the fact the parallels were less than being implied. Again, I could have, should have been crisper in my choice of words, but the point still stands.

We have the FBI, federal fire fighting departments, and the federal government subsidizes education as well as sets minimum standards and some rules.
Click to expand...

I left the door open for this sort of quibble. I admit it. Personally, I think it is intellectually dishonest, though, to say the US has national educational services on the basis the federal government provides funding to public schools.

On the other hand, many hospitals and health clinics receive federal funds, don't they? I guess the US already has national health care....

<irrelevant stuff>

Local control vs national control is the straw man here, not my analogy.
Click to expand...

Whoa! You seem to be misusing the term, straw man.

<irrelevant stuff>

As far as my asking you to clarify if by the above statement you would consider state run health insurance acceptable but not national health insurance, a simple comment that you were only replying to my statement about national police, fire and education would have saved both of us about 10 posts each. It was a legitimate question on my part to ask you what your post quoted here implied. It was you who put all the incorrect innuendo into my comments. I was asking, not implying.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Had you understood what was meant by "straw man" from the get-go, the 10-posts-each might have stopped with one.
 
skeptigirl said:
the wording of the ad has been used as a distraction to change the subject from the message of the ad.
Click to expand...

skeptigirl said:
The NeoCons aren't going to stop their campaign of feigned outrage just because it isn't working as well as such campaigns have in the past.
Click to expand...

So was your outrage at Bush's use of the phrase 'democrat party' in the State of the Union Speech just feigned outrage to distract us from Bush's message?

It seems if someone is outraged over the use of 'democrat party' then they should also be outraged over the use of 'General Betray-us'.
 
gtc said:
So was your outrage at Bush's use of the phrase 'democrat party' in the State of the Union Speech just feigned outrage to distract us from Bush's message?

It seems if someone is outraged over the use of 'democrat party' then they should also be outraged over the use of 'General Betray-us'.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
jsfisher said:
In isolation, my wording is not as precise as it could have been, so let's put it back in context. You said:

You were trying to parallel a national health care program to existing government services which are substantially not national in nature. My point was to draw attention to the fact the parallels were less than being implied. Again, I could have, should have been crisper in my choice of words, but the point still stands.
Click to expand...
Again we come back to the issue I asked you to clarify, the one you claimed I was attributing to you falsely:

jsfisher said:
Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Oh and of course you, [SpaceMonkeyZero], didn't notice we have socialized education, fire and police services.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the US does not have national socialized education, fire or police services.
Click to expand...
So after griping I was attributing a false position to you and attacking that false position (that is the definition of a straw man isn't it?),
skeptigirl said:
Is that your only objection then, you want to see cities, counties or states providing the health insurance?
Click to expand...
jsfisher said:
Why are you so quick to erect straw people?
Click to expand...
now you say,
jsfisher said:
I admit it. Personally, I think it is intellectually dishonest, though, to say the US has national educational services on the basis the federal government provides funding to public schools
Click to expand...

I simply asked your position suggesting one option, 'you are for government subsidized health care if it isn't at the national level'. I didn't say that was your position, I asked if it was. You called it a straw man. If it were a straw man, then I would have had to have claimed it was your position.

The thing that prolonged this discussion was not my lack of understanding of your meaning of straw man.
jsfisher said:
Had you understood what was meant by "straw man" from the get-go, the 10-posts-each might have stopped with one.
Click to expand...

Had I been debating your position and attributed a false argument to you, that would have been a straw man. I said repeatedly I wasn't debating an issue with you I was asking your position.

And your use of a straw man against me is claiming I am arguing for national health insurance over local. That debate is a long way off. That is a debate about the specifics. All I am arguing in this thread is, the fact one supports national health care of some kind, which is MoveOn's position, does not define that group as the "radical left". I merely pointed out that the perception of health care as a public industry vs a private industry is not so far fetched as many in the right wing believe.

You injected an irrelevant argument, there are local and national police and fire as well as local and national subsidized education. So what? We still don't view those three services in the US as private enterprises. There are private providers of all three, but they are mainly seen as public services. To argue there is a greater percentage of the services provided at the local level than at the federal level does not make them any less public service industries. Your straw man is making my argument about "national". I was only pointing out "government".

You are trying to make government run health care about an invasion into capital markets. I am pointing out that is a somewhat uniquely an American perspective. In a rational rather than an emotional analysis, many services fall to government responsibility in capitalist societies. One is not a radical leftist (again, that's what this discussion is all about) simply by thinking perhaps health care should be in the public service category.

jsfisher said:
... to say the US has national educational services on the basis the federal government provides funding to public schools.

On the other hand, many hospitals and health clinics receive federal funds, don't they? I guess the US already has national health care....
Click to expand...
Yes, we do have some national health care. There is Medicaid, Medicare, and now a few states are offering limited forms of health insurance and requiring mandatory carrying of medical insurance the same way auto insurance is mandated. It's time to reorganize how we fund health care. It is not a radical idea.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I simply asked your position suggesting one option, 'you are for government subsidized health care if it isn't at the national level'.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. You clarified the meaning of what you "simply asked" with this:

skeptigirl said:
it was a simple question asking you to elaborate on your objections to national health insurance.
Click to expand...


You clearly stated I had objections to national health insurance (upon which you were now seeking clarification).


And your use of a straw man against me is claiming I am arguing for national health insurance over local.
Click to expand...

If I made such a claim, please provide proof. Otherwise, please retract this latest penultimate straw man from your arsenal of straw men.

You are trying to make government run health care about an invasion into capital markets.
Click to expand...

If I made such a claim, please provide proof. Otherwise, please retract this latest straw man from your arsenal of straw men.
 
jsfisher said:
Nonsense. You clarified the meaning of what you "simply asked" with this:

You clearly stated I had objections to national health insurance (upon which you were now seeking clarification).
Click to expand...
I'll say it again and then it's time to move on. You are reading more into my question than is there. Since it was my question, I think I know what I meant.

jsfisher said:
If I made such a claim, please provide proof. Otherwise, please retract this latest penultimate straw man from your arsenal of straw men.

If I made such a claim, please provide proof. Otherwise, please retract this latest straw man from your arsenal of straw men.
Click to expand...
We clearly are not communicating on the same plane. Perhaps if you step back and start over instead of continuing down the path you are on which is not the path I am on. Instead of griping that you are being misunderstood or misrepresented, just clarify your dang position. Obviously we are trying to understand each other. Take the chip off your shoulder and just restate what you are trying to say.

What is the point of your objection to my statement that we have national police and fire services and national funding including some national control over education? You called it dishonest.

Why does it matter if it is local government or federal government, the point is it is still government controlled. And if police, fire and education are government run, and other capitalist countries include health care in the same category, "government services", why is it such a radical leftist move for the US to put health care into the category of "government services"?
 
Skeptigirl,

You have made multiple accusations regarding statements from me. Either stand by your claims by providing evidence, or retract them. Don't back-pedal; don't dodge and weave.
 
I have only made comments on what I understood you to be saying, js. If you think I misunderstood you then clarify your comments. Otherwise, I don't have a clue what it is you think I made up?

Why would I do that? Why would I just insult you? I don't know anything about you except what you posted. I don't even know what these accusations are you refer to. You have a paranoia complex, I will say that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom