Old, but for those who don't know...

[zabu of nΩd]

You said that fully implementing UHC would be impossible given the current state of our country. I was pointing out that fully funding our current system is already impossible. I'd say the use of the term "utopian" applies far better to our current system than to UHC.

 

[skeptik]

itt andy thinks hes cool because he has a poli sci major friend

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You're being a faggot. Face the fucking reality that America isn't some ivory tower of awesome and win wherein everyone is too stupid to implement an obviously helpful-to-everyone-involved system. It's because the ideal you're setting up is too lofty and doesn't include any specifics about HOW to implement it. Fuck off.

 

[skeptik]

itt andy thinks he knows what hes talking about as well as what everyone else is talking about

 

[AchrisK]

...

EDIT: overall I think it is useless to speak on obviously desirable terms versus pragmatic terms when talking about how governmental, welfare and economic systems should work. Obviously no one wants to subjugate the poor and see to it that they're super sick and never have a chance to succeed. This discussion needs to get more pragmatic, and it won't get that way with people arguing on idealized vs. how-it-is terms...it's annoying to see people misinterpret each others' words because the two people are discussing things on different levels. For instance, every time I've argued with Nec or you or anyone else about how things should work, whoever I argue with immediately begins with the most out-of-touch theory that can't possibly be put into place and uses this as their main point complete with how the theoretical situation they mention is desirable...while I point out that said things are not currently plausible in the context of what we can really do as a nation ailing from economic distress and various people bickering over issues both stupid and important.

Good stuff, this. These things are way more complicated than the way people argue them. I think you've hit the nail on the head and identified why people argue and will argue FOREVER on these topics. They favor a governmental system and want us to go in that direction. The fact is, most pure governmental systems would probably work well, if there weren't people involved. People who are greedy, lazy, and a myriad of other things that gum up the works of any government system. So people on both sides of these arguments are right, and both are unrealistic.

 

[AchrisK]

itt andy thinks he knows what hes talking about as well as what everyone else is talking about

itt Dodens' reading comprehension is fail.

 

[Dak]

I've highlighted the part of your post I was ACTUALLY referring to, and which you conveniently left out when you were attempting to counter yet another argument I was not making. Let me help you understand: I said you assumed that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to back your claim. Guess what the following statement assumes?


That's right, that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to back your claim.

This is fucking retarded, and also why no one takes you seriously in a debate. When you have to spend the majority of a debate just pointing out inconsistencies in what someone says, there's something wrong with that.

As far as your claim that the following statement of mine is unjustified...


The conclusions here are basically that public services are in the best interest of society as a whole, and that since government has a duty to serve the best interests of its people then they are justified in running public services.

Please note, however, that I'm not going to humor you with another debate if you continue to make clearly illogical claims and then turn around and deny that you ever made them. I'll probably just stick to debating with Cythraul, who actually knows how to make a proper argument.

#1 I never denied it was anecdotal. You just wasted a lot time explaining that, while still not providing any evidence to your side, merely more opinion. Which was my point.

#2 It IS still unjustified. You ignored the concept of private vs government provided (the whole libertarian concept), not to mention insisting on lumping all public services instead of defending purely welfare-state concepts, which is what I am attacking.

I found this statement amusing since I completely agree with it not in the way you meant:

It seems fundamentally intuitive to me that a government's duty is to serve the common interests of its people. If the government is only there to serve the interests of some of its subjects, then there's no reason for the rest of its subjects to obey that government.

Did you read the information posted by Ack? I'm not done with them but they are quite good. But you probably either won't read them or will discount them because they don't line up with your vigorously defended socialism's core rhetoric.

Cythraul does articulate most of my opinions on this subject much better than I do I readily admit. In general I completely agreed with what he posted, which is why I had refrained from posting in the middle of this thread while he was doing an excellent job anyway.

 

[skeptik]

itt Dodens' reading comprehension is fail.

What is your basis for this? First of all, nobody has responded to the post that I made as of yet. Secondly, Andy was the one who brought up universal health care in this thread as far as I'm aware. Nobody was talking about it beforehand. If that's not the case, then I certainly was not, and he accused me of doing so, hence him thinking he knows what everyone else is talking about. I also question how much he actually knows because he just reiterated a few things that his libertarian buddy told him and convinced him were incontrovertible facts, hence why I said he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I was the first to bring it up or invoke it BY NAME, but UHC discussion is pretty much implied by talk about services to everyone, and there had already been discussion on police, etc. So I think I am justified in bringing it up.

My libertarian buddy? lol, what do you stalk me around campus when I talk to my friends about politics? Don't be such a straw man invoking faggot.

 

[AchrisK]

What is your basis for this?

....

Really just that his post, that I quoted, was very insightful. In it he didn't even really bring up any issues. If it didn't make sense, read my clarification post that I posted after I quoted it. I just thought you saying that after he made a good, and neutral post, was lame. So that is what I was referring to.

Now if I misinterpreted his meaning and went off on my own tangent, then disregard his post and just read mine.

 

[skeptik]

Social services and universal health care are vastly different things. Since you brought up strawmen, I think it's fair to point this one out. You're attacking everyone else's arguments by basically implying that they were implying universal health care, a totally baseless assumption that amounts to a strawman.

And don't even pretend that 90% of what you say about universal health care is what your friend tells you is fact. Just because your friend's teacher told your friend that universal health care is impossible to implement does not mean that it is impossible to implement. However, I didn't bring up universal health care and I don't intend to discuss it right now either. I have more reading to do on the matter, quite frankly. I'm willing to discuss social services more broadly, however, and I would like somebody to actually address my earlier post.

And try not to get your panties in a bunch.

 

[AchrisK]

tbh I just learned what a "strawman" is like a month or two ago. At times, people accuse me (and each other) of that, and I never really knew what it meant.

Yeah, I went to community college!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't think what I said amounts to a strawman, and I apologize if it sincerely did come off that way and this isn't just you grasping at straws so I can seem dumb I think it's a fact that most of us MISUNDERSTAND each other fundamentally when discussing politics. We can use logic and philosophy as much as we want, but these are not things actually used in governmental practices and therefore I think more of a critical discussion of points rather than a critical discussion of pragmatism vs. idealism is what should be going down.

re this: Just because your friend's teacher told your friend that universal health care is impossible to implement does not mean that it is impossible to implement....don't be so gaysexual. I have my own beliefs about UHC, and where you get that I'm just believing what my friend who you're just kind of assuming I went to for this ("what is your basis for this?" I could ask you...) is silly. I didn't say it's impossible to implement, I really just did not say that at all...I think you're being a silly fuckin' sausage.

 

[skeptik]

Every discussion of policies requires idealism and pragmatism. I don't think anybody would deny that. But sometimes somebody is only talking about one particular side of the spectrum for a reason and not even making a claim regarding the other. The only thing that I objected to in your post was the fact that you tried to tie in universal health care with what people were saying, which wasn't the case. I just found it funny how you reiterated things that you told me that your friend told you.

 

[AchrisK]

...and then there was this one time where I meant to buy a sandwich, but the guy misunderstood me and shot me in the leg. It was hilarious! ercoaster

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why do you have to act so smug about it? I hope you don't also masturbate and subsequently orgasm every time you are right about something in your own mind. It's getting to be kind of ridiculous of you here. Whenever I argue with you, you always speak only from an idealistic point of view. You never, ever indulge in actually discussing tenets of pragmatism with anyone. You seem to only combat on a logical basis, which, while fine and good, usually doesn't even apply to our completely illogical governmental systems (a lot of the time anyway)

He may not have been talking explicitly of UHC...who fucking cares? If I had brought up another system a lot of left-wingers are talking about implementing in America, do you think you would have been less likely to attack me for no fucking reason whatsoever other than that "you think it's funny" with the context of the hilarity being outside of these boards?

 

[skeptik]

I find it useful to establish the ideological grounds of something first before even attempting to discuss the pragmatism of it. It just so happens that we almost never accomplish this, usually because people refuse to engage in the ideal before the real. It's pointless to discuss pragmatics without discussing idealistics, and I refuse to do so. And I don't know what the hell you're talking about with being smug, nor do I care. Everyone who feels as though I'm attacking them accuses me of that whether or not I actually am, so I don't even care if people think that at this point.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why come here?

 

[skeptik]

Am I supposed to care that you or anyone else thinks I'm smug?

Let's get back on topic. Respond to my post if you want. I'm not going to address universal health care because I need to read more about how it would apply to the US, and I'm not prepared to discuss it.

 

[The Ozzman]

Mateo, have you ever had to admit that you're wrong?