You have never told someone they were wrong when you believed them to be wrong? How do you know it was not you that was unable to see my refutations of your point. Our conversation about universal healthcare while long was quite simple. You believe it will improve the health of the entire population. Economics shows that that is unlikely. We got into a truly stupid conversation about the definition of quality of care. You stated you could measure the quality of care of someone that received no care at all. I explained maybe a dozen times trying to differentiate between quality of a system and quality of actual care. You refused to acknowledge the distincition.
I've told people they are wrong if they are wrong about facts, or about the logical progression of an idea. I generally don't tell people their ideas on the overlying issues are wrong, merely how they got to that idea.
Economics does NOT show that is unlikely. At least no ecomonics you provided. This is exactly what I am talking about. I am willing to entertain the idea that socialized medicine will hurt/not help the population. I believe to to be wrong, but it is a completely viable idea. Your ideas about how economics shows it is unlikely are wrong on a factual level. Its not ideological at all, its just factually wrong.
And your distinction between quality of a system and quality of actual care is an ideological distinction. You find it important, I don't.
No, you implied that by comeing to a conservative board I must there fore only be conversing with people I agree with.
Not at all. Just that you didn't come here to converse with those you disagree with. If you were really interested in that you would visit a board that did not learn so sharply to the right.
And again you miss stated what I said. the liberal ideology leans more to the emotional. Are the people who call themselves part of that ideology more emotional than a conservative ideology? I can't say for certain but I woudl tend to think so.
Of course you would. Because you like to think that people have opposing viewpoints because of some weakness in them, not because their opposing viewpoint might actually come from something viable.
I believe that also to be evidenced in the lefts agenda. Two 'feel good'/emotional policies would be raising the minimum wage and again unibersal healthcare. Both on the surface sound like really nice things to do, but on closer examination won't accomplish much of anything. Realistically the minimum wage woudl need to be at least $10/hour to accomplish the goal of makeing sure people can get by. The purpose of univeral health care would really be to improve access to the resource (cause what good is free heatlhcare if you still can't get to see a doc). The thought being as you have said, everyone deserves healthcare, so let's make it free. Well basic economics shows that redcuing the price of something won't improve access to it. In fact it will probably make it worse.
Reducing the price of something WILL improve access to it. That is basic, and extremely simple economics. The cheaper something is, the more people can afford it. Derr.
However, I responded to this shit in another thread. If you want to defend your idiotic viewpoint about how liberals are oh so emotional and conservatives are oh so rational, then argue it in the previous thread not here.
You don't consider it because I am the one saying it. Not because you've actaully considered it.
No, I don't consider it because I already have considered it and don't feel the need to revisit it if you are giving me the same bullshit arguments I heard when I considered it the first time.
You have called me close minded as well. With the basic excuse that well you can can call me close minded cause it's true. How is what you are claiming I am any different from what you claim I'm calling you?
Read what I said again. I did NOT just claim that you called me closeminded and thats why I did that.
Other than spelling (I tend to type too fast) what were the errors).
I already spelled them out for you.
I also never said you were intelligent. I said you believe your intellect is supperior to mine.
*sigh*...if you compare two things you can't measure them objectively. To say I am more intelligent than you is not to say that I have an IQ or 100 or 80 or 140 or wahtever, just that mine is higher than yours, and hence to say that the intellect means something specific, that has no relation to your intellect, is untrue.
You most certainly did make the claim in #2. You claimed you can no longer learn anything from me because you are of superior intellect. Which I believe to be an incorrect perception.
Then you need to write more clearly. But that is also a stupid belief, because you are assuming that a superior intellect would realize that their own perception is incorrect.
I strongly suggest pretending for a while that you aren't smarter than me for a while and see what happens.
I tried treating you seriously before. You failed the test.
Pretend you've never meat me before. I'll let the past go if you will. What is true between you and I, or anyone I guess, is that if one has the perception that they are of superior intellect to someone,whether that is actualy true or not, they are more likely to discount all together what that peson says.
I don't discount altogether what you say. Notice the difference between how I treat you and RSR or RGS. But nor do I accord your statements with the same respect as I would others on this board. I am not going to bother explaining things out to you that I have no faith in your willingness nor ability to comprehend. Your statements about the left and liberals leave me with a bad taste in my mouth about you and so I have no real desire to attempt to try. If you want to "start new and fresh" that would require you to drop all of your assumptions and beliefs not just about me, but what about the left believes. Because when you say stupid shit about how the left is emotional and thats why they are wrong, I really see very little reason to take you seriously.
