Forum Debate Standards

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
  • 25
    Replies
  • 583
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list
Minor Axis

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
retro said:
Okay, then I think I'm going to start calling you a communist? Sound good? You're for expanded government, social programs, regulation of industry, higher taxes, re-distribution of wealth, etc. You look and sound the same as a communist to me because of that.
Click to expand...

Actually I did find this SHOCKING link - Libertariasm = Anarchy. :D

I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I support legalization of drugs :thumbup and prostitution :thumbup, the implementation of the FairTax system ??, I'm a non-interventionist :thumbup, I take extreme issue with the Patriot Act :thumbup and other blatant violations of the Constitution. I hated what GWB did to the country just as I'm hating what Obama is doing now. The fact that I'm not an Obama supporter doesn't mean that I'm a republican, as you've accused me of being because I disagree with the direction we're going right now. I'm for state's rights and against big government. I support the Constitution and all of the powers it grants the Federal Government, along with all of the restrictions it places on it. I don't think that any of those things would qualify me as a "conservative" as it is typically defined today.
Click to expand...

Ok I apologize for calling you a Republican. You have a few good qualities. :)

Yes, I accused you of dismissing facts... not a shot, the truth.
Click to expand...

What is proven as a fact is all in the eyes of the beholder. You and nova have a point of view, if some internet post or government report supports your view, then it's a fact. If it does not support your view, it's suspect or dismissed. For the most part we all do this. What do you want to use as your reference, Fox News or the Huffington Post?
 
nova

nova

Active Member
Messages
799
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Minor Axis said:
It's doesn't matter? Stupid, meaningless?

Why don't you post some numbers... and you need to get your quotes straight.
Click to expand...

Yes, stupid meaningless tangent. Its a bad debate tactic used by those who can't effectively make their argument. You bring up something kinda sorta related to the topic at hand but the details of which don't actually impact the outcome but will derail the discussion into incosequential details.

How about I not post some numbers. How about you just read what the SSA has to say

FAQs-- Planning for the Future

If your average lifetime wages are at the minimum wage level, Social Security will replace about 60 percent of your earnings.
If you are earning average wages over your working life, your Social Security benefits will replace about 42 percent of your monthly earnings.
If you are earning maximum wages, your Social Security benefits will replace about 26 percent of your monthly earnings.
Click to expand...

Once you reach a certain point, the amount you pay in is more than what you paid out. Thats the way this ponzi scheme is designed...


Minor Axis said:
What is proven as a fact is all in the eyes of the beholder. You and nova have a point of view, if some internet post or government report supports your view, then it's a fact. If it does not support your view, it's suspect or dismissed. For the most part we all do this. What do you want to use as your reference, Fox News or the Huffington Post?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed its stupid to dismiss something based on the source, be it Fox, HuffPo or the US Gov't. If I have dismissed something, not based on the content but on where it comes from, please please point it out to me...

However, looking at the methods used to generate the study/report/whatever, and making a rational assessment of whether or not they are scientifically and mathematically correct and what if any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it is simple due diligance.

Take the WHO report as an example.

Its not a matter of me sitting here and saying, "I don't like this report because it comes from the WHO" its me saying "The study methodology is correct, but is structured such that it begs the question. Therefore it does not give any meaningful conclusions for the purposes of this discussion."

That study can tell you lots of interesting things about how health care systems are structured and their effects, but the inclusion of socialization as a ranking metric makes it invalid as evidence of socialized systems being better or worse, especially as it pertains to individual systems.

Now if you took that study and did some more analysis, you might just come to the conclusion that socialized systems are better. Say do some correlation analysis to see what the relationship between level of socialization and access to care, outcomes and responsiveness to patient needs. That would give you a good idea of how they compare.

But as of now, that work hasn't been done and until it is, that study is meaningless for the purposes of that debate...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top