Obama vs. Constitution

Postby OGgrl93 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:09 am

Boy am I really jumping into the fire here. How do people feel about this whole insurance thing, where all big insurance providers in the US have to provide contreceptives and abortive services to those who request it?

I personally absoultly hate it. I understand where Obama's coming from, but he's deny people's right to religious freedom. And I'm not over exagerating at all. My religion says contraceptives and abortions are morally wrong, which I personally beleive.(And pleassseee no one bring up the rape scenaro) Now, this thread is not ment to be about what religions people are or peoples moral beleifs, and if abortion and contraceptives and wrong and yada yada, so I'll be disgusted if that's what this thread turns into. I'm more focused on how Obama can do this? There's a lot of people out there who morally object to this due to their religion, or just moral views. So, they have to either go against their beleifs. or not have insurance. (which you just can't do these days) He will cater to the mormans and church of the scientists (not bashing) but not those who morally object to this?

This country was founded on freedom of religion, it is in the constitution... so what the hell? Alright. Annnddddd....... discuss!

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby dreadnaught3200 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:58 am

Before I say anything, it's worth mentioning (As I have a number of times on this board) that I'm a committed christian and I'm very proud of that fact. More to the point, I personally do not approve of abortion. That being said...

I disagree with you completely. Frankly, I think it's the lobbyists and conservative radicals pushing for contraception to be banned who are trampling on the constitution. One of the most fundamental concepts in the American constitution is the separation of church and state. The implication being that the Government does not intervene in purely moral issues. I realize that some would argue that all laws are moral issues. But to my mind that is a cop out of the most blatant sort. The simple truth is that some in United States believe contraception is immoral and others do not. But what Obama is doing is not allowing one side to impose their morality on the other. Yes, as an American you are entitled to believe whatever you want. But no one is entitled to force those beliefs on others. Both contraception and abortion are technically defined as medical issues, therefore it is only logical that healthcare providers be obligated to provide those services just like any other medical service.

In short, more power to Obama, the Government has no business imposing morality on its citizens.

Now, in regards to "he's deny people's right to religious freedom", I don't really see how that's true. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying "You must use contraception". That would be a violation of your religious freedom. But if you feel that contraception is wrong, then you don't have to use it. Whereas, some of those people who don't wouldn't have access to it. So really, it's their rights that are being trampled on. Not yours.

Again, I'm a Christian and I enjoy my freedom of religion every day. Personally I have no problem with contraception, but I find abortion appalling. I would never stand for a child of mine to be aborted and I'll discuss, persuade and even beg my friends and family not to do it. But I have no right to force them into stopping, legally or otherwise. That isn't a matter of religion, it's a matter of constitution. Besides, speaking as a Canadian, contraception is legal in every other industrialized nation and certainly every country in the G8. It seems absurd to the rest of us that this is still an issue in the United States.

Please forgive me for being so blunt. I'm tired of taking flack for things that I don't agree with. And I think it's important that society knows that not all Christians support this.
There's a permanent tension in music isn't there? On one hand you have three chords, you know, four four and three chords. Then there's the people like me, who say "Well, why don't we add a fourth chord and put it in five four?" - Bill Bruford

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby xtc » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:30 am

As a NON christian who abhors the idea of abortion, it is a pleasure to read dreadnaught's post.
A calm, well argued point is a valuable contribution to the argument.
If I may make a parallel, though not so carefully argued, point: drinknig alcohol is legal but no one is forcing me to drink it.
Last edited by xtc on Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!

More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Chris12 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:46 am

I never really got the whole ''Obama is anti Constitution'' thing that has spread trough the internet nor what some have against insurance in the firt place.

About Abortion: I honestly don't care! But i believe its a personal chooice and not something for the goverment to even talk about.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:58 am

>>>Frankly, I think it's the lobbyists and conservative radicals pushing for contraception to be banned who are trampling on the constitution.<<<

I think you are misreading something, or are being misinformed. First, the teachings and tenets of the Catholic Church come down against contraception. Last time I looked, Catholicism was a mainstream religion, not a bunch of wild eyed radicals.

That being said, I don't think anyone is pushing for an outright ban on contraception. The argument seems to be whether or not the government should pay for it, or mandate that insurance companies pay for it. And since there are organizations that offer free condoms or other birth control methods, why should I have to pay, through higher taxes and insurance premiums, for birth control for someone who wants to go out and bang like a bunny?

Live your life the way you want. I don't care. Just don't expect me to pay for your excesses. It's called "personal responsibility."

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:15 pm

Perhaps if obtaining contraceptives were simpler, there wouldn't BE any abortions in the first place. Because people are NOT going to stop having sex, it's either contraceptives, abortion, or the world's population spiraling further and further upward out of control and finally making the predictions of Thomas Malthus a reality after all. When that happens, no one's personal or religious freedoms is going to mean a thing!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jack Roper » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:56 pm

Apparently, the reason contraception is allowed in most private insurance policies was worked out as a compromise years ago so that there could be a reduction in unwed mothers producing more babies (which costs government LOTS of money to support for 18 plus years). Further, Catholics and other religious groups can protest that their religious liberty is being taken away but they are completely willing to accept Federal funding for their social programs. If you accept Federal funding of your religious program like a Catholic hospital you give up your "right" to have any say in which Federal laws you want to abide with and which you protest.

Personally, I don't have any children. Would that give me the right, as an employer say, to discriminate against employees who want to have my insurance program pay for their babies being born--plus maternity and paternity leave? We live in a pluralistic society and that means I must pay taxes for wars I don't approve of either. Should we all be able to opt out of any program--like road paving, sewers, Police, Fire, that we don't feel we want? That would lead to a civil breakdown of the first order.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby sarobah » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:54 pm

As an outsider (i.e. non-American), I would suggest that this “debate” about contraceptives and abortion services is just the latest round in the bizarre fight against universal health insurance (led as usual by that distinguished guardian of human rights and dignity, Rush “I am a drug-addled media whore” Limbaugh).
I like Americans; the US is my favourite country. You guys put people on the Moon! But this obsession with the “evils” of universal health coverage is totally beyond my comprehension. Here in Australia we have had universal health insurance for decades, and believe me, if we have turned into a socialist, atheistic inferno, then I must have slept through the revolution.
Last edited by sarobah on Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby dreadnaught3200 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:16 pm

drawscore wrote:I think you are misreading something, or are being misinformed. First, the teachings and tenets of the Catholic Church come down against contraception. Last time I looked, Catholicism was a mainstream religion, not a bunch of wild eyed radicals.


I may well be misinformed. Again, I'm Canadian so I don't have the best grasp of these issues. But as I understand it, the legislation Obama is trying introduce will force insurance companies to provide contraception and abortion along with all the other elements of someone's health insurance. Be that Government provided or not. Is that correct?

Also, I'm keenly aware (as anyone who's seen Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" should be) that an aversion to contraception is a catholic value. I meant in no way to deride the entire catholic population. By conservative and religious radicals I was referring to the incredibly loud mouthed personalities that have been vocalizing this issue recently. Personalities of the Rush Limbaugh type. For the most part I think "religious" people feel the same way I do, it's the extreme elements of those religions that lobby the Government to enshrine their worldview into law. It's THOSE people I object to. Be they protestant, catholic, muslim, atheist or anything else.

Is it just me, or does it seem fundamentalism is on the rise in every religion these days?
There's a permanent tension in music isn't there? On one hand you have three chords, you know, four four and three chords. Then there's the people like me, who say "Well, why don't we add a fourth chord and put it in five four?" - Bill Bruford

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:31 pm

dreadnaught3200 wrote: Is it just me, or does it seem fundamentalism is on the rise in every religion these days?

It definitely isn't just you! I think though that it's politics that have brought it to the limelight in this country recently.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:15 pm

>>>I may well be misinformed. Again, I'm Canadian so I don't have the best grasp of these issues. But as I understand it, the legislation Obama is trying introduce will force insurance companies to provide contraception and abortion along with all the other elements of someone's health insurance. Be that Government provided or not. Is that correct?<<<

Ahh, Canada. A cold nation, populated with warm-hearted people. I've always enjoyed visiting Canada, except in January or February. My favorite CTV production was "Bizarre" starring John Byner, and featuring "The world's greatest stuntman/daredevil/entertainer, Super Dave Osborne." His leap from the CN Tower was classic. (And available for viewing on YouTube)

Your understanding is essentially correct. The point, is that Obama is trying to force some religious institutions to provide birth control, even if doing so, violates their religious principles. Birth control is available at low or no cost from other sources, and this being the case, forcing a religious institution to provide it, in violation of their religious teachings, is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and an attack on religion. Republicans and conservatives see this. Democrats and liberals want to call it an issue of "womens' health."

What it boils down to, is an issue of personal responsibility. And, it has been found that the most effective birth control medication is an aspirin tablet. The woman holds it between her knees. (OK, that was a bad joke, but I couldn't resist.)

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby swamidfs » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:31 am

sarobah wrote:As an outsider (i.e. non-American), I would suggest that this “debate” about contraceptives and abortion services is just the latest round in the bizarre fight against universal health insurance (led as usual by that distinguished guardian of human rights and dignity, Rush “I am a drug-addled media whore” Limbaugh).
I like Americans; the US is my favourite country. You guys put people on the Moon! But this obsession with the “evils” of universal health coverage is totally beyond my comprehension. Here in Australia we have had universal health insurance for decades, and believe me, if we have turned into a socialist, atheistic inferno, then I must have slept through the revolution.


It is not so much a debate about health care or even about contraceptives and abortion per say as it is to many an attack again religion. The Catholic Church as a religious orginization as a basic belief considers the use of contraceptives and abortion to be acts that are against the natural dignity of the individual- whether that be the sex partner or unborn fetus(which if born become magically human). As a result of their views concerning the act of sex to be something more than a physical exchange for self gratitude, the act of preventing the possibility of pregnancy like the use of a condom is something they do not condone. As a result of "seperating church from state" and under the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, such beliefs by the Catholic Church(and others with similar views) object to Congress telling them to concienciously object to paying for so called health care choices - Like condoms cannot be bought at truck stops and walgreens. Or that Planned (Abortion) Parenthood does not provide services for those without healthcare to cover for the costs.
Throwing Rush as the face of the issue only turns the spotlight away from what makes it a real issue and creates a false arguement in favor of those who want such forced on religious orginizations as a means of influencing anothers belief system by right of law, rather than really explain what the issue really is.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:41 am

swamidfs wrote:
sarobah wrote:As an outsider (i.e. non-American), I would suggest that this “debate” about contraceptives and abortion services is just the latest round in the bizarre fight against universal health insurance (led as usual by that distinguished guardian of human rights and dignity, Rush “I am a drug-addled media whore” Limbaugh).
I like Americans; the US is my favourite country. You guys put people on the Moon! But this obsession with the “evils” of universal health coverage is totally beyond my comprehension. Here in Australia we have had universal health insurance for decades, and believe me, if we have turned into a socialist, atheistic inferno, then I must have slept through the revolution.


It is not so much a debate about health care or even about contraceptives and abortion per say as it is to many an attack again religion. The Catholic Church as a religious orginization as a basic belief considers the use of contraceptives and abortion to be acts that are against the natural dignity of the individual- whether that be the sex partner or unborn fetus(which if born become magically human). As a result of their views concerning the act of sex to be something more than a physical exchange for self gratitude, the act of preventing the possibility of pregnancy like the use of a condom is something they do not condone. As a result of "seperating church from state" and under the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, such beliefs by the Catholic Church(and others with similar views) object to Congress telling them to concienciously object to paying for so called health care choices - Like condoms cannot be bought at truck stops and walgreens. Or that Planned (Abortion) Parenthood does not provide services for those without healthcare to cover for the costs.
Throwing Rush as the face of the issue only turns the spotlight away from what makes it a real issue and creates a false arguement in favor of those who want such forced on religious orginizations as a means of influencing anothers belief system by right of law, rather than really explain what the issue really is.


Think of it the other way around. When an employer / health care provider refuses to allow even simple contraceptives (which with today's population explosion problem strikes me as insane) to those with health insurance, the employer /health care provider is forcing *their* religious beliefs on the employee. Are you saying *this* is fair? Who is forcing their beliefs on who then?!
Religious beliefs one way or another have NO place in the workplace or one's health care program unless one is a priest, nun, or otherwise working directly for the church itself. Church supported programs (such as church-run schools) should be treated no differently than any other place of employment. If a fellow employee wants no contraceptives, that's their business; but they should not force that belief on anyone else around them.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Kyle » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:29 pm

If something isn't allowed because my health insurance doesn't cover it I'm breaking a lot of rules whenever I take Tylenol.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:21 am

Can you imagine what a health care program run by Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or Scientologists (none of whom believe in modern medical practices) would be like if employers could determine what was or was not covered by insurance programs based on their own beliefs? No, health insurance coverage needs to be standardized or it's be a chaotic hodge-podge where no one could ever be sure what is or is not covered, for the same reason traffic laws are standardized everywhere in the country. Any less would be completely unfair to people.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:56 pm

Maybe, maybe not. One thing is certain, though. The Solicitor General that argued the case for ObamaCare is either a dunce, or is trying to throw the case. I mean, c'mon, when CNN and MSNBC are telling their audiences that he blew it . . . . .

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Kyle » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:00 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:Can you imagine what a health care program run by Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or Scientologists (none of whom believe in modern medical practices) would be like if employers could determine what was or was not covered by insurance programs based on their own beliefs? No, health insurance coverage needs to be standardized or it's be a chaotic hodge-podge where no one could ever be sure what is or is not covered, for the same reason traffic laws are standardized everywhere in the country. Any less would be completely unfair to people.


I'd think going in to a job for a religious-based organization you'd know the kinds of things they do and don't approve of. I wouldn't go working for a church expecting them to fund an abortion.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:12 pm

Kyle wrote: I'd think going in to a job for a religious-based organization you'd know the kinds of things they do and don't approve of. I wouldn't go working for a church expecting them to fund an abortion.

Neither would I. But what about a nurse working for a major metropolitan hospital run by a church, as some (like Mercy Hospital in my own city) are?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Kyle » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:40 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:
Kyle wrote: I'd think going in to a job for a religious-based organization you'd know the kinds of things they do and don't approve of. I wouldn't go working for a church expecting them to fund an abortion.

Neither would I. But what about a nurse working for a major metropolitan hospital run by a church, as some (like Mercy Hospital in my own city) are?


Probably should've thought about it before working there. The same principal really applies here.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:51 pm

I disagree. Not when upholding what an employer think are their rights means violating mine. It's really not about religious freedom anyway so much as it just an excuse to pay workers as few benefits as possible. After all, employers thought they were in the right to when they employed eight-year-olds at factories with hazardous and extremely unhealthy working conditions for twelve hour days / six day weeks for a measly 5 cents an hour less than two centuries ago. For that matter, religious people thought nothing of forcing people of other races and all ages (from toddlers to creaking oldsters) to work in slavery under appalling conditions for no wages at all except for poor food, old clothing, and houses no better than barns. Their religious scruples for other people were contemptible or non-existent then; why should I care about their scruples now?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:54 pm

Your right to swing your fist through the air ends at the point of my chin.
The right of free speech does not mean you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

With rights come responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. And if you want me to respect your rights, then you have to reciprocate by respecting mine.

Know what you are doing, and do some research on your prospective employer. If your beliefs differ, apply for work elsewhere, or conform (at least while on the job) to the boss's beliefs and ideas of doing things. You are the (prospective) employee. The boss doesn't have to conform to you or what you want.

Don't be an idiot, like the nitwit who bought a house (after several viewings, and a price break) under the flight path of an airport, then bitched, pissed, and moaned about the noise. He knew damn well where the house was; he knew the airport operated 24/7, and he has no call to complain about jets taking off at 3:00 a.m.

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:09 pm

Your analogies are so irrevelent as to stagger the mind.
Even just supposing finding a job involves the same level of making a choice as selecting a house shows such disregard for reality that I... I...
I really see no point in going on! This is so... idiotic!
Conservatives like you must live in some kind of alternate universe where the laws of time and logic do not seem to apply!
Gahhhh.... I'm getting out of here!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:13 pm

Gawd, I love it when I drive a liberal crazy, and when a liberal can't find a cogent counter argument. "Waahhh! I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:56 pm

To Drawscore:
I am not a liberal any more than you are a Martian, but I suppose you're too stuck up, ignorant, smug, and arrogant in your pitiful , narrow minded beliefs to see anyone not as tight-assed reactionary as you are to be anything else but some kind of radical. You utter inane babble, and then feel pleased with yourself when someone sees you as the utter moron that you are and realizes talking with you is pointless.
I know many people like you; and not a one of you is even remotely likable or well-liked by any truly decent human being.
It's compassionless jerks like you that are doing the most to drive the country into a hole, just as people like you have done to Europe for centuries. But you're too concerned about your own narrow interests and prejudices to see the bigger picture, and likely never will.
Someday I think we'll see something lik the Great Tribulation the Bible thumpers go on and on about, only it'll be without the Rapture preceeding it or the Second Coming following it... and it won't be sent by God; it'll be caused entirely by the sheer stubborn stupidity of the human race!
And especially by jerks like you!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:17 pm

Well, you espouse liberal thought and theory. And, as the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." And now, again, without a cogent argument, you are reduced to name calling, and hoping that I will follow suit. Sorry, but I won't give you that satisfaction.

You have proven one thing though, and that is arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions. But arguing with an idiot is not productive. It brings one down to the idiot's level, and soon, observers are unable to tell the difference.

May I recommend that, if you have some free time, you audit a course on debate at a university or community college near you. One of the first things you will learn, is that while people may disagree, they do not have to be disagreeable about it. (And yes, I DID take debate in college, and honed my skills working in public relations.)

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:44 pm

Debate is just one form of communication, one conducive to verbal combat. A much finer form of communication is dialogue, like Socrates in Plato. Then, it is more like two friends walking along a country path discussing life in a serious manner, not talking past or over each other, interrupting and seeking to score debating points. One might think that on a forum of such limited size as this that we could at least all start out in a friendly way, since God knows what the world would think of much of what is written on here re: TUGS.

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:45 pm

Jack Roper wrote:Debate is just one form of communication, one conducive to verbal combat. A much finer form of communication is dialogue, like Socrates in Plato. Then, it is more like two friends walking along a country path discussing life in a serious manner, not talking past or over each other, interrupting and seeking to score debating points. One might think that on a forum of such limited size as this that we could at least all start out in a friendly way, since God knows what the world would think of much of what is written on here re: TUGS.



That's an interesting take. But dialogue is only possible between people that respect each other and each other's views, although those views might be 180 degrees out of phase. I believe the operative phrases are "Agreeing to disagree," and "Being able to disagree without being disagreeable."

Effective debate also requires respect between the disagreeing parties. Ineffective debate degenerates into shouting matches, name calling, and, in the language of the streets, "pissing contests."

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:22 pm

drawscore wrote:Gawd, I love it when I drive a liberal crazy, and when a liberal can't find a cogent counter argument. "Waahhh! I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Drawscore

This is your idea of an intelligent debate? This is your idea of you not being disagreeable? Rii-ight!

drawscore wrote:Well, you espouse liberal thought and theory. And, as the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Drawscore


Let me try - once again - to make something clear to you. I am not a liberal as YOU apparently define the term; some kind of socialist radical. I am, rather, a liberal as the term used to be defined: open minded. You, with your incessent rants about various News stations, Obama, Health Care, and so on, are NOT open minded. But since you probably consider that a virtue rather than a flaw, and seem to confuse debate with defining things in the terms that nmost suit you, I see no reason to bother continuing in this discussion.

drawscore wrote: You have proven one thing though, and that is arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions. But arguing with an idiot is not productive. It brings one down to the idiot's level, and soon, observers are unable to tell the difference.

Drawscore


It's obvious YOU can't tell the difference yourself, anyway. I already feel like I'm the one debating with an idiot, not you. Nothing you've said here makes me change my mind. You yourself already boasted that in essence you like to argue. Fine. Go argue with someone else who enjoys arguing back. Whether a person agrees or disagrees with my viewpoint, I am uninterested in mere argument. I'm more interested in intelligent discourse. IMO I'm not finding it here talking with you.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby drawscore » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:22 am

You keep making my point for me. You are dismissive; you fail to counter my points and arguments; and you try to diminish me as a person. It's not effective, and most observers will see through it.

And I never said I like to argue. I said I enjoy debate, and there is a difference. An argument is nothing more than a shouting match. Debate takes intelligent thought and preparation. And I will admit to making a semantic error when I said >>>arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions.<<< "Arguing" should have been "debating" in both instances where it appears in the phrase.

Drawscore

Re: Obama vs. Constitution

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:46 am

drawscore wrote:You keep making my point for me. You are dismissive; you fail to counter my points and arguments; and you try to diminish me as a person. It's not effective, and most observers will see through it.

Drawscore


Then why do you keep doing exactly the same thing? Are you really THAT oblivious that you've been doing this? That is in fact precisely why I do not like discussing matters wiuth you, but you keep saying hypocritical stuff like this that I can't simply let let go. When you counter something I say with something that is off the wall or has nothing to do with anything (like your house under the airplane route analogy), it is impossible to be other than dismissive myself. But you do it so much that you are literally like the pot calling the kettle black. Many other points I have made you have ignored altogether while practically chganging the subject to say something else to bolster your views; you can't get more dismissive than that. So why should get offended if I react by doing the same things you've been doing all along?

drawscore wrote: And I never said I like to argue. I said I enjoy debate, and there is a difference. An argument is nothing more than a shouting match. Debate takes intelligent thought and preparation. And I will admit to making a semantic error when I said >>>arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions.<<< "Arguing" should have been "debating" in both instances where it appears in the phrase.
Drawscore


Debate is fine within reasonable parameters, but you yourself violate so many rules of what makes a reasonable debate that I've simply given up. I admit perhaps I was too blunt previously and did not explain myself to good effect, but right now it's hard for me to care anymore.
For example, your comparing the difficulty of finding a job with such-and-such a health plan (like it was solely a matter of personal choice) and buying a house by an airline (a patently foolish choice even if based on a real incident that had nothing to do with the kind of choice we were discussing - and I found the comparison outright insulting) was (at least IMO) so inapt as to be a total change in subject, and IMO showed such stubborn close-mindedness that further discussion seemed pointless. I still think it is, but at the same time I'm not leaving such things as you've said about me unchallenged.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...