Tag: Debate

Posted on

Friends of a Friend

If you know anything about me then you know that I enjoy a good debate, with the caveat that I enjoy a good debate that is free of logical fallacies. I like to debate for several reasons such as; it might change my mind on a given topic if I am incorrect in my current position, it might help someone else change their mind on a subject (yeah right), it helps everyone involved know where the other person is coming from and I gain more knowledge when I do it. I would feel comfortable saying most people do not share my view. Most people do not enjoy having their world view questioned as I do. I like to question all views respectfully and assess their merit. Such debate and questioning usually occurs, for me, in a one on one situation. Last week I found myself in a situation with several people making points at and even attacking me while I presented fact after fact shutting them down. Needless to say I was in hog heaven.

I find the exchange interesting enough to post here. I am changing the names to cute little nicknames and I am changing the order of posts to more closely match the order I saw them in and to make more sense in displaying responses. I will also add extra commentary. It began regularly enough with a friendface friend, who currently supports the slaughter of babies at Planned Parenthood and the continued government funding of said organization, saying this:

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Sen John Kyl said (on the floor of the Senate) that “90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions.” The problem is, that number is actually only 3%. When Kyl’s office was asked to clarify, they said that his statement was “not meant to be taken as factual.” Ha ha ha ha!!!

So to rain on the laugh parade I said:

ME
Sounds like a great place to cut some spending. 97% of what they do is already covered under medicare/medicaid and the other 3% “doesn’t use” federal funding anyway. Good find.

To which Friendface Friend replied:

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
I think Kyl’s job would be a great place to cut some spending. Anyone who says what he said is either in it for the wrong reason or doesn’t believe that we deserve the truth. Lastly, I already knew all of the extra info you shared.

MILITANT BABYKILLER
Wow, what a moron. So nice to know that idiots like that control serious issues that affect millions of lives. And all these MEN for that matter making decisions about family planning and abortion. They don’t have a uterus! I’m a little radical, but I don’t think it’s fair that men get to tell us what we can and can’t do. Sh***y men abandon their families, and aren’t left with the caring for unplanned pregnancies. If they skip out-are they judged? Not enough. MEN aren’t having to incubate a human inside them for 9 months. MEN don’t get stuck having to raise children and pay for daycare if they don’t want to. Oh, but I guess they do have the right to make up statistics.

Militant Babykiller is a goldmine of moronic points. I could go on for hours about this one post alone. Let’s just hit the highlights.

“And all these MEN for that matter making decisions about family planning and abortion. “

Whether she or anyone else likes it or not, it takes a man and a woman to make a family, with children and all the trimmings. Why would a man not be allowed to have a say in planning his family?

“They don’t have a uterus!”

This is one of the dumbest arguments for anything ever devised by anyone (more on that in my actual response to her).

“MEN aren’t having to incubate a human inside them for 9 months.”

OK so it’s alright to end the human life just because someone doesn’t want inconvenience. Thank goodness for her inconsistency or everyone would be in danger of getting killed by others who are inconvenienced in some other way. My actual response to her and Friendface Friend was:

ME
First, just know I don’t care at all about Kyl. You presented a false dichotomy and I hate it when options are presented as the only ones when they are clearly not the only options. Kyl is either “in it for the wrong reason” or he “doesn’t …believe that we deserve the truth”. He might have just been ill-informed, that is a possibility is it not? You have made factually incorrect statements to me before, should you lose your job? Besides we could not save money on Kyl’s job since the people that elected him must be represented. Unless you are advocating the dismantling of our system of elected representatives and checks and balances.

I don’t have a uterus but I used to live in one. The uterus argument is one of the stupidest arguments ever. What about women who had hysterectomies? Taken further this line of logic could be used to exclude women who have never had children or even women who have never had an abortion from making any points about it. I have never murdered anyone but I will gladly tell other people not to, even without the experience of ending a life myself. If a woman doesn’t want a child we have something called adoption which is much better than killing. Or there is also not sleeping with the wonderful “sh***y” gentlemen that keep skipping out on these sluts. It is good to see though, that even though it is only 3% (according to their own numbers) Planned Parenthood is still the go-to location for slaughtering babies.

Bonus Factoid: Did you know Sanger’s first incarnation of Planned Parenthood was called the “Negro-Project” and was formed to get rid of black people?

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
I didn’t present the uterus argument. So, no response there from me.
Sluts is a pretty strong word, Dale. Not only promiscuous women find themselves in these situations.
If he just got his info wrong, why didn’t he say that?
Nope, didn’t know that about PP.

ME
When was the last time you heard a politician admit they were wrong? Again I care nothing about Kyl and know nothing about him besides that he is a politician and it generally takes a certain type to be one, oh and he is a lousy fact checker. As for “slut”, tomayto tomahto.

Extra Factoid: Did you know that until recently you could specify that pp donations could go specifically towards killing black babies only?

HOOKED ON PHONICS
Does anybody know the cost of adoption in the US? I do. The going rate is 30 grand. Women keep their babies even when it is not in the best interest of the child. Friendface Friend I love you sugar for so many reasons. We agree on so much and I love the fact that you are fearless! Keep up the good work!

ME
So, human life = $30,000. Got it, good to know. I know where you could give a baby away for free.

Extra Extra Factoid: Margaret Sanger on occasion referenced black people as “human weeds”, “reckless breeders” and as “human beings who never should have been born.”

HOOKED ON PHONICS
Really Dale please tell me. My best friend lost her baby 3 days before her due date and would love to have one of those free babies you think are out there for the taking.

ME Learn to read, Hooked on Phonics. I said, “give a baby away”. We were talking about the slut side of things and not the adopter side. There is no reason it would ever cost someone $30,000 to put a baby up for adoption.

I later checked her and found a screaming deal on adoption starting at $4,000.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND:
Jeez. I only thought it was laughable that one of our over-paid, under-qualified “representatives” was making a very erroneous statement about numbers, which were the entire point of the statement. The statement happened to be about an issue that was moments away from causing a govt. shutdown. In a situation like that, getting the numbers right is pretty important. When asked about his statement, he basically shirked responsibility. And, that made me laugh.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
This is such a sensitive issue, and everyone has their own reasons for how they feel. None are more important than another.

HOOKED ON PHONICS
No need to worry! The brow beating has made me change my mind completely.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Dayna, you made me laugh out loud!

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Also, Dale, just because politicians don’t usually admit that they are wrong doesn’t mean that now wouldn’t be a great time to start….for ALL of them.

^That last one contributes nothing. Just because I can’t fly doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a great time to start.

Here’s my reply:

ME
@Phonics – Oh, I didn’t think you would be able to read the brow beating.

@Friendface – Not killing people is much more important than all other reasons.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
What about women who would die if they didn’t receive said service?

ME Just as you can kill a full grown adult in self defense there are exceptions to all rules. That’s just common sense.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND: Yes, it is. It is the exception that in a black and white situation can make all the difference.

Uuuuuuh…ok…that’s a weird response.

ME
All situations are black and white. Each individual one has it’s own correct answer and every subset of that possible situation has it’s own correct black and white answer. There is never a gray.

I am ok with a procedure in cases where a life is at risk, or where a crime has been committed such as rape or incest. Those are hard situations with hard decisions to be made. Much the same as I am ok with snuffing out full grown lives for self defense, war (which should only be for defense) or possibly criminal situations. Although I would prefer to not have the death penalty really.

As has been said before, in person would be a better way for such discussion and would more than make up for my non-use of emoticons. Also Kyl sounds like a real winner but if you think politicians giving fake numbers is funny, pay more attention and you will laugh your a** off all the time.

Speaking of black and white/right and wrong, apologies to {Phonics} about the “learn to read” thing. But seriously it’s called “Hooked on Phonics”. Joking joking. Apologizing starting now.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
I think there’s a gray….

MS KNOWITALL
regardless of how anyone feels about abortions, they are 100% privately funded. It is, in fact, illegal to utilize any Title X funding on abortions. (and has been since 1976, I believe) And, that is all that matters when we speak of federal funding for a very important organization that is essential to women’s health.

OK, so nevermind that killing babies is wrong. “All that matters” is that tax dollars don’t pay for the slaughter. Phew.

ME
@Friendface – Nope. No gray.

@Knowitall – you just reiterated my good reason for de-funding. Hooray!!!

Although you do overlook Kathleen Sebelius’ statement about all funding going to the same pot and having no guarantee that tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. Oh and you overlook the fact that killing babies is wrong.

MILITANT BABYKILLER
Yeah, there’s a gray. Thank goodness some people believe that or we’d all be f’d.

Uuuuuh, how exactly would we be “f’d”, genius?

BLAH GUY
It’s not up to us to pass judgment on grey areas God will ultimately do that. How ever God says in the Bible that I knew your voice in your mothers womb.

If there are truly gray areas then how would a just God pass a black and white judgment on anyone? The reason He can judge is that He knows each black and white correct answer and all the facets of each situation.

ME
I’d like an example of a moral situation where there is no clear right and wrong then. Show me this gray. Open my eyes to this hazy light/darkness. I hope it’s not like the gray area used to justify slavery or mass slaughter or other horrible acts throughout the ages. Gray areas are only for those trying to get away with something while their conscience bothers them.

BLAH GUY
Black and white a baby does not create major organs while in the womb it’s known that when the child comes out it’s going to die immediately. I think that’s a grey area.

ME
‎@Blah Not gray. If it is fully known that no organs will ever develop it is a very easy choice.

MS KNOWITALL
so, I just read some of the thread above…and I see that you already know funding does not cover abortions, Dale. I do have to ask you this why do you assume the other 97% of the services offered by Planned Parenthood is covered by medica…id/medicare? Btw, I am speaking to PP only because you used 97%, which is only a number specific to PP, where as Title X does not only fund PP. So, please…tell me, I am interested in an off the cuff response~

ME
‎@Knowitall – Missed your earlier question post – Quick answer: unless PP has a purple nurple service that they charge for that I don’t know about then every other service can be taken care of with insurance or medicaid or found down at free clinics all over the place. No need for special funding. Of course that need would never ever possibly exist anyway.

Also, it is currently legal for tax money to fund abortions because of the 2009 omnibus bill nullification of the Dornan amendment.

The placement of this one is strange because I read it in this order. The next section actually happened right before my last reply.

MS KNOWITALL
Leaving black/white, or gray out of this….you still did NOT answer my question. I wonder why that is?? Because you’re statement was absolutely false!! The majority of PP patients are NOT eligible to be covered by medicare/medicaid darlin’! Furthermore, you are so cookie-cutter “right” in your sad excuse for a rebuttal in vomiting some bs about Sebelius, please provide proof of this statement, I’d love to see it. And, btw, if you seriously think that every single medical service paid for by the government is not completely audited you have lost your mind (which is clear in everything you say anyway). I bet you think Obama is an Alien, and his not American as well eh? hahaha…

Oh, I will shut her up.

MS KNOWITALL
p.s. to be clear, I think killing babies is wrong too, I would never have an abortion. And, thankfully, believing in another woman’s choice is not contradictory to my own personal moral code.

What a stupid “moral code”. I also believe in other people’s choice. I think we should ask the babies if they would like to live or not and wait for a response. I also believe that a woman can still “choose” to murder someone because of inconvenience. I just want to live in a society where there is a swift consequence for such a choice.

ME
‎@Knowitall Wow so much hatred and venom. All over a comment I never saw. So much ad hominem was “vomited” by your clearly, lost long ago, mind; judging by “everything you say anyway”.

By the way how do they not qualify for medicaid? do they make too much money? http://www.medicaidinformation.info/articles/55330/Medicaid-Coverage—Mandatory

– “darlin'” idiot

Next one is out of place as well. It belongs after my “learn to read” statement but I didn’t see it til now. Seriously though, how hard is it to read what someone wrote and respond accordingly?

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Also, it is possible to make a point/statement without being derogatory.

HOOKED ON PHONICS Okay Friendface you win! Longest personal thread I have ever seen on FB. Way to GO!

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Yikes. This was not my intention. And, um, I love you all. The end!

Then I thought I would finish with these, which I think answer pretty much everything:

ME
‎…was headed out the door earlier. I have more. ( I never quit)

Obama as an alien – Born in Hawaii, jus soli.

I also added the video evidence for Sebelius pool of funding talk. You know the BS that doesn’t exist.

Sebelius BS –

Government meticulously auditing –

I also threw in a shot at the original post. I know that technically Kyl was wrong with his numbers, but he may have wanted to say this:

PP 97.6% of pregnant customers get abortions – http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/11/politifact-misleads-in-bashing-jon-kyl-over-planned-parenthood/

extra extra extra bonus:

TROLL LADY
-please stop feeding the troll…

Anyone who actually knows that a “troll” is not someone who comments and shares opinions about something, but rather, is someone who posts things that can evoke an emotional response and detract from a discussion will see the huge irony from Troll Lady.

HOOKED ON PHONICS
I thought of it as poking the bear myself.

ME
So…Party at Friendface’s house?

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Party at my house. The only rules are that elephants have to talk to donkeys, and vice versa. And if you are neither donkey or elephant, you’re responsible for drinks.

LATE FOR THE SHOW
Ok. Killing is evil. So let’s save lives and money by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

ME
I am neither an elephant or donkey but I don’t drink. Anybody like milk? We can do the gallon challenge.

@LATE – Iraq/Afghanistan – Amen!!!

I hate the assumption that I am a Republican because I hold certain views. And I hate that one might assume that I want our troops to be in Iraq or Afghanistan because of my views on slaughtering babies. I also don’t like political parties and will probably never join one.

ENTERTAINED LADY
Thanks for the entertainment!!

“BOOM WINNING” GUY
Wow Friendface… You should start a blog.. Have a feature column for Dale.. Kind of like Andy Rooney. I think he’s great.

That was the last I saw of it for a few days until I went back to it for writing this up and saw the following:

KILLING BABIES IS FUNNY GUY
Just think… if Planned Parenthood had aborted John Kyle, I wouldn’t be reading this awesomely long thread.

You also wouldn’t be reading it if they had aborted you. Don’t make it right.

FRIENDFACE FRIEND
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Thanks, KBIFG, I needed that.

Oh yeah LOL!!! All the people who never got a chance to breath think it’s real funny too.

CROWDED MASS MURDERER
the population continues to grow, why would anyone cut spending at PP? I am ProChoice, If I were rich, I would be a philanthropist and donate money for women who can’t afford abortions.

If I were to reply to the new statements I might say this:

ME
Some groups of people hold no value for the human lives of other groups. Some people look down on the infidels, some on the Jews, some on those with different skin color and some people don’t value the lives of anyone of an opposing view. Other people don’t value those who have yet to make their own choices and voice their own opinions. Each of these are human lives and each contribute to the population that “continues to grow”. Why pick the most innocent and fragile group of these to slaughter en masse? Because it’s easy? Because the others have been tried before? Who else can we destroy to make some more elbow room in this crowded place, as though we can currently barely breath or move about? Expand your list to really solve this problem, you philanthropist you.

If you can’t tell I am very passionate about some things and I have facts and principles to back me up. Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott case of modern times, as it is so blatantly against the principles of our nation’s founding.

Tell me if you think I should post my reply.

Posted on

Response Continued

I will just do a line by line on a secondary response to Gus:

“By Dale’s counter-argument, we read that “[t]he government has no place in health care…”“

Short note: I should have specified federal government.

“Taking this argument further would include the abolition of medicare, medicaid, and V.A. benefits. The elderly, young, and disabled former service members who take advantage of such programs are quite a bit more prone to sickness and would most definitely not be able to get insurance under the same types of ideas that Dr. Emmanuel enumerates“

Yes, we need to get rid of medicare and medicaid in a controlled way before it simply implodes. But it might be too late. The states can still have their own safety net health systems if they wish and if their state constitutions allow it, but the federal must stay out of it. As far as veterans go, if someone is wounded in the defense of our country that falls under national defense expenditures which is allowed in the constitution. The feds can pay for their care and hospitals can compete for veteran business with veteran priority centers or something like that. No more Walter Reed slumspitals.

“The very things that we read above are the very things that private insurances currently consider for profit. This for profit model of health care is the very reason that we have denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.“

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service for any reason. The government should never discriminate for any reason, ever. Private businesses can be boycotted, government cannot. Private businessmen can go to prison much easier than government officials (Scooter, I’m looking at you) can.

“Although I believe that capitalism is indeed the best way to get money to circulate, I also think that it makes a god out of money.“

When the founders decided to go with capitalism this was a concern. Many of them had studied Cicero thoroughly and based on his concept of natural law they decided that God would punish those who follow greedy ways. They also wanted leaders to always impress upon the people how important giving freely to each other is in our society. With all the millionaires in congress who make 4 times what the average American makes and don’t lead by example one can see how we are doing on that.

“When motivation becomes the Almighty Dollar and human lives are at stake, adding an option that is not run for profit might be a good idea. Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen, but we can see evidence both for and against single-payer systems in other developed countries, where people are generally healthier than in the U.S.“

Again it comes to morals and charity. If only there was some way to teach those kinds of things????? Hmmmmm.

“Of course, we are not speaking of a single-payer system. We are speaking of something which might be preliminary to such a system, but it is a choice to make, not a full governmental solution, such as single-payer would have been.
So, yes, I think that there could be boards in the government that would decide limits on certain types of care based on social and economic factors, much as doctors and nurses, in an emergency, have to decide who receives the limited resources available via a process of triage.“

Again government cannot discriminate, ever. That is an essential principle. I keep thinking of an old commercial where a lady was told she had cancer and was going to die. She went to a different hospital and they helped her to live. With government care you only get the one shot with no hope for a fight anywhere else.

“As a pseudo-libertarian, I agree that the government having more power might be a bad thing.“

I hate the word libertarian because I hate the ‘arian’ part. Like vegetarian or aryan nation. It just rubs me the wrong way. If I didn’t hate the smell of pot so much and hate the name I might slightly consider changing my ‘unaffiliated’ status.

“I think that the government should be in the business of protecting rights, not granting them. One of the most important rights that a government can protect is the right of its citizens to live, and it would seem that in today’s society the right to live is connected with one’s ability to receive health care.“

The rights that the government must protect are the ones given by ‘Nature and Nature’s God’. Man is not given the right to health care or food or shelter he must work for those. He has been given life, liberty, the ability to pursue happiness and property, speech, religion, press (information), defense of self and so on and on. Our government must protect those freedoms and leave the rest to society.

“All that being said, I agree with Dale that tort reform would do wonders to help replenish our ailing health care system, hopefully saving doctors from unnecessary expenses, except in cases of negligence.“

We have laws about not suing when a plane crashes why not when something goes wrong when a doctor did their best? If they cut off the wrong appendage that is a clear case to sue, but if they gave you the wrong pills for a week and you felt ill, no way.

Posted on

Response to Gus

Since I like good discussions and Gus is the only one that I have such discussions with nowadays I am putting a long response to his post here:

You are gonna have to pity this fool then Gus.

Mr. Beck stated that he doesn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he says he doesn’t believe in the ‘allocation’ system that he devised. You countered that with Dr. Emanuel saying that he doesn’t believe in his system. These two examples leave us with a ‘he said, he said’ situation and it is not clear that there is ‘outright deceit’ by any party, but we rather have a situation where we must deduce things.

Dr. Emanuel’s ‘complete lives system’ is an alternative to the ‘first come, first served’ waiting list system and also includes proposals for the rationing of medical care other than organs when ‘scarcity’ calls for it. The fact that the government will soon be bankrupt creates ‘scarcity’ and thus calls for ‘allocation’ if the government takes over health care. ‘Death Panel’ is just a cute name for the group of people who will decide where things get allocated. Mr. Beck stated that he didn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he claimed that he doesn’t endorse his own ‘complete lives system’. Seems logical to not believe someone when they tell you they don’t like their own work. I think ‘first come, first served’ is fair enough rather than discrimination based on age or impairment status. There is no need to work up such a system unless you think it might actually be used. Unlike Dr. Emanuel’s thesis on “Puppy-punching”, that one was purely for fun.

The Doctor was not taken out of context as the entire context of his research was on deciding who gets treatment over others. There is no question of context because that was fully his topic, he set the context. The only question that would remain is whether it was just a waste of time for him and he doesn’t believe any of it should ever be used, or he believes it. He says he doesn’t, Beck doesn’t believe him. The Doctor is the ‘health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’, so his research and conclusions in previous works about health-policy ‘allocation’ aka ‘budgeting’, should be applicable. He states that he is against the ‘Right to Die’ when that is not the question. ‘Right to die’ people want to die. People who are concerned about a discriminatory system of allocation want to live. It is not assisted suicide if a person just lets someone die.

The doctor also claims that people are taking him out of context because they don’t have any solutions for health care costs. I have heard some real good alternate solutions. Tort reform is a huge one. I was sick a while back and the doctor misdiagnosed me and caused another problem. I told this to a friend of mine who was in law school at the time and he said I had a good solid case to sue. No permanent damage had been done but apparently I could have got some free money. I did not. If we could better protect doctors from worthless and dumb cases such as what mine would have been we could lower costs. Next we have a myriad of companies that are confined by state borders. If congress used it’s constitutional interstate commerce power in a better way and allowed interstate competition prices would go down.

The Doctor may very well actually not believe in the system he has devised, but the fact that he has plotted out the whole thing and that he has the ear of the powers-that-be can be concerning. He has clearly thought about it quite thoroughly. He even made a chart to demonstrate who will be less inclined to receive treatment.

Dr. Emanuel’s material is well thought out and has a lot of practical points, but it ignores some key principles. To kick off this point these are the decision methods he compares:

Treating People Equally

  1. Lottery
  2. First-come, first served

Prioritarianism

  1. Sickest first
  2. Youngest first

Utilitarianism

  1. Saving the most lives
  2. Saving the most life-years
  3. Saving the most socially useful
  4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

Now the biggest principle that I feel applies is equality. The government must treat the lives of all citizens with equal concern. A system which places people at different priority levels based on characteristics like age or mental capacity devalues the lives of those at lower priority levels. We have already had far too much unequal treatment in this country and we know it is horrible.

The next principle I feel has been overlooked is power. When there are people who make these decisions with the aforementioned criteria in mind these people are susceptible to corruption either from themselves or from others above them. Let’s go fictional and say that we have a president named Deorge W. Bush and he doesn’t like someone named Malerie Plame. Malerie gets very sick and needs a transplant. Well now that we have the ‘Complete Lives’ board and they are under the control of the government, it is very easy to manipulate things for political reasons and Malerie’s life is suddenly worth less, whereas before she would have had an equal chance on a waiting list or in a lottery. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where a leader would have it in for someone and if you don’t think it could happen in America then you trust government too much. The less power the government has, the better, to a certain point which is marked by the concept of ‘natural law’.

Now of course, I do not believe that Dr. Emanuel wants to kill people, I disagree with the method of allocation that he devised that he also does not agree with even though he devised it. I cannot speak for Mr. Beck, but it may be safe to say that he doesn’t think the Doctor wants old people and handicaps to die. But there are people around that do and a big concern is raised when government has any power over ones health and life decisions. The reason things seem Orwellian is because the government is involved in socialism, that was Orwell’s forte. The principles of Ingsoc are coming to fruition more subtly than set forth in fiction and obviously on a longer time line. The government should not be concerned with social things. The constitution should be adhered to and let society worry about social issues like health care. The more government is in our lives the more power they have and it should be known as a well established fact that power corrupts. This generation may not abuse that power but it will happen at some point.

The government has no place in health care. The constitution was a document set up to limit government and does not give the government the power to control health care or any other industry. Since it is not set forth in the constitution it is left to States or individuals to decide what to do. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington. We should not let the fire out of the fireplace.