Curse

A11Eur0 · Oct 13, 2009, 07:44 PM // 19:44

And your point? people who could have afforded the treatment before the health care bill passed would have had their treatments PDQ. Now they have to wait in line. There's the difference. What you're apparently supporting is nothing more than punishing the successful. The liberal agenda does nothing but punish the successful. After the DNC gets everything they want, there will be no incentive for US Citizens to excel in anything, because the further ahead they get, the more resistance they'll see.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 13, 2009, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

And your point? people who could have afforded the treatment before the health care bill passed would have had their treatments PDQ. Now they have to wait in line. There's the difference.

I wasn't aware the bill had been passed yet, and the waiting line is just speculation on your part.

A11Eur0 · Oct 13, 2009, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Talk to anyone in Canada. It's not speculation, it's fact. And it's essentially been passed. It passed senate committee today...it'll pass through the Dem-heavy Senate with ease now that it has Bi-partisan support, and the Obama will bust a nut when he lays ink to finalize it. I'll wait to say I told you so, but I will say it. I guarantee it.

But since you totally missed it...it was a hypothetical situation of it passing. So sorry you can't imagine any future further than 30 seconds away.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 13, 2009, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Talk to anyone in Canada. It's not speculation, it's fact. And it's essentially been passed. It passed senate committee today...it'll pass through the Dem-heavy Senate with ease now that it has Bi-partisan support, and the Obama will bust a nut when he lays ink to finalize it. I'll wait to say I told you so, but I will say it. I guarantee it.

But since you totally missed it...it was a hypothetical situation of it passing. So sorry you can't imagine any future further than 30 seconds away.

There is no need to get insulting. As far as the Dem heavy Senate, please tell me why it's Dem heavy, perhaps it is because people voted that way?

Snow Bunny · Oct 13, 2009, 08:32 PM // 20:32

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8304375.stm

zzzzzz

Fril Estelin · Oct 13, 2009, 08:58 PM // 20:58

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8296537.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8206349.stm

Winterclaw · Oct 13, 2009, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Inde there is one thing that is a little misleading about the article:

Quote:

A study published in the June issue of the American Journal of Medicine found that in 2007, 62 percent of personal bankruptcies were because of medical debts.

A few years ago, bankruptcy legislation was passed making it harder for you to declare and medical issues were one of the few ways you could still get it. Another thing that has happened over the past thirty years is the US has become more litigious, meaning more insurance costs for the doctors which get passed on to the patients. Also drug companies have to spend a lot in testing to comply with federal guidelines and keep from being sued if someone dies from their medications.

It is like what that one guy said: there are lies, darned lies, and statistics.

Anyways here is what I think the big scam of obamascare is: it's not going to make medical or insurance costs go down, it's just going to shuffle them around and force people who may not need insurance to pay for it.

I have some more thoughts that I might share later.

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 13, 2009, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

it's not going to make medical or insurance costs go down, it's just going to shuffle them around and force people who may not need insurance to pay for it.

Who does not need health insurance? You may be healthy, but one major accident and how do you pay.We pay everyday for the people who are uninsured by increased hospital costs. A hospital will recoup the cost of treating the uninsured by raising the price of their services to all others.
So whether you like it or not you are subsidizing the uninsured at this very moment.

Burst Cancel · Oct 14, 2009, 02:01 AM // 02:01

@Fuhon:
Again, I don't see that your talk of human experience is at all useful. I don't need to have experience as a cog to build a machine that uses one, just as I don't need to be a mortgage broker or a homeowner to understand a financial system that involves them. Empirical observation forms the basis of a great deal of our science and engineering. Any system simply converts inputs into outputs; changing the inputs and observing the output doesn't require first-hand experience as part of the system. And first-hand experience, being a single data point, lacks the relevance of objective statistical data.

I don't understand your second point either. Machines can't learn because they aren't mechanically equipped to do so. The world is filled with things that grow despite lacking self-awareness, nevermind emotion. And as integral as emotion is to human existence, there still remains, distinct from it, our capacity for rational thought.

And finally, an engineer is only a humanitarian by definition when using the description of engineer as set forth by the NSPE (I do not agree that ethics are inherent in the profession, and simply saying they are does not make it so), and a definition of humanitarian that is so broad as to be meaningless (i.e., anyone who "promotes human welfare"). Under such a definition, most people would be humanitarians, even if they have no explicit interest in promoting the welfare of anyone (e.g., the promotion of human welfare isn't specifically contemplated as such, but rather is a happy side effect). And that's ignoring the problem of determining just what "promoting human welfare" actually means, and how one is to know whether human welfare is being promoted or not in any given situation.

As an aside, I don't think I've ever agreed with you on anything.

KiyaKoreena · Oct 14, 2009, 02:41 AM // 02:41

Is forcing everyone to buy private health insurance really the answer? Fat lot of good it does a family that grosses 40k a year to pay 6-12k a year in premiums with still a 5-20k deductible if they need to use it. Insurance for all isn't going to help with all the bureaucratic nonsense that is rampant or any of the other broken system points that have been brought up.

Don't knock the Canadian system, it looks after its population a hell of a lot better than the US system is looking after theirs right now unless you are rich. But if you are rich, it doesn't matter where in the world you are because everything comes to you if you throw enough cash at it.

Master Fuhon · Oct 14, 2009, 05:03 PM // 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Again, I don't see that your talk of human experience is at all useful. I don't need to have experience as a cog to build a machine that uses one, just as I don't need to be a mortgage broker or a homeowner to understand a financial system that involves them .... And first-hand experience, being a single data point, lacks the relevance of objective statistical data.

This is just a semantic argument, because I consider observation to be an empathic experience (and for all to be concious). I've hinted at this in my analogy of describing the viewer of the venn diagram as the paper itself. There are means for self-identification experiences to be transmissible that circumvent the need for direct persona/ego experiences. I know them as empathic experiences: being taught, reading, insight, etc. I meant my beliefs to be translated as: A person/ego cannot gain knowledge without achieving 'self-identification'. Based on my approach for gaining knowledge, I have a different understanding of the word 'experience' than someone who relies on maintains divorce from the emotional world and empathy.

All the cog argument tries to say is that effort doesn't need to be applied to declare 'completion' of a task. We are all cogs, connected to greater systems (gears), and when we move forward we push other cogs forward, and they move their interconnected systems forward (radially), and this moves the cog that comes after them to push the original cog forward as well. It's a continual system of cogs pushing other cogs and entire systems moving forward infinitely, and yes, we know existence as the cog. This metaphor is probably cliche in speeches by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

an engineer is only a humanitarian by definition when using the description of engineer as set forth by the NSPE (I do not agree that ethics are inherent in the profession, and simply saying they are does not make it so)

When the NSPE along with the specific engineering school societies declared a defintion of engineering, even the undergraduate degree was made to include an ethics course requirement. There was already an agreed upon apprenticeship/education requirement for anyone choosing to declare himself available to practice certain trade skills, which engineering qualifies under. There is an expectation that people with expertise discern similar sounding language like: experienced with electrical wiring, an electrician, or an electrical engineer. University of Rhode Island has taught the ethics requirement with a practicing engineer and a philosophy professor, which is where I learned of the complement of the two subjects.

The non-humanitarian definition of 'engineer' was changed by agreement of the societies and passed on to the education step. Ethics is a mandatory part of engineering due to hindsight about consequences. There are considerations of country wide issues (Challenger O-ring failure based on not conducting adequate temperature tests), or issues local to me (bridges with deteriorating infrastructure, Jamestown bridge, now demolished) that can be used to defend this change. In all of these cases, proposals get discussed about rammifications of engineers taking off 'humanitarian hats' and identifying themselves as 'business hat-wearers'. People would get hurt or die, engineers would be disbarred or fired, the profession itself would lose credibility.

Aside from the fact I defend a definition because of empirical proof of it's effectiveness, there's also a council for school accreditation (CHEA) and engineering accrediation (ABET) in the US that you can argue against; both bodies hold partial authority over the actual body of science because they raise the standards for being a science student. The key ethical component really is number 9, but I listed the others from this summarizing website.
http://onlineethics.org/CMS/edu/inst.../herkert2.aspx
6.an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
8.the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
9.a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
11.an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

and a definition of humanitarian that is so broad as to be meaningless (i.e., anyone who "promotes human welfare"). Under such a definition, most people would be humanitarians, even if they have no explicit interest in promoting the welfare of anyone (e.g., the promotion of human welfare isn't specifically contemplated as such, but rather is a happy side effect). And that's ignoring the problem of determining just what "promoting human welfare" actually means, and how one is to know whether human welfare is being promoted or not in any given situation.

Human welfare is about meeting human needs. Promoting human welfare through engineering is about creating solutions that meet human needs, over solutions that meet wants or solutions that try and fail to meet human needs. Most codes of ethics demand that the engineer hold safety paramount (a high priority human need). There is just a low modern tolerance for ethical codes because they limit behavior; everyone wants bills of rights and amendments that give more power. When people see ethical code they connect with associations of the Ten Commandments. Adhering to a code of ethics was a conservative value that even modern Republicans choose to be without due to mandatory calls to war and self-sacrifice. We've only experienced a straw man version of ethics in this country, where people make exceptions for themselves. Noticeably missing from the Ten Comandments was the reciprocal 'Honor your children and creations', teaching of Law of Reciprocity/Golden Rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

As an aside, I don't think I've ever agreed with you on anything.

You haven't 'read' one of my arguments in the past, so the first part of this post is only to discuss misinformation to readers. I believe descriptions of effective ways to gain knowledge and the understanding of how ethics has reshaped a field apply to the health debate. I would always try to discuss important prior knowledge before jumping head first into any complicated total, human health is probably most complicated.

But you'were mainly going to be looking for 'my' response to this quoted statement above all else. If one is looking for thorough teachers of the consequences of non-committment to higher learning, shame, doubt, or insecurity come recommended. I'm very happy to hear my arguing has been ineffective, because it means that I am less conductive to being an agent for fear to work through.

Kyosuke · Oct 15, 2009, 01:21 AM // 01:21

Do I dare touch this at all?

First and foremost, it's an economic impossibility to add people to the system and for overall costs to go down. That going along with the fact that since more people will be theoretically using the system, there will be more spent on health care than ever before.

Another thing that's going against a socialized system in the United States is our population. It just flat out won't work. We are approaching 310 million people. We are the 3rd most populous nation in the world. All of the systems that are being referred to as "good systems" have 1/6th - 1/8th of the population we do. Our health care system is ALREADY overburdened because of our large population with a lack of doctors, nurses, etc.. in all fields. Go to a job posting website and look at what the number one career field in demand is. Adding more people onto the system will actually cause a LOSS of doctors, not a gain, and increase wait times and add even more burden to the system.

Next, would be the idea that a government that cannot even manage the current systems of medicaid and medicare proficiently can actually manage a nationwide program is utterly absurd. These politicians are lawyers, not economists, not doctors, and most of all not you and me. They have no idea what the system is really like and have no idea how to run it. Again, adding more people to a government system that is already extensively in debt will not solve the problem at all and as stated previously will INCREASE spending, not decrease it.

Next would be the idea that insurance companies are being blamed for the "problems" with the current system. Actually, if anyone were smart enough to open their eyes and their brain and do a little bit of research, they would learn that insurance companies have been put to a stop from trying to operate more efficiently due to not only federal legislation, but also state legislation as well. For instance, Blue Cross/Blue Shield operates in most states, but they have to have 50 separate designations because you're not allowed to buy insurance over state lines. So while BCBS' costs in Texas might be $50 million a year to run their company, they're going to be $100 million a year in other states because of higher taxes, different health care laws, regulations, etc... The more you mandate is covered, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the costs will rise to go with it.

The most important aspect of this all, comes down to civil liberties. We can continue going on about the economics part of it, but when it comes down to it all, it's completely wrong and unconstitutional for the government to force the citizenry to buy something against their will. I don't have health insurance, because frankly I don't need it. I'm healthy as can be and when I get older I'll worry about it more then and provide for myself what I need. If I am having trouble with costs, I'll stop eating at McDonalds, I'll stop buying $1000 big-screen TVs and I'll live within my means. So many people today though, don't do that and CHOOSE not to have health insurance. The fact of the matter is, we have a "public option" right now and it's called medicaid for those who are around the "poverty" line. It's a proven failed system that SCREWS OVER DOCTORS just like its elderly version medicare. Go talk to doctors about medicaid and medicare and trying to get their costs back and they'll tell you about how much of a pain in the ass it is to get their money. A procedure that costs the doctor $400 out of pocket and they'll only get $300 back. It's a HORRIBLE system and not good for doctors at all. This is why many doctors choose not to take those forms of insurance and why doctors who accepted them with a private practice ended up having to jump-ship to one of your larger medical clinics. Either way, it's not the job of government to DICTATE to me what I should or should not do. It's LITERALLY a TAX for BREATHING!! - Just like the damn "C02" BS legislation they have in the works. They've taken away the market/liberty on material items, now they're trying to tax you for living period.......

There are so many "myths" out there about how "bad" our system is, but the truth is, every little part of our system that is "bad" can be traced back to government already. Whether it be with legislation of covering athletes foot and other absurd things, all the way to the failures of medicaid and medicare. An uneducated society like we have (to the government's planning mind you) is easily bought by propaganda of rare cases and spokesman that support a cause.

Don't take my word for it, do some REAL research. Get off the "Daily Right Winger" or the "Daily Kos" or whatever side of the aisle you're on and look at economic reports from individual states and the real problems that are out there. All of them can be traced to government, NOT insurance companies or doctors.

This truth is, this government HATES our health care system because it's SUCCESSFUL on its own. It's the last major growing industry out there, and the government wants to reign it in. It's the last one not overly dominated by unions and not overly run by a complete bureaucracy except in states that have taken complete control.... Add more government to it and sure as you are reading this right now, it will fall, and it will fall hard. People will be WISHING things were what they were once again.

Ask yourself, why are people in Canada flocking to private coverage who can afford it. Why are doctors becoming less likely to accept being an actual practice that accepts the single-payer system. Why is this starting to become more and more prevalent in the UK as well, it's because Government knows nothing about health care. They're just a bunch of out of touch lawyer lunatics who wouldn't know what it means to walk into a regular grocery store to buy groceries if their life depended on it. The problem isn't the industry, the problem IS Washington.

Fril Estelin · Oct 15, 2009, 02:18 AM // 02:18

Found this OECD document "Why does the United States spend so much more on health than other countries?". It seems to paint a fair picture of USA healthcare, in particular as it shows care quality is not that bad, but admin costs and other aspects make it so inefficient. Their conclusion:

Quote:

The United States spends much more on health than any other OECD country on a per capita basis and as a
share of GDP. This higher expenditure can only be partly explained by the high income level of US citizens.
The extra $750bn that America spends on health more than expected is not due to greater ‘need’ due to aging
or sickness.

The biggest difference in spending by category is in out-patient care. Within this, it is day surgery that has
seen the most rapid growth in spending. But although out-patient spending is a particularly striking
difference between the United States and other OECD countries, health spending per capita on in-patient
care, administration, medical goods (including pharmaceuticals) and investment is also higher than in any
other country, and spending per capita on long-term care and prevention policies is high.

Higher spending than in other countries is due either to higher prices for medical goods and services or to
higher service use. Unfortunately, existing comparisons of health prices across countries are of poor quality.
Nevertheless, all evidence suggests that prices of health goods and services are significantly higher in the
United States than in most OECD countries, and that this is the main cause of high overall health spending.
Health service use is high in some areas, particularly those which are funded on a fee-for-service basis,
including some advanced diagnostic techniques and elective surgery. But it is notable that where there are
payment structures that encourage cost-consciousness, the United States has a very efficient system: there
are few physicians and hospital beds, and average length of stay in hospital is low. This is a sign that the
structure of the health system determines expenditures.

Overall, health outcomes are below average in the United States, but this is due, at least in part, to factors
outside the health system. The United States stands out as performing very well in the area of cancer care,
achieving higher rates of screening and survival from different types of cancer than most other OECD
countries. At the same time, many other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, are doing much
better than the United States in providing good primary care to their population, thereby reducing the need
for costly hospital care for chronic conditions such as asthma or complications from diabetes which should
normally be managed outside hospitals.

The US has an exceptionally complex system. It is a system which introduces new technology rapidly – at a
price. It delivers (in some areas at least) high quality of care, together with greater innovation and choice
than in most other OECD systems. But it is not a system set up to bend the cost curve, unlike many other
OECD countries. This is one of the major reasons why costs are high: the US system leaves patients largely
indifferent to the price eventually charged for a medical good or service. Those who have insurance know
that their costs will be covered. Physicians know this, and furthermore have an incentive to offer services as
they are, largely, paid on a fee-for-service. In addition, ‘defensive medicine’ due to the threat of litigation,
gives a further reason why physicians might suggest an additional diagnostic test, even if the medical
benefits are likely to be limited, and the costs of malpractice insurance pushes up the prices that doctors
charge. Because of the high degree of choice, it is difficult to constrain costs because people can opt-out of
the more regulated system.

The US has the highest rate of use of many new technologies such as CT scans and MRIs of any OECD
country. New technology is likely to be more expensive than cheaper – almost uniquely, throughout all
sectors of the economy – because no person or body is concerned with the overall cost level. Combined with
other reasons, including the administrative costs inevitable in a multi-stakeholder system, far more complex
than existing in any other OECD country, and the result is high prices, high volumes of some activities, and
high expenditures.

All other OECD countries have more mechanisms built into their health systems to restrict expenditures than
is the case in the United States, even though most if not all people in these other countries are covered by
health insurance. This is done either by regulating quantities or prices or both, including the dissemination
of new technologies, or by requiring a greater proportion of costs out of pocket (as is the case in the United
States for long-term care spending, an area where, no doubt as a result, total spending is relatively low).
Regulating the price of inputs – doctors’ fees, hospital payments, pharmaceutical prices and so on – is one
way of constraining prices. Controlling volume often requires measures that restrict choice; occasionally
limit access to care which someone insured under a typical US health plan would be able to access, or expose
people to the risk of catastrophically high out-of-pocket payments unless a safety net is in place. By paying
such a price, the result is that other countries are able to afford universal health care access at a lower cost
than in the United States.

Winterclaw · Oct 15, 2009, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Quote:

The US has the highest rate of use of many new technologies such as CT scans and MRIs of any OECD country.

We've even got animal hospitals that can do Cat scans and MRIs.

I was watching O'reilly tonight and Dick Morris (the guy who got Clinton elected) had a good point. His father is alive and just turned 99 today. 4 years ago his father's colon was bleeding and had to have a bag inserted. Under Obamascare they would have looked at that 95 year old, said he didn't have many Quality Adjusted Years Remaining, and even though the Morris family probably has insurance and/or could pay for the procedure, the system probably would have denied him the right to get that life saving operation.

I mean in this land of "equality", you couldn't have rich people who can afford to pay for a procedure on their own get one. They would have to die like all the poor people because that is how a one size fits all system works. Likewise you can't have some old person tie up resources and get treatment when you've got healthy young people who have many years of productivity ahead of them.

Inde, you talked about 95 year olds earlier and I can see what Morris is saying.

A11Eur0 · Oct 15, 2009, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

There is no need to get insulting. As far as the Dem heavy Senate, please tell me why it's Dem heavy, perhaps it is because people voted that way?

they voted that way, and elected obongo, because of reactions towards Bush...and didn't want Sarah Palin anywhere near the office after she was dragged through the worst shit I've seen in the media, even worse than Dubya.

And if you're not going to read my posts, but reply with stupid comments that a simple re-read would have answered, I'm going to react in turn. Don't be stupid, and I won't call you stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I mean in this land of "equality", you couldn't have rich people who can afford to pay for a procedure on their own get one. They would have to die like all the poor people because that is how a one size fits all system works. Likewise you can't have some old person tie up resources and get treatment when you've got healthy young people who have many years of productivity ahead of them.

the only good scene in Logan's Run comes to mind. I wonder how the movie remake will handle this obvious and popular comparison.

Wooooo Edit Button!

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 15, 2009, 01:53 PM // 13:53

Methods Demagogy.

Apples and oranges — mixing of incomparable quantities. For example, "our government has increased social spending by 5 billion dollars, while the previous government increased it only by 0.4%." The latter sounds like less, but one cannot be sure without an absolute value.

Half-truth — making statements that are true only in a strict and relatively meaningless sense. For example, "the opposition has accused us of cutting foreign aid, but actually our government spends more than 500 million dollars in foreign aid," not mentioning that (adjusted for inflation) the allocated funds have in fact gone down.

False authority — relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. For example, "the professor read my book, and liked it very much," omitting the fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on history.

False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities. This method was incorporated by the Nazi regime to gain the general support of the public when it began to initiate its anti-Semitic policies.

Straw man — mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization.

Loaded question — posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have, e.g. "Do you still beat your wife?"

Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. For example, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar competitors.

Emotional appeal or personal attack — attempting to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You're stupid!", or just the classic retort "Shut up!"

I think people on both sides of the issue are guilty of some or all of the above.

Inde · Oct 15, 2009, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyosuke

This truth is, this government HATES our health care system because it's SUCCESSFUL on its own. It's the last major growing industry out there, and the government wants to reign it in. It's the last one not overly dominated by unions and not overly run by a complete bureaucracy except in states that have taken complete control.... Add more government to it and sure as you are reading this right now, it will fall, and it will fall hard. People will be WISHING things were what they were once again.

Your other arguments aside, many of which I can agree with, I have to address the above statement. Which is just wow, I have to assume that your cry for us to educate ourselves can be directed back at you. You think our health care system successful? From who's perspective? The record number of hospitals closing? Nearly 1/2 of hospitals operate in the Red. The hundreds of doctors leaving the system to take up other careers? A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 is predicted, with 1/2 of doctors stating they would leave medicine if they had an alternative. The overcrowding of ER's? 80% of teaching hospitals and urban hospitals and 90% of level I trauma centers were either at or above the operating capacity of their ED. The nurse to patient ratio which is higher then ever? Many states are now trying to pass ratio laws as units are chronically understaffed and nurses have too many patients to care for on each shift.

If you mean the insurance companies are successful, you may be right. But that's doesn't mean our health care system falls into that category.

Aleta · Oct 15, 2009, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

I wasn't aware the bill had been passed yet, and the waiting line is just speculation on your part.

My husband's doctor said if it passes it will be a disaster. There won't be enough doctors or time to see patients and that it would be easily six months between appointments. And that would be death for my husband.

And I also agree this is just punishing those of us who have worked hard.

Juhanah · Oct 16, 2009, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleta

And I also agree this is just punishing those of us who have worked hard.

Yes please we worked hard to watch other die of cancer outside while we go to hospital for a little cold. Don't remove our right to watch people die!

Shursh · Oct 16, 2009, 01:17 PM // 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juhanah

Yes please we worked hard to watch other die of cancer outside while we go to hospital for a little cold. Don't remove our right to watch people die!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities. This method was incorporated by the Nazi regime to gain the general support of the public when it began to initiate its anti-Semitic policies.

Straw man — mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization.

...

Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. For example, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar competitors.

Emotional appeal or personal attack — attempting to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You're stupid!", or just the classic retort "Shut up!"

All too easy.