Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[Underhill]

And it's also one party whereas most believed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is not a Christian, plus where almost half do not accept the basic concept of evolution.

Exactly.

 

[tytlyf]

Being anti-ACA is a corporate position
Being pro-ACA is a middle class position

The republican party rarely has middle class policies....if ever.

 

[Revoltingest]

No large group is perfect. But there are some glaring differences. Only one party is claiming global warming isn't real. Only one party clings to old values that don't work in a modern society. There's more but you know the drill.

You're citing supporting examples for your claim, but not looking at both sides.

 

[Underhill]

You're citing supporting examples for your claim, but not looking at both sides.

I would love to. Feel free to point out the similar large scale dismissals of reality that exist on the left.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would love to. Feel free to point out the similar large scale dismissals of reality that exist on the left.

A war of examples?
If we each cite awful things about the 2 parties, would it ever be
possible that you'd admit Democrats are as bad?
We've been thru it all before, & you've not changed your view
that Democrats are much better.
So this doesn't sound worth investing time in.

 

[Underhill]

A war of examples?
If we each cite awful things about the 2 parties, would it ever be
possible that you'd admit Democrats are as bad?
We've been thru it all before, & you've not changed your view
that Democrats are much better.
So this doesn't sound worth investing time in.

If you want to argue that each have positions we dislike I would agree. But I see no evidence that the democrats have a history (at least recently) of dismissing science when it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to argue that each have positions we dislike I would agree. But I see no evidence that the democrats have a history (at least recently) of dismissing science when it doesn't fit their agenda.

Have you tried searching for examples?
(You will find some.)
I don't want to spoil the surprises.
People don't often research shortcomings of their own side.

Btw, there are more ways to be unrealistic than just science.

 

[Underhill]

Have you tried searching for examples?
(You will find some.)
I don't want to spoil the surprises.
People don't often research shortcomings of their own side.

Btw, there are more ways to be unrealistic than just science.

Yes, there are. But that is not what we were discussing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, there are. But that is not what we were discussing.

I thought that was exactly what you brought up for discussion.

 

[Underhill]

I thought that was exactly what you brought up for discussion.

The discussion had moved to anti intellectualism as a predominately Republican trait. I've given roughly 8 examples on the right. You claimed the same is true on the left but fail to offer examples.

 

[metis]

The discussion had moved to anti intellectualism as a predominately Republican trait. I've given roughly 8 examples on the right. You claimed the same is true on the left but fail to offer examples.

You must be trying to have a serious discussion with a master of false equivalencies. Good luck with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

The discussion had moved to anti intellectualism as a predominately Republican trait. I've given roughly 8 examples on the right. You claimed the same is true on the left but fail to offer examples.

That's true.
Tis because if I listed examples of Dem anti-intellectualism, there'd be no agreement.
You & metis will believe what you believe no matter what I offer.
It just doesn't seem an interesting or productive thing to argue about.

You must be trying to have a serious discussion with a master of false equivalencies. Good luck with that.

I was wondering when the false false equivalency would rear it's ugly head.
If you weren't so weak as to put so many of us on <ignore>, you could
correct your erroneous impressions. But blind belief must be a comfort.

 

[Underhill]

That's true.
Tis because if I listed examples of Dem anti-intellectualism, there'd be no agreement.
You & metis will believe what you believe no matter what I offer.
It just doesn't seem an interesting or productive thing to argue about.

There is a fair chance of that. The left has it's share of faulty logic. But it has never, as long as I have been involved in politics, been anywhere remotely near as dismissive of those seen as intellectual as the right. The difference is more of a canyon than a leap.

I was wondering when the false false equivalency would rear it's ugly head.
If you weren't so weak as to put so many of us on <ignore>, you could
correct your erroneous impressions. But blind belief must be a comfort.

I've noticed the same of you. When Trump acts insane, you talk about Obama stuttering as an equivalent. When we talk about lying, you compare Clintons mistake and/or lie (all of twice that I could find) about the 3 classified emails to Trumps continual lies about Obama for 2 years (among a library of other examples) as an equivalent. And now, when I point out something that the entire world would agree with, you want to make the same argument, with no evidence, and claim it's pointless to bring up said evidence. At this point I tend to agree with you as it is sure to be more of the same.

And this is just 3 examples in the last few weeks. This common thread has been going on for as long as we've had these discussions.

If you saw someone driving 180 through a 25mph school zone you would be sure to point out that everyone speeds going through there. After all, almost everyone goes at least 30!

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a fair chance of that. The left has it's share of faulty logic. But it has never, as long as I have been involved in politics, been anywhere remotely near as dismissive of those seen as intellectual as the right. The difference is more of a canyon than a leap.

The left will always see themselves as superior in every area.
But to this outsider, I see the same human failings, with the
differences being only in flavor.

I've noticed the same of you. When Trump acts insane, you talk about Obama stuttering as an equivalent.

You're the one inferring that famous leftish straw man, "equivalence".
Try to look past dismissing all similarities because of some differences.

When we talk about lying, you compare Clintons mistake and/or lie (all of twice that I could find) about the 3 classified emails to Trumps continual lies about Obama for 2 years (among a library of other examples) as an equivalent. And now, when I point out something that the entire world would agree with, you want to make the same argument, with no evidence, and claim it's pointless to bring up said evidence. At this point I tend to agree with you as it is sure to be more of the same.

Since the vast majority of accusations of lying are subjective & unprovable, one can make the statistics show
whatever one wants. This abuse of statistics is itself anti-intellectual, or as I prefer to call it, "anti-rational".

And this is just 3 examples in the last few weeks. This common thread has been going on for as long as we've had these discussions.

You just can't let go of that bone, trying to start a war of examples.
Where do you think it will lead?
I will finally admit that Democrats are better than Republicans?
You will finally admit that they're both pandering loonies lusting for power?
Nah...not happening.

If you saw someone driving 180 through a 25mph school zone you would be sure to point out that everyone speeds going through there. After all, almost everyone goes at least 30!

Silly ad hom scenario retort time.....
If you saw a Democrat speeding in a school zone, you'd defend it by saying Bush does
it too, & that I'm a privileged whit male racist misogynist for criticizing speeding.

 

[Underhill]

The left will always see themselves as superior in every area.
But to this outsider, I see the same human failings, with the
differences being only in flavor.

You're the one inferring that famous leftish straw man, "equivalence".
Try to look past dismissing all similarities because of some differences.

Since the vast majority of accusations of lying are subjective & unprovable, one can make the statistics show
whatever one wants. This abuse of statistics is itself anti-intellectual, or as I prefer to call it, "anti-rational".

Except they aren't in this case. I've pointed this out before. Trump routinely lies about demonstrable numbers. And does so long after people have pointed out the fallacy.

I don't dismiss anything on the left. I line them up side by side and make a judgement call. There are plenty of times when the differences are small and I would not argue with you. But when it comes to a bad used car salesman who lies when his mouth opens and can't seem to keep his mouth shut or a woman who occasionally gets her facts wrong... I am capable of seeing the clear difference between the two.

You just can't let go of that bone, trying to start a war of examples.
Where do you think it will lead?
I will finally admit that Democrats are better than Republicans?
You will finally admit that they're both pandering loonies lusting for power?
Nah...not happening.

I don't think you will admit to anything. But I am proving my point and I am not the only one who sees it.

Silly ad hom scenario retort time.....
If you saw a Democrat speeding in a school zone, you'd defend it by saying Bush does
it too, & that I'm a privileged whit male racist misogynist for criticizing speeding.

The difference is that my scenario is rooted in your actual behavior.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except they aren't in this case. I've pointed this out before. Trump routinely lies about demonstrable numbers. And does so long after people have pointed out the fallacy.

To quantify lying without evidence of intent is fallacious.
You don't allow for error or change of mind for Trump to the extent you do for Hillary.
Your double standard is polarizing your perceptions.

I don't dismiss anything on the left. I line them up side by side and make a judgement call. There are plenty of times when the differences are small and I would not argue with you. But when it comes to a bad used car salesman who lies when his mouth opens and can't seem to keep his mouth shut or a woman who occasionally gets her facts wrong... I am capable of seeing the clear difference between the two.

Your are indeed capable.
But just not living up to your full potential.

I don't think you will admit to anything. But I am proving my point and I am not the only one who sees it.

I'll admit to what is demonstrable, but you've not proven anything.
Your argument rests upon citing only examples which confirm your bias.
There's no balance because you don't even try to see anti-intellectualism in the Dems.
Note the difference....
I see it in both.
You see it as black & white, ie, your side is so pure as to be immune to any comparison.

To see different groups of human beings as dangerous & fundamentally different is the foundation of prejudice.

The difference is that my scenario is rooted in your actual behavior.

Your scenario is a comforting fantasy.

 

[Acim]

If you want to argue that each have positions we dislike I would agree. But I see no evidence that the democrats have a history (at least recently) of dismissing science when it doesn't fit their agenda.

I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before on RF, but I've seen plenty of evidence of national Dems dismissing science when it comes to politics around eCigs/vaping. Schumer for sure, and if I did a wee bit of investigating, I know I can name other names. They (Dems) are waging a clear propaganda battle due to the idea that they think it renormalizes smoking and feel it helpful to control the narrative around that issue. So, you get such idiotic claims that the only reason certain flavors exist is to appeal to kids and get them hooked on eCigs for life. I could honestly speak another 25 paragraphs this length, or longer, on this topic. But it is for me one of those issues where science has taken a significant hit on its credibility for having (paid) researchers, some of whom are employed by the government (i.e. FDA) and who are espousing things that are for sure questionable if not outright deceptive. For me, it's not the only issue, but it is the one that compelled me to vote against the Dems in 2016 POTUS elections and the one I feel quite comfortable talking about even at the level of science, as I have looked into and thoroughly reviewed about 20 scientific studies in past 5 years.

I see American version of science becoming observably partisan at this point and from a philosophical perspective, I find it quite embarrassing for science.

 

[Acim]

So, you really don't care about the well-being of people? Jesus did. Moses did. Mohammed did. They didn't just preach.

A one-size fits all approach rarely works. I would suggest putting people first would be a much more effective and more moral approach.

None of this follows from what I wrote and is just you appealing to pseudo-intellectualism. I spoke of healing, you answer that with a one-size fits all approach rarely works. Healing is clearly putting people first, whereas treatment is clearly putting ideas/methodology above the concern for the well being of the person.

The idea that noting premature deaths will occur for as long as there are people on the planet means one doesn't care about the well being of people, where somehow, magically believing the likes of ACA means you care about the well being of all people is undeniably humorous.

 

[metis]

Healing is clearly putting people first, whereas treatment is clearly putting ideas/methodology above the concern for the well being of the person.

"Healing" and "treatment" for a great many people are intertwined as many people need "treatment" prior to having "healing".

The idea that noting premature deaths will occur for as long as there are people on the planet means one doesn't care about the well being of people, where somehow, magically believing the likes of ACA means you care about the well being of all people is undeniably humorous.

Well, if you find 40,000 Americans dying prematurely, according to two independent studies, as being "humorous", then I guess we're simply working with totally different concepts of morality. These studies have confirmed where I'm coming. Now, if you can produce alternative studies to show I'm wrong, please be my guest, otherwise the "pseudo-intellectualism" charge you leveled against me is simply a projection of your own bias.

So, let's see your studies, Acim-- no rants, just studies.

 

[Acim]

"Healing" and "treatment" for a great many people are intertwined as many people need "treatment" prior to having "healing".

I'm speaking to treatment where it seeks to rule out things in a methodological way. Healing cuts to the chase and fully knows / understands the actual problem/error occurring. Don't need "treatment" for that to occur.

Well, if you find 40,000 Americans dying prematurely, according to two independent studies, as being "humorous",

I don't. I find your pseudo intellectualism and spin hilarious. Undeniably hilarious.