Whether early screening is responsible for 11% or 5% or whatever % of our higher survival rate, its resonsible for some of it and logically a good bit of it. Thats the important point, not whether she's pinpoint accurate. IMO you do a lot of missing the forest for the trees.
No, we are just in different forests. I was not focused on the question of the utility of mammograms. That may be your forest but it isn't mine. I responded to your original point that early detection leads to higher survival rates with "sure," dismissing that particular forest as non-controversial and not worthy of further engagement. As far as I was concerned, that was beside the point.
The point, my forest, was the deceit, misinformation, and dearth of critical reading and thinking so typical in political debate. It's a hobby horse of mine. I find the dearth of critical thinking in this country downright scary. I find the lack of education and reasoning skills in the US population a critical risk to this country's future, vastly much more important in the grand scheme of things than mammograms. When I see as obvious an example as this one, I take issue with it. My response had nothing to do with the the policy on mammograms or the author's main theme of socialized medicine. My forest was the dumbing down of America as typified in this piece.
I thought I made my issue clear at the very top of the discussion. I wrote:
"Sneaky. Notice how the author elides... Excellent example of an all too common practice."
As you can see if you actively read what I actually write, I was not challenging the importance of mammograms. I was making an issue of the writer's argumentation technique. This particular rhetorical technique is called "enthymematic argumentation," on the off chance that you care about logic. Even sophisticated readers who are paying attention sometimes fall for this one.
I can see how you might have been so focused on your forest that you misread my statement of my forest. And I can see how you might be indifferent to my forest, the dumbing down of America. But, after all my explanation, if you can't see how this particular bit I highlighted was incorrect and deceptive, you have become a willing participant in it.
About that "author's illogic and hyperbole" - you're aggressively looking for some inaccuracy to object to imo.
Now, why would I do that? The only reason I might do that would be if I were on the opposite side of the author's issue, which was opposition to government run health care. She wrote:
"The question at the center of the debate is “Who should control the personal and complex process of medical decision making? You and your physician? Or Washington?” "
In case you hadn't noticed in my 2000 posts on this thread, I am as opposed to Washington making those decisions as the author. She and I are on the same side. So what in the world would make you think that I was "aggressively looking" for some way to shoot her down? That would be action against interest. It makes no sense.
So, since it's not in my interest to shoot her down on her issue and since I clearly stated which forest I was taking on, the dumbing down forest, your assessment that I was aggressively trying to shoot her down is clearly off base. And, itself, I might add, an example of my forest. |
