The issue I think everyone else here cares about is the health care system. When you spend a lot of time nitpicking "argumentation techniques", especially mostly on one side, it appears as if your purpose is to attack every statement possible made against further socialization of our system.
Appearance isn't reality. Appearance is how you see things, which can be very different from what I present. I have never once on this thread argued for further socialization. That is anathema to me. If you perceive the appearance of support for socialization in my posts, that's entirely on you. I can't help it if you see only black and white.
As for being off topic, the woman who wrote that article is a doctor. Doctors need to be able to evaluate risk/benefit and studies so that they can offer quality advice to their patients. This requires a certain amount of rational thinking and understanding of the scientific method and statistics. If she's so dumb that she really thinks that mammograms for forty-somethings could account for the difference in longevity, you have to wonder how she manages to practice medicine at an adequate quality level. I gave her the benefit of the doubt on the smarts by allowing that she might be deceptive rather than dumb. But doctors have been dumbed down, too. Many of the articles written by doctors and posted here haven't been even rudimentarily apt. Doctor ineptitude is relevant to our topic of health care.
Gee, how do you tell the first two from the last?
By using critical thinking, of course. <g>
I will happily plead guilty to not attacking every tiny flaw in arguments of folks on my side of the issue under discussion.
There is a collection of common fallacies that center around how we deal with information that resonates vs information that . I have posted off and on about them citing illustrations from the thread. Just recently I made comments about confirmation bias, for example, and cognitive dissonance. It has long been obvious to me that you give comments on your side a total pass. Whether that's by design or by fallacy or a bit of both, I cannot be sure.
I think you do a lot of what I'll call "exothermic argumentation" .... generating more heat than light.
Cute! But any heat generation comes from reader inference and attitude, not from what I post.
What makes no sense is calling folks on your side of an argument dishonest and stupid.
It makes no sense to partisans, I agree. To partisans, any idiot or scoundrel is a brother if he's on the same side. I understand that particular priority completely. But my value system doesn't work that way. I would never let partisanship trump integrity, particularly intellectual integrity, wisdom, or statesmanship. That's why you see me taking issue here with folks on both sides when I see blatantly inapt or deceptive arguments. I may do so even more with those on my own side, like criticizing the R base the other day, in part because my value system won't allow me to play dirty, in part because I'm too proud to accept their shame rubbing off on me by association, and in part because I respond to what's posted here and this thread has become pretty one sided.
I'm sure that little personal revelation is way too much information <g> but I'm just tellin' it the way it is. You and I may be on the same side of this proposal but we are not much alike. |
