- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Messages
- 17,226
- Reaction score
- 6,895
- Location
- Mountains
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Your post didn't even deserve the response that it got.Ad hominem.
Your post didn't even deserve the response that it got.Ad hominem.
Your post didn't even deserve the response that it got.
...
Step 1: Have as many states as possible refuse to expand Medicaid or establish their own exchanges.
Step 2: Promote only the negative aspects of the law and completely ignore every success and positive aspect of it.
Step 3: After doing everything possible to interfere in its implementation, claim the damage you caused is evidence of the law's faults.
Step 4: Win power with absolutely no plan of a better system to put in its place. End up keeping most of the law but passing simple fixes and pretending that it is a whole new system because of them.
Any thing to counter this and help the American people see the benefits of proposed health?
Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.
America is too large and diverse. A better approach would be to allow each state to tackle it in its own way and then let people vote with their feet.That is an approach that would be very attractive to the GOP, particularly in the current political climate and their current domineering control of the local field through a successful gerrymandering campaign. However, its implementation would be devastating to them because the systems they advocate for are simply not viable and most states would abandon them within a generation.
The flaws of Obamacare could have been fixed, and still could be. However, the other side was too busy trying to dismantle it and put nothing in its place. One party presents ideas, usually flawed because of their centrism and compromise. The other party spins comically in a circle, as if one of their legs is too short and they don't notice.
Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.
America is too large and diverse. A better approach would be to allow each state to tackle it in its own way and then let people vote with their feet.That is an approach that would be very attractive to the GOP,
particularly in the current political climate and their current domineering control of the local field through a successful gerrymandering campaign.
However, its implementation would be devastating to them because the systems they advocate for are simply not viable and most states would abandon them within a generation.
Model from countries where single payer system worked then. For example, how about India? And if you look at Micheal Moore's documentaries, then how about other place in Britain?
Call her corrupt because she is a woman all you want, but she is surrounded with capable people, and she would be able to sort this problem financially.
Ad hominem.
Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.
[/SUP]ad hominemAn ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[SUP][1][/SUP]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[SUP][2][/SUP] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[SUP][3]
...
Step 1: Have as many states as possible refuse to expand Medicaid or establish their own exchanges.
Step 2: Promote only the negative aspects of the law and completely ignore every success and positive aspect of it.
Step 3: After doing everything possible to interfere in its implementation, claim the damage you caused is evidence of the law's faults.
Step 4: Win power with absolutely no plan of a better system to put in its place. End up keeping most of the law but passing simple fixes and pretending that it is a whole new system because of them.
No, it's not.
[/SUP]ad hominem
Characterizing Moore's films as propaganda is most certainly not an Ad hominem attack.
How is characterizing Moore's films as propaganda personal in any way?
Next you are going to cite Al Gore and his "documentary". You really need to get serious about what you cite.
You really should start knowing the definitions of the terms that you so causally bandy about.
Yep, all the issues you raise are due to the way Obamacare was passed -- with absolutely no Republican support and against every Republican objection.
Obviously you do not have the foggiest clue what an ad hominem is.
No, I call her corrupt because she is. Has nothing to do because she's a woman. That's rather shallow of you to make that assertion.
Here is how:
Three "you's" and it goes way passed a critique of Moore and the attention/topic/issue moves "to the man"/me, rather than the position, which was Moore. Moore gone, now the issue is whom I will cite and whether I should get serious about what I cite.
Another Ad Hominem is here:
The post is also Ad Hominem (partly) because this paragraph does not addresses the issue, it is not about Ad Hominem (the position), but it is about me personally with 2 "You's" telling me in person what I should start knowing and how I disperse the definitions.
Here is how:
Three "you's" and it goes way passed a critique of Moore and the attention/topic/issue moves "to the man"/me, rather than the position, which was Moore. Moore gone, now the issue is whom I will cite and whether I should get serious about what I cite.
Another Ad Hominem is here:
The post is also Ad Hominem (partly) because this paragraph does not addresses the issue, it is not about Ad Hominem (the position), but it is about me personally with 2 "You's" telling me in person what I should start knowing and how I disperse the definitions.
I'm not calling you shallow, which would be an Ad Hominem, I'm calling you out on 'because she's a woman' bs.Rather than show how she is corrupt I am made the issue and it is asserted that I am being shallow in my assertions/Ad hominem.
I'm not calling you shallow, which would be an Ad Hominem, I'm calling you out on 'because she's a woman' bs.
Ad Hominem isn't just ''those who disagree with me' nor is it any criticism of someone. Nor has it anything to do with how many 'you' or 'yours' are included.
Ad Hominem is a personal attack like calling someone stupid.
So that which you point out still aren't Ad Hominem attacks.
Yep, I see a pattern here. Your posts aren't really worth answering with any substance because they have no substance. I think this is what me and eohrnberger and I are trying to tell you.
Nope,
It is not a personal attack, it is discussing at the person/ad hominem/at the man, rather than the post. Does not has to be an attack, but as long as it diverts attention from the post (usually because it cannot be tackled) to the person then it is ad hominem, this according to the source provided in this debate.
Model from countries where single payer system worked then. For example, how about India? And if you look at Micheal Moore's documentaries, then how about other place in Britain?
Call her corrupt because she is a woman all you want, but she is surrounded with capable people, and she would be able to sort this problem financially.
The flaws of Obamacare could have been fixed, and still could be. However, the other side was too busy trying to dismantle it and put nothing in its place. One party presents ideas, usually flawed because of their centrism and compromise. The other party spins comically in a circle, as if one of their legs is too short and they don't notice.
My premiums are actually going down a dollar or so next year .. oh, but the coverage dropped too .. .. oh my .. .. . Looks like I'll have to spend more to get equivalent benefits.
By the way, I read "somewhere" that income is up 843% between 1955 and 2010, but the cost of healthcare went up 6,900% during that span!
What are we going to do ...