The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[rainbow]

There is another issue in the hypothetical discussion of Galaxian's claim. Our member 2 is also asserting that Galaxian lied about living on Mars for the purpose of personal gain--let's say to advance his career as a science fiction writer. This again is an affirmative statement for which it is reasonable to request evidence.

In an infinite multiverse there is probably a "Galaxian" living on a planet called Mars.

I used to be a cheese biscuit.

[Forty Two]

Are you suddenly unable to read properly??

Hermit can read just fine. No need for the personal attacks, but then that's your usual...

He wasn't "questioning" anything. He was making a truth claim. If he was questioning it, he wouldn't have said that it is "false" that she is Native American.

June 28, 2017 http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1#p1713991 "She's the one who falsely claimed to be Native American..."

Anyway, this will all be funny when this same standard is applied to pErvin and L'emmerdeur when they make any claims.

You are (I am aware that I risk breaking the play nice rule with the rest of this sentence) a blithering fucking idiot of the first water. And (to make sure I overstepped the mark I add) a fink! (<-- In the first meaning listed in the Oxford Dictionary of the word.)

Did your cat take a dump in your mouth or something? Get a fucking grip. When you find yourself siding with 42, the last thing you should be doing is calling other people idiots.

And in this case the idiot certainly isn't Jim.

[Tero]

Cruz wants to sell the kind of healthcare that treats diabetics for everything else except diabetes. Maybe. Unless the heart disease was due to diabetes.

While Cruz sought out Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to play what he promised would be a constructive role in the debate, senior GOP aides say Cruz is no longer being agreeable.

Instead, he is again being a thorn in McConnell’s side, much like he was in 2013, when he insisted on blocking a government spending bill unless it included language halting the implementation of ObamaCare, the staffers argue. Two years ago, Cruz famously called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor amid a debate on the Export-Import Bank.
GOP aides say the proposal that Cruz and his allies are framing as the potential key to passing the stalled healthcare bill is a nonstarter with most Republicans in the upper chamber.

The proposal would allow insurance companies the freedom to sell any kinds of health plans they want as long as they also sell at least one plan that qualifies under the regulatory requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“I would say that if we voted on the Cruz proposal, it would be in the neighborhood of 37 to 15 against, 37 no votes and 15 yeses, and that’s probably generous,” said a GOP aide familiar with the Senate negotiations.

“Nobody wants to go home and say to a 45-year-old steelworker with diabetes that you should have to pay a lot more for your health insurance,” the aide added.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/34 ... z-proposal

[pErvinalia]

Although saying 42 was goaded into posting nasty things about Democrats is like saying the Pope has to be goaded into saying nice things about Mary...

I find it funny that nobody is bothered by the myriad nasty things posted about Republicans. I don't mind nasty things about Republicans, but it seems that saying nasty things about Democrats seems to rattle some folks cages here.

Who was rattled? Can you show some evidence of this, or is this just another thing you "know"?

What's wrong with saying nasty things about Democrats?

Nothing. What does this have to do with anything? Couldn't perhaps be you trying to divert attention?

In this particular instance, I think it's fair to say that if, say, Mit Romney had claimed to be Native American, and his proof was that his "family lore" talked of high cheekbones and some marriage to a Cherokee 5 generations ago that nobody can substantiate.... what do you think the folks arguing with me on the Warren issue would be saying about him? That we ought to go easy because we can't prove he's not native American?

Who's saying we should go easy on Warren?!? You really are bullshitting harder than usual so early in the day.

[pErvinalia]

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Sure, except that you also accused her of lying.

[Forty Two]

Although saying 42 was goaded into posting nasty things about Democrats is like saying the Pope has to be goaded into saying nice things about Mary...

I find it funny that nobody is bothered by the myriad nasty things posted about Republicans. I don't mind nasty things about Republicans, but it seems that saying nasty things about Democrats seems to rattle some folks cages here.

Who was rattled? Can you show some evidence of this, or is this just another thing you "know"?

Go troll someone else.

What's wrong with saying nasty things about Democrats?

Nothing. What does this have to do with anything? Couldn't perhaps be you trying to divert attention?

Fuck off.

In this particular instance, I think it's fair to say that if, say, Mit Romney had claimed to be Native American, and his proof was that his "family lore" talked of high cheekbones and some marriage to a Cherokee 5 generations ago that nobody can substantiate.... what do you think the folks arguing with me on the Warren issue would be saying about him? That we ought to go easy because we can't prove he's not native American?

Who's saying we should go easy on Warren?!? You really are bullshitting harder than usual so early in the day.

Oh for the love of god. Nobody is "saying" we should go easy on her. Certain folks are applying a much easier and lighter standard of proof and level of criticism against her on this issue than they would if it was a Republican making this ludicrous claim and that is bleeding obvious.

[pErvinalia]

He wasn't "questioning" anything. He was making a truth claim. If he was questioning it, he wouldn't have said that it is "false" that she is Native American.

June 28, 2017 http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1#p1713991 "She's the one who falsely claimed to be Native American..."

I don't understand how you even get through a day with your bizarre interpretations of the utterly simple. As I said, you wouldn't have said this it is "false". And now you quote yourself proving my point exactly! I seriously don't understand how your brain works.

[Forty Two]

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Sure, except that you also accused her of lying.

The discussion of lying vs falsehood grew out of the original conversation where I said she "falsely claimed" to be native american. I think I only used the word lie in one post, on June 29. I've explained both the falsehood and lie issues multiple times, but you're just going on with your gameplaying.

When I first posted that she falsely claimed to be native American, I was told that I was parroting a long-debunked conservative talking point. So, obviously, someone seems to believe that she did not "falsely claim" to be a native American, and not merely that her false claim doesn't constitute a lie because of her subjective belief in her own honesty.

[pErvinalia]

Although saying 42 was goaded into posting nasty things about Democrats is like saying the Pope has to be goaded into saying nice things about Mary...

I find it funny that nobody is bothered by the myriad nasty things posted about Republicans. I don't mind nasty things about Republicans, but it seems that saying nasty things about Democrats seems to rattle some folks cages here.

Who was rattled? Can you show some evidence of this, or is this just another thing you "know"?

Go troll someone else.

No. I'll keep asking you to back up your bullshit claims.

In this particular instance, I think it's fair to say that if, say, Mit Romney had claimed to be Native American, and his proof was that his "family lore" talked of high cheekbones and some marriage to a Cherokee 5 generations ago that nobody can substantiate.... what do you think the folks arguing with me on the Warren issue would be saying about him? That we ought to go easy because we can't prove he's not native American?

Who's saying we should go easy on Warren?!? You really are bullshitting harder than usual so early in the day.

Oh for the love of god. Nobody is "saying" we should go easy on her. Certain folks are applying a much easier and lighter standard of proof and level of criticism against her on this issue than they would if it was a Republican making this ludicrous claim and that is bleeding obvious.

Where has anyone stated that Warren's claim to Native American heritage was reasonable? You really have absolutely no idea how to prosecute an argument, do you? It's all just empty rhetoric revolving around your inherent biases, isn't it? You are just simply totally incapable of separating your biases from a debate.

[pErvinalia]

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Sure, except that you also accused her of lying.

The discussion of lying vs falsehood grew out of the original conversation where I said she "falsely claimed" to be native american. I think I only used the word lie in one post, on June 29. I've explained both the falsehood and lie issues multiple times, but you're just going on with your gameplaying.

For the love of god, stop bullshitting! I addressed your "explanations" about truth statements and the philosophy of epistemology, and you ignored it, presumably so you could continue to throw around loose terms and expect them to be interpreted in whatever way you happen to think they should be interpreted depending on the situation. The only one playing games is you. And I don't believe you redefined "lie" anywhere. A quick search didn't turn up anything. Not that I can possibly imagine how even you could torture the English language enough to make "lie" not "lie".

When I first posted that she falsely claimed to be native American, I was told that I was parroting a long-debunked conservative talking point. So, obviously, someone seems to believe that she did not "falsely claim" to be a native American, and not merely that her false claim doesn't constitute a lie because of her subjective belief in her own honesty.

Can you translate that into usable English?

[Forty Two]

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Sure, except that you also accused her of lying.

The discussion of lying vs falsehood grew out of the original conversation where I said she "falsely claimed" to be native american. I think I only used the word lie in one post, on June 29. I've explained both the falsehood and lie issues multiple times, but you're just going on with your gameplaying.

For the love of god, stop bullshitting! I addressed your "explanations" about truth statements and the philosophy of epistemology, and you ignored it, presumably so you could continue to throw around loose terms and expect them to be interpreted in whatever way you happen to think they should be interpreted depending on the situation. The only one playing games is you. And I don't believe you redefined "lie" anywhere. A quick search didn't turn up anything. Not that I can possibly imagine how even you could torture the English language enough to make "lie" not "lie".

And this is your troll game. On and on. One, I never said I redefined lie anywhere. On June 28, 2017, I said she was the one who falsely claimed to be native American, to which you responded asking me how I know it was FALSE. Not how I know it was a LIE. I did not use the word "lie" until June 29, and I think I've only used that word once, that time on June 29, and if you read the post you'll see the context.

You did not address the explanation about epistemology because it flew over your head, because you know basically nothing about which you speak, and you were trying to win an argument based on silly notions of conclusive proof and that we really can't "know" that she didn't have an unknown ancestor way back when who was native American. I posted enough about epistemology and how knowledge means justified true belief, etc., for you to get it. And, if you think you "refuted" that point in some way, then you're really being rather silly.

When I first posted that she falsely claimed to be native American, I was told that I was parroting a long-debunked conservative talking point. So, obviously, someone seems to believe that she did not "falsely claim" to be a native American, and not merely that her false claim doesn't constitute a lie because of her subjective belief in her own honesty.

Can you translate that into usable English?

I can't dumb it down for you, no. I typed very slowly and used small words, but it's not "Hop on Pop" by Dr. Seuss, which may be your maximum reading level.

[pErvinalia]

I'm fucking over this. It's late and I've got Netflix to watch while I'm slumming it at my ex-wife's place.

[Forty Two]

Where has anyone stated that Warren's claim to Native American heritage was reasonable? You really have absolutely no idea how to prosecute an argument, do you? It's all just empty rhetoric revolving around your inherent biases, isn't it? You are just simply totally incapable of separating your biases from a debate.

Where have I claimed that anyone stated that?

Here it's said that I was parroting something that was long debunked. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1714028 Maybe that's not saying that the claim to native american heritage is reasonable, but I tend to think that if my statement that her claim to native American status was false has been "debunked" then that means her claim to native American status must at least be reasonable. How could the statement "she's the one who falsely claimed to be native American" have been debunked, but yet her claim would still not be reasonable? You tell me. I don't really care, because my argument has been that she falsely claimed to be a native American.

There are other posts - people have been arguing with me about this. I've said that there is no evidence to back up her claim, that genealogists have found no native ancestry, and that her claimed evidence is not really evidence of anything (cheekbones, lore). People railed against me saying I was full of it, basically, because I can't prove she's not native american, or I can't prove that somewhere in the mists of time she doesn't have a native American ancestor.

[Forty Two]

I'm fucking over this. It's late and I've got Netflix to watch while I'm slumming it at my ex-wife's place.

How do you know that you're really fucking over this? You can't conclusively prove it.

[Brian Peacock]

And what's Any of this got to do with healthcare?