The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Forty Two]

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence.

You categorically can't. It is basic logic.

Basic logic includes epistemology.

Can you substantiate that? There is a sub-branch of a sub-branch of logic called epistemic logic. Other than that, what does epistemology have to do with logic?

Why am I even bothering. Epistemology refers to knowledge and how we know what we know. Logic applies to premises and conclusions. Whatever definition of "knowledge" you're using as a premise to conclude that I can't know X is not the epistemology I'm using. In the real world, we can know things, and draw logical inferences and conclusions from them.

I'm not playing your stupid-ass game about how we can't "know" this or that because we're not omniscient or don't have some imagined absolute and irrefutable knowledge.

I don't need to be omniscient to know things. I can know, based on how e normally know things in daily life.

I'm not going to go down the road of how we really don't "know" anything. It can be said that I really don't "know" that there is an Elizabeth Warren, since I have never actually seen her. All the news articles and video I've seen can be contrived. So, I don't have absolute knowledge of her existence. But, I have experiential and empirical propositional knowledge.

Some people even argue that people really can't know that there are other people in the world, or that the universe actually exists. That's not the kind of knowledge anybody is referring to when we make assertions based on fact, and when we evaluate the assertions made by other people.

But, go on - keep arguing that "basic logic" means nothing can be concluded based on evidence.

That's all great, but this isn't what your original claim was. You originally said her claim that she was Native American was "false". That's a truth claim. Not a knowledge claim.

Epistemlogically, knowledge encompasses truth. Epistemology. Knowledge. Justified True Belief. Justification Condition. Truth Condition. Belief Condition. Necessary conditions to knowledge.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

As I asked above, is this the closest we are going to get to you admitting you were technically wrong?

I'm not wrong. You're making a stupid argument.

Oh right. So the vast majority of intellectual atheists who say that they don't know whether God exists or not because it's impossible to prove a negative of that type are actually making a stupid argument. Riiiight.

This has nothing to do with the Elizabeth Warren issue, so I'm not taking your bait. I did not ask anyone to prove any negatives. Elizabeth Warren made an affirmative claim that she was native American.

And no atheist who isn't a 7 on Dawkins' scale and has any sort of intelligence claims to know that there isn't a god. It's just horrendous application of logic if someone does that.

You can't know that, based on your argument about knowledge.

Trolololol.

That you are.

..you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk.

You are just an utterly shameless liar. If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you could review my posts here about A-Plus. I've trolled them mercilessly, and indeed was banned from their site within a day or two of signing up. I've also trolled the absolute fuck out of PZ Myers. A fact you could check if you were even slightly interested in not intentionally peddling bullshit.

I have no doubt that you trolled them mercilessly.

Absolute bullshit. You are utterly shameless. If you "had no doubt...", why the fuck did you just associate me with them?? Can you for one fucking post just stop shamelessly fucking lying.

"You are the kind of person..." and you are. You are like them. I associated you with them because you are like them. You're a troll. An admitted troll. And, you can stop it with your nonsense of constantly calling me a liar. You are an admitted troll, and the fact that you went and "trolled Atheism+ mercilessly" is not a point in your favor. It shows the kind of person you are. I went to Atheism+ and tried to participate and have reasonable discussions. That's all it took me to get kicked off the site and banned. But, you went there to troll them mercilessly. That's what you like to do.

That's what those folks do. I didn't say you were a denizen of Atheism Plus. I said you're LIKE them. And, you are. That's why you troll people mercilessly. You're a troll. They're trolls. You trolled trolls.

WTF?!? They absolutely aren't trolls. They genuinely believe the shit they come out with. You are literally just pulling shit out of your arse at this point in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you made an utterly baseless claim, primarily I assume because you felt entitled to just say any old pejorative shit because your feelings were hurt by me calling out your lying. And what's even more idiotic about this is that EVERYONE who wasn't a nutbag regressive like them, trolled the fuck out of them. Including 90% of people on this site who commented on the issue. I'm not going searching, but I'd bet both testicles that YOU trolled them too. And rightly so. They are some of the most ridiculous people on the planet. Are you going to claim that you didn't troll them? Be careful here, as I and Hermit will eventually go and search your posts and see exactly what you said about them.

That Atheism+ mob and freethought blog mob are big on trouncing and dogpiling people, badgering those that even so much as want to engage in rational debate. They lob accusations, and attacks, and also, partly, they troll people to get a rise out of them, so that they can use that as trumped up charges to drop the ban-hammer. It's the kind of shit you do. Maybe it's that they "used to" do that stuff, because I'm not sure they exist anymore, because it's been so long since I've heard much about them.

Search all you want. I didn't troll them. I don't troll.

I've about had enough.

What are you going to do about, big fella? Time for you to break out the adult colouring-in books and find a safe-space perhaps?

There you go again. No, I've already said. I'm going to have to just start minimizing my interactions with you.

You've got a glass jaw. You have no problem trolling ridiculous idiots like AIDS SKRILLEX and random purple haired feminist lesbians, but you whine like a baby when your own ridiculousness gets thrown back at you.

Troll them? I've never spoken to or interacted, to my knowledge, with AIDS Skrillex or random purple haired feminist lesbians. I haven't trolled such people at all. I'm sure I criticized AIDS Skrillex and certain feminists while discussing their issues, but that's not trolling. I generally want to talk about the issue in the threads I create. It's you, pErvin, that try to ruin the threads, derail them, piss all over them, clutter them up with your horseshit trolling commentary, etc. It's what you do.

Nice try to troll me there, again. Trying to get a reaction from me, right? You're an admitted troll.

This shit here is actually the biggest bit of trolling that goes on in our interactions. I've logically and reasonably addressed this nonsense so many times, and in virtually all cases you don't address my points about it. You just trot this bullshit out and then run away when you get called on it. Fuck off with your glass jawed shit. You are as big a troll as anybody else on this site.

You haven't logically or reasonably addressed anything. I accept that you think you have, but you haven't. Your argument about this "you can't know" business is stupid. Really, really stupid. I can't be arsed to explain it again to you. It's already been done. I'm not a troll. You on the other hand, admit it. You revel in it.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian there are three threads about health care in America. .... Is it possible to clear the mess up?

As I see it the general Trump thread is for general Trump administration news and views. The Single Payer healthcare thread should be dealing with the merits of that proposition, which is something not necessarily limited to the US health system alone. And this thread is for discussing the specific matter of what's to replace the US Affordable Care Act.

I accept that there's a fair bit of overlap, so there could be some mergifications, perhaps of the two healthcare threads(?), but I also think the discussions could be less confusing/more productive if they hung out with the topic a bit more.

What do we reckon?

[Scot Dutchy]

I would put the two health care threads together and leave the main Trump on alone but any health care comments should be moved to the Health care thread. Thanks Brian.

[pErvinalia]

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence.

You categorically can't. It is basic logic.

Basic logic includes epistemology.

Can you substantiate that? There is a sub-branch of a sub-branch of logic called epistemic logic. Other than that, what does epistemology have to do with logic?

Why am I even bothering. Epistemology refers to knowledge and how we know what we know. Logic applies to premises and conclusions. Whatever definition of "knowledge" you're using as a premise to conclude that I can't know X is not the epistemology I'm using.

Well that's great. While you rail (rightly so) against the post-modern idea that we can't know anything, you appear to be able to, in concept, know everything by simply stating "[according to] the epistemology I'm using". What's the fucking point then? (other than you having a get out of jail free card for any bollocks you feel like coming out with).

I know that Floridians don't exist... according to the epistemology I'm using.

I don't need to be omniscient to know things. I can know, based on how e normally know things in daily life.

I'm not going to go down the road of how we really don't "know" anything. It can be said that I really don't "know" that there is an Elizabeth Warren, since I have never actually seen her. All the news articles and video I've seen can be contrived. So, I don't have absolute knowledge of her existence. But, I have experiential and empirical propositional knowledge.

Some people even argue that people really can't know that there are other people in the world, or that the universe actually exists. That's not the kind of knowledge anybody is referring to when we make assertions based on fact, and when we evaluate the assertions made by other people.

But, go on - keep arguing that "basic logic" means nothing can be concluded based on evidence.

That's all great, but this isn't what your original claim was. You originally said her claim that she was Native American was "false". That's a truth claim. Not a knowledge claim.

Epistemlogically, knowledge encompasses truth. Epistemology. Knowledge. Justified True Belief. Justification Condition. Truth Condition. Belief Condition. Necessary conditions to knowledge.

A series. Of. Words seperated. By fullstops.

Be that as it may, philosophical navel gazing concerning what "true" means is really besides the point. In common usage, as well as technical mathematical usage, truth refers to concordance with reality or actuality. All dictionary definitions of "truth", bar the last one usually (the archaic ancient Greek understanding of the word), match this. The first sentence in the wiki page on truth is another case of this:

"Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or standard.[1]"

But it's also an excellent example of the laxity, and in fact a type of 'post-modernism of truth', in your statement "...according to the epistemology I'm using". When you use this as the "standard" to determine whether something is "true" or not, then you are committing a logical fallacy (circular reasoning). When you use that standard, truth will always concord with your epistemology. I.e. your knowledge claims will always be regarded as truths. So I'd ask again: What's the fucking point then?

Truth means in accordance with reality or actuality. You can't make a truth statement without knowing what the actual reality is. And actual reality can only accord with "knowing" under a lax epistemology.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

As I asked above, is this the closest we are going to get to you admitting you were technically wrong?

I'm not wrong. You're making a stupid argument.

Oh right. So the vast majority of intellectual atheists who say that they don't know whether God exists or not because it's impossible to prove a negative of that type are actually making a stupid argument. Riiiight.

This has nothing to do with the Elizabeth Warren issue,

Of course it does. It's the exact same argument. Atheists claiming that they know something (God) doesn't exist is the exact same class of thing as someone claiming to know that a different thing (in this case - Warren's alleged Amerindian heritage) doesn't exist.

so I'm not taking your bait.

How about you just read for comprehension instead?

..you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk.

You are just an utterly shameless liar. If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you could review my posts here about A-Plus. I've trolled them mercilessly, and indeed was banned from their site within a day or two of signing up. I've also trolled the absolute fuck out of PZ Myers. A fact you could check if you were even slightly interested in not intentionally peddling bullshit.

I have no doubt that you trolled them mercilessly.

Absolute bullshit. You are utterly shameless. If you "had no doubt...", why the fuck did you just associate me with them?? Can you for one fucking post just stop shamelessly fucking lying.

"You are the kind of person..." and you are. You are like them. I associated you with them because you are like them. You're a troll. An admitted troll. And, you can stop it with your nonsense of constantly calling me a liar. You are an admitted troll, and the fact that you went and "trolled Atheism+ mercilessly" is not a point in your favor. It shows the kind of person you are. I went to Atheism+ and tried to participate and have reasonable discussions. That's all it took me to get kicked off the site and banned. But, you went there to troll them mercilessly. That's what you like to do.

Ok. I meant that I took the piss out of them. And I actually removed "trolling" from the original post before you replied, because I thought it might lead to this. I didn't troll them to their face on their forum. I engaged with them seriously. If the forum still exists in some form, you can check my posts to see that was the case. So I apologise for calling you a liar. In this particular instance.

That's what those folks do. I didn't say you were a denizen of Atheism Plus. I said you're LIKE them. And, you are. That's why you troll people mercilessly. You're a troll. They're trolls. You trolled trolls.

WTF?!? They absolutely aren't trolls. They genuinely believe the shit they come out with. You are literally just pulling shit out of your arse at this point in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you made an utterly baseless claim, primarily I assume because you felt entitled to just say any old pejorative shit because your feelings were hurt by me calling out your lying. And what's even more idiotic about this is that EVERYONE who wasn't a nutbag regressive like them, trolled the fuck out of them. Including 90% of people on this site who commented on the issue. I'm not going searching, but I'd bet both testicles that YOU trolled them too. And rightly so. They are some of the most ridiculous people on the planet. Are you going to claim that you didn't troll them? Be careful here, as I and Hermit will eventually go and search your posts and see exactly what you said about them.

That Atheism+ mob and freethought blog mob are big on trouncing and dogpiling people, badgering those that even so much as want to engage in rational debate. They lob accusations, and attacks,

Now you are back to torturing the English language. None of those things are trolling. They honestly believe everything they said.

and also, partly, they troll people to get a rise out of them, so that they can use that as trumped up charges to drop the ban-hammer.

According to your epistemology you can know this (and anything else you want to randomly claim), but you'd need to provide at least some evidence in support of it. And a 'begging the question' fallacy isn't evidence.

Nice try to troll me there, again. Trying to get a reaction from me, right? You're an admitted troll.

This shit here is actually the biggest bit of trolling that goes on in our interactions. I've logically and reasonably addressed this nonsense so many times, and in virtually all cases you don't address my points about it. You just trot this bullshit out and then run away when you get called on it. Fuck off with your glass jawed shit. You are as big a troll as anybody else on this site.

You haven't logically or reasonably addressed anything.

If that's the case, then you should be able to easily point to where you have shown this. You won't be able to, as your only replies to my repeated request for you to address this point is to do what you've just done now. Which is, make an empty assertion without any evidence or reasoning at all.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American, and she did so as part of her professorship at Harvard where she was billed as a native American professor.

If you have access to evidence that conclusively shows that there are no Indians among her ancestors, then please present it. We know she's not an official member of any tribe, but if you're going to categorically state that her claim is false, then the burden of proof is on you.

We have statements from people at Harvard who were involved in the effort to hire her as a professor that show that her heritage was not part of the process. You haven't presented any evidence that contradicts that, and if you had any you'd have presented it by now. But do keep flailing as you attempt to justify your slander--it's hilarious.

She hasn't set forth her motivation for doing so, and that's entirely subjective. So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time. It could be, like a lot of celebrities do - Johnny Cash - Johnny Depp and some others - who are from former Confederate or southern states - claim a link to an Indian heritage to gain a kind of southern cred. It's not uncommon for people to baselessly claim to be 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32 Cherokee when those folks are from Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

You haven't shown that she is lying, so your musings on this topic are null and void.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

In this post from which that is a direct quote:

She's the one who falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path. If a Republican claimed to be native American because of the high cheekbones that run in her family, and alleged family "lore," I am sure you'd have some laughs about it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Are you seriously attempting to deny that you wrote that?

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American, and she did so as part of her professorship at Harvard where she was billed as a native American professor.

If you have access to evidence that conclusively shows that there are no Indians among her ancestors, then please present it.

He doesn't need any evidence... he just fucking knows! Epistemology FTW!!

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

In this post from which that is a direct quote:

She's the one who falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path. If a Republican claimed to be native American because of the high cheekbones that run in her family, and alleged family "lore," I am sure you'd have some laughs about it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Are you seriously attempting to deny that you wrote that?

I bet he'll give it a good shot!

[Svartalf]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American, and she did so as part of her professorship at Harvard where she was billed as a native American professor.

If you have access to evidence that conclusively shows that there are no Indians among her ancestors, then please present it.

He doesn't need any evidence... he just fucking knows! Epistemology FTW!!

hasn't she as much as admitted that her "native american" status and ancestry were frauds?

[pErvinalia]

No idea. If she has, that would definitely be evidence. Not that 42 needs evidence...

[pErvinalia]

Regarding Trumpcare, I saw an analysis today showing that a huge number of low income earners (the 22million figure from the CBO, I think), while able to get cheap insurance plans, will face an average deductable of $7000!. And Ryan has the gall to come out and say that people aren't going to be pushed off healthcare, they will just be exercising their choice not to get coverage. This sort of thing is why economic liberals and conservatives are basically evil incarnate. It's disingenuous double-speak to deflect from the fact that they really don't give one fuck about poor and disadvantaged people.

That's pretty much what they're getting under Obamacare now. Bronze policies under Obamacare have deductibles in that range. I know, I have one.

You're not a low income earner. The analysis I saw said that the average deductible for subsidised people was US$200 or so. I should also point out that the $7000 figure was in Strayan dollars, so that would be more like $5000 Mercan, perhaps?

On reflection I'm not certain which dollars they were in. It was a TV report, so I can't access it now. But the salient point was the scale of difference.

[L'Emmerdeur]

hasn't she as much as admitted that her "native american" status and ancestry were frauds?

She hasn't, as far as I'm aware. Her siblings have confirmed that they were told by her mother that they had Indian ancestors, and that has always been the basis of the claim.

[Tero]

This really is a mess.
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabet ... ntroversy/

Couldn't she just stick to simpler controversies? Like using her own email server.

[Brian Peacock]

pErvin,

Posts like this...

• http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#p1713321
• http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#p1713801
• http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 2#p1714162
• http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1714165

...where you lose your rag and call someone a 'retard' go against our Play Nice rule. You had a warning about this in April. This is your second. A third will see you taking enforced gardening leave.

Brian & Jim.

[Brian Peacock]

Mergification has been actualised.