The Truth About Socialism

[realibrad]

It's stupid that if you make an assertion that you should back it up with evidence? Why doesn't everyone descend to the level of pizzagate conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that would make a whole lot more sense, wouldn't it!



Your last response to me was "you're an idiot"; frankly I don't think anyone was expecting you to respond again after your insult in lieu of an evidence-based argument, because it's the kind of thing that someone with the maturity of a child does when they feel that they've lost. Your last bit of evidence only backs up the assertion that US spending is higher per capita than other countries, but the funny thing is, chart 4 in the PDF shows that the expenses are higher across the board of spending. You also apparently decided to completely ignore table 2. I don't think anyone is challenging the assertion that US medical spending per capita is relatively high (which is all that your evidence so far backs up), perhaps than it ought to be, but just admit that you pulled the assertion you made out of your ass, or got it from somewhere that provided either as much basis for the assertion as you did (which in terms of making assertions with a factual basis, it's as good as making it up on the spot), or you have no idea what their sources are (in which case you have no idea whether it has a solid factual basis).

But it doesn't at all make you look like an arrogant arsehole to then drop another insult aimed at everyone else here to suggest that you're the only one with a life outside of this forum.

Coming back to the topic, if US's higher spending was largely the result of fear of litigation, then it's reasonably logical to assume that if they're sending patients off for "likely to be unnecessary but let's not take the risk" procedures that they would be more likely to detect conditions and thus have better outcomes. However, Japan's and Canada's spending is signficantly lower and also has similarly decent outcomes (charts 4, 5 & 6).

What I said was this...

Well keep in mind our healthcare is not the same as their health care. We do many things they do not.

We also do many other things, but what I gave was one example of things we do in the US healthcare system that are not usually done in other countries. So when I saw him post his chart of healthcare costs, I responded with the fact that the US does many things other countries do not do. I never said anything beyond that the US system does things that outhers do not. I did not defend the US system, nor would I. I can show examples of times when I said the US system is quite broken. But, to just show a graph saying that the US system costs more does not really tell much of the story.

I did not talk about table 2, as its just saying that we have less doctors and beds ect. That effectively drives up the cost which is also another issue that the US system has. Our system for the same procedures tends to cost more. I did not bring it up, but I was the one that linked the damn document. I'm not avoiding anything, but I did not have the time to go into every last damn detail about the US healthcare system. I simply wanted BS to realize that just posting a graph does little to explain anything when you dont have the context.

I pulled nothing out of my ass, as the only claim that I have made is that the US system does many things other systems do not typically do. That is backed by facts. This is a damn tech forum that I sometimes visit to have discussions. This is nothing more than a hobby, so if I dont devote hours to this thing every day, its not indicative of anything beyond that I prioritize my life.

 

[realibrad]

That’s from six years ago.

In terms of studies, that relatively recent dummy.

 

[mikeymikec]

What I said was this...

Well keep in mind our healthcare is not the same as their health care. We do many things they do not. So when I saw him post his chart of healthcare costs, I responded with the fact that the US does many things other countries do not do.

Are you now saying that your assertion did not include an implication that the reason for the spending being higher was because (insert original assertion)? Because taking your assertion at purely face value, ignoring any potential implications and viewing it not as a direct response to the reason why he posted the graph could be read as, "we do things different here, such as our medical professionals mostly have American accents and our uniforms look different." While this would be an interesting contribution to a discussion which has largely focused on cost, it's not particularly relevant.

 

[realibrad]

Are you now saying that your assertion did not include an implication that the reason for the spending being higher was because (insert original assertion)? Because taking your assertion at purely face value, ignoring any potential implications and viewing it not as a direct response to the reason why he posted the graph could be read as, "we do things different here, such as our medical professionals mostly have American accents and our uniforms look different." While this would be an interesting contribution to a discussion which has largely focused on cost, it's not particularly relevant.

My context was that spending is higher because the US does some things that make it cost more. Having an American accent and uniforms is not something the US does that impacts cost. What does impact costs are more procedures, more tests, in the context of the US doing things others do not. There are also other things that drive up the costs of things. One example would be the number of beds. When you have demand with less resources to meet that demand, the cost per resource unit consumed tends to be pushed higher. Having fewer doctors does the same thing.

But, in the context of what I said, what I presented was to help give a better understanding that just looking at healthcare in country x vs country y is not super helpful unless you also realize that they do things differently. The healthcare in the US is different than other countries. Its true that we charge more, but its also true that we often do more.

 

[zinfamous]

This is stupid, but fine.

Tell me, does anyone notice a theme?

https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/49084355.pdf

It amazes me how I take a few hours away for a forum, and idiots start to assume that me not responding means I have no argument. The US in many areas of healthcare does far more. There is far more out there to find as well, but I have a life outside of a tech forum. Gasp, how could it be?

yes, we perform vastly more unnecessary procedures (and those that shouldn't exist due to our overall shitty health) and overuse expensive equipment at a rate that actually leads to worse outcomes than do other countries.

Our system is preposterously expensive largely due to the fact that our system is stupidly wasteful.

 

[mikeymikec]

My context was that spending is higher because the US does some things that make it cost more. Having an American accent and uniforms is not something the US does that impacts cost. What does impact costs are more procedures, more tests, in the context of the US doing things others do not. There are also other things that drive up the costs of things. One example would be the number of beds. When you have demand with less resources to meet that demand, the cost per resource unit consumed tends to be pushed higher. Having fewer doctors does the same thing.

But, in the context of what I said, what I presented was to help give a better understanding that just looking at healthcare in country x vs country y is not super helpful unless you also realize that they do things differently. The healthcare in the US is different than other countries. Its true that we charge more, but its also true that we often do more.

I'm honestly not seeing any difference in your position to what I assumed was your position to begin with. My only remaining assumption is that based on your previous position in this topic, I expected you to be putting up an argument in opposition to adopting a more socialist model for healthcare provision, therefore your point here would be that there are factors unique to US healthcare that would remain the same no matter how the system was funded and changing to a more socialist model would not bring the financial benefits people might expect, therefore there's no point in advocating such a change. I don't have sufficient basis to challenge my assumption of your position. If my understanding of your position is correct, your argument is pretty vague and lacks evidence. Justifying a lack of cost analysis comparison based on the most specific of arguments being "we often do more" is pretty weak because your sources neither support or disprove your assertion, so the opposite could easily be true for all that any of us know.

 

[realibrad]

I'm honestly not seeing any difference in your position to what I assumed was your position to begin with. My only remaining assumption is that based on your previous position in this topic, I expected you to be putting up an argument in opposition to adopting a more socialist model for healthcare provision, therefore your point here would be that there are factors unique to US healthcare that would remain the same no matter how the system was funded and changing to a more socialist model would not bring the financial benefits people might expect, therefore there's no point in advocating such a change. I don't have sufficient basis to challenge my assumption of your position. If my understanding of your position is correct, your argument is pretty vague and lacks evidence. Justifying a lack of cost analysis comparison based on the most specific of arguments being "we often do more" is pretty weak because your sources neither support or disprove your assertion, so the opposite could easily be true for all that any of us know.

You would be wrong, which is not unexpected to me. How you think you know my position on this topic is strange considering I have said that I favor the French model, which is heavily. In the US, we already pay for people's medical care, but in a dumb way. We pay for care well after it has gotten far worse and far more expensive. There is no real way to opt out of the system, as it would be inhumane to let someone die if they do not have money. That is a complex statement, but, its ultimately why I do no shy away from a Socialist system. I do shy away from some socialist systems for medical care, but not inherently because it socialist.

So tell me, where did you get the idea of my position on this topic? I assume you will back this up as you have asked me to back up my previous claims.

 

[jackstar7]

You would be wrong, which is not unexpected to me. How you think you know my position on this topic is strange considering I have said that I favor the French model, which is heavily. In the US, we already pay for people's medical care, but in a dumb way. We pay for care well after it has gotten far worse and far more expensive. There is no real way to opt out of the system, as it would be inhumane to let someone die if they do not have money. That is a complex statement, but, its ultimately why I do no shy away from a Socialist system. I do shy away from some socialist systems for medical care, but not inherently because it socialist.

So tell me, where did you get the idea of my position on this topic? I assume you will back this up as you have asked me to back up my previous claims.

I'll assume it is because you don't share it until pressed, so people press you to get you to spit it out. You're one of the most capable and disingenuous people on this board, and I mean both of those.

 

[realibrad]

I'll assume it is because you don't share it until pressed, so people press you to get you to spit it out. You're one of the most capable and disingenuous people on this board, and I mean both of those.

What do you mean by capable? In that I could tell people my positions more but do not, or do you mean something else?

 

[jackstar7]

What do you mean by capable? In that I could tell people my positions more but do not, or do you mean something else?

Capable of having a worthwhile discussion.

 

[realibrad]

Capable of having a worthwhile discussion.

Well, as you would imagine I disagree with what you are saying about me. Would you care to hear why?

 

[Zaap]

Again, reference that article. This is not complicated.

LOL! This is why I can't take you seriously. You always get yourself out on argumenative branches that you saw off behind yourself.

What's funniest about this, is that what you're basically arguing: If it wasn't a socilist model in Venezula that made leftist gasbags become useful idiots to Chavez et al.....


... then lefists gasbags simply admire brutal dictatorships and love having "all the money end up in the hands of corrupt officials, not the people."

Now- that's funny because, trust me, there are plenty that would say "That's true!" and we've long suspected as much... but it's what you'd have to be arguing for *specifically* in this case- just for the sake of this silly thread in trying to say it wasn't socialism.

You can't have it both ways! (Although of course, every other leftist argument attempts just that- burning it at both ends.)

As always for this forum- too funny!

 

[Thebobo]

NM was answered.

 

[Thebobo]

... then lefists gasbags simply admire brutal dictatorships and love having "all the money end up in the hands of corrupt officials, not the people."

As always for this forum- too funny!

Can you explain why Trump's favorite world leaders are all dictators like Putin, Niyazov, Karimov, King Abdullah, Duterte.

And why he despises other democratic world leaders often insulting them.

Now thats funny!

 

[jackstar7]

Well, as you would imagine I disagree with what you are saying about me. Would you care to hear why?

No, I'm sure it's just as I imagine.

 

[realibrad]

No, I'm sure it's just as I imagine.

Okay. I would bet that if you had a real conversation with me, where you could hear my inflection, you would judge me differently. I would talk to you about any topic you purposed and just dive into it.

I think the reason you likely feel that way is due to this all being through text. If you change your mind, let me know.

 

[mikeymikec]

So tell me, where did you get the idea of my position on this topic? I assume you will back this up as you have asked me to back up my previous claims.

When you made your rape analogy. Yes, you explained why you made such an odd analogy, but I think most people on hearing a topic being compared to rape would naturally assume your choice of word had a bearing on your position on the topic even with your subsequent explanations (the reason why follows).

What is about to follow may seem like a barrage of insults, but that's not my point here so please bear with me.

In a lot of ways you generally come across in arguments as many here do, a typical idiot* who isn't here to discuss a point but make childish comparisons that project their feelings on the topic rather than having any logical bearing (ie. the common cause of Godwin's Law), you throw around insults in a regular basis, and the 'breasts' thread is a pretty good example of when you seem to be intentionally playing dumb about definitions of words and social behaviour, and seemingly ignoring large swathes of a person's argument. Another example was your position on the 'dating in a rape culture' thread (no, seriously, I don't want to get into that argument again). On the other hand, when challenged on a point you've made, you generally stick to the point, whereas what the typical idiot often does is divert and ignore by arguing against a stereotype that they assume the opponent's argument is because that's easier for them than actually listening. I'm not sure what you're like with critically analysing your own views (which the idiots seem incapable of), because I'm not sure we've ever got that far in a discussion (which is kind of odd).

* - I say idiot (and I'll continue to use that term to describe the kind of person I'm talking about here) because I assume that someone who comes to a discussion board who is not willing to discuss is an idiot. They may be quite intelligent in other ways, but if I turned up to a university Maths course no doubt I'd look like an idiot to the other students because of my poor grasp of maths beyond arithmetic.

I would be surprised if anyone on this thread had guessed your position on this topic accurately until your last few posts (let alone if I was the only one who hadn't figured it out beforehand). This is pretty unusual in my experience. Normally if someone starts trying to dismantle my position hammer-and-tongs style and I perceive us to be on the same 'side' in the discussion, I'd normally say "hold on a second, I think you may have incorrectly assumed a few things here" and proceed to try and state my position as explicitly as I can. It took you ten pages of posts to do that. It would have saved a lot of time if you had done it sooner.

You seem like an intelligent person who may actually be interested in a serious discussion but you shoot yourself in the foot on a regular basis because you engage in the sort of behaviours I've already described.

 

[urvile]

Australia (the greatest country on earth) has a mix of user pays and social aspects. For example universal health care. I have had private health insurance for years and actually get a tax break as a result. However I only use my health insurance for things like dental and chiropractic shit. If I go to the doctor I pay and then a few days later half of what I payed magically reappears in my bank account.

I have also been in the unfortunate position of having to be admitted to hospital and I didn't pay a cent for the experience. Despite spending a fortnight there and having multiple surgeries and having no health insurance. This is really what universal health care is for. No one fucks with it regardless of political ideology. Providing for citizens regardless of economic status is not seen as a political issue. Despite the fact that I pay a LOT of tax I don't care. Because I know it's going towards providing for the rest of society.

Although I worked very hard to get where I am. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth like donald trump and everything I earned I earned honestly. I don't have a problem with actually helping those less fortunate and not just through voluntary donations but through a well administered universal health care system and PBS.

I hope one day america will provide for those less fortunate instead of letting them die in the street.

 

[mikeymikec]

I have also been in the unfortunate position of having to be admitted to hospital and I didn't pay a cent for the experience. Despite spending a fortnight there and having multiple surgeries and having no health insurance. This is really what universal health care is for. No one fucks with it regardless of political ideology. Providing for citizens regardless of economic status is not seen as a political issue.

Despite the fact that the UK also has universal healthcare and I've benefited from it in similar ways and I'm extremely grateful for it, I wish I could agree with the idea that the UK's political position with regard to the NHS is the same as Australia's apparently is. Sadly, the conservative party here is hellbent on destroying it and selling it off for a nickel to their friends.

 

[bshole]

I have also been in the unfortunate position of having to be admitted to hospital and I didn't pay a cent for the experience. Despite spending a fortnight there and having multiple surgeries and having no health insurance. This is really what universal health care is for. No one fucks with it regardless of political ideology. Providing for citizens regardless of economic status is not seen as a political issue. Despite the fact that I pay a LOT of tax I don't care. Because I know it's going towards providing for the rest of society.

Although I worked very hard to get where I am. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth like donald trump and everything I earned I earned honestly. I don't have a problem with actually helping those less fortunate and not just through voluntary donations but through a well administered universal health care system and PBS.

Esli has mentioned this on several different threads. There may be a hangup among conservatives to provide universal health care to black folks. It there was universal health care for whites, we probably have it already. The other sticking point is the massive political power of medical insurance companies. They are not going to give up this massive cash cow without a bloody fight.

 

[realibrad]

When you made your rape analogy. Yes, you explained why you made such an odd analogy, but I think most people on hearing a topic being compared to rape would naturally assume your choice of word had a bearing on your position on the topic even with your subsequent explanations (the reason why follows).

What is about to follow may seem like a barrage of insults, but that's not my point here so please bear with me.

In a lot of ways you generally come across in arguments as many here do, a typical idiot* who isn't here to discuss a point but make childish comparisons that project their feelings on the topic rather than having any logical bearing (ie. the common cause of Godwin's Law), you throw around insults in a regular basis, and the 'breasts' thread is a pretty good example of when you seem to be intentionally playing dumb about definitions of words and social behaviour, and seemingly ignoring large swathes of a person's argument. Another example was your position on the 'dating in a rape culture' thread (no, seriously, I don't want to get into that argument again). On the other hand, when challenged on a point you've made, you generally stick to the point, whereas what the typical idiot often does is divert and ignore by arguing against a stereotype that they assume the opponent's argument is because that's easier for them than actually listening. I'm not sure what you're like with critically analysing your own views (which the idiots seem incapable of), because I'm not sure we've ever got that far in a discussion (which is kind of odd).

* - I say idiot (and I'll continue to use that term to describe the kind of person I'm talking about here) because I assume that someone who comes to a discussion board who is not willing to discuss is an idiot. They may be quite intelligent in other ways, but if I turned up to a university Maths course no doubt I'd look like an idiot to the other students because of my poor grasp of maths beyond arithmetic.

I would be surprised if anyone on this thread had guessed your position on this topic accurately until your last few posts (let alone if I was the only one who hadn't figured it out beforehand). This is pretty unusual in my experience. Normally if someone starts trying to dismantle my position hammer-and-tongs style and I perceive us to be on the same 'side' in the discussion, I'd normally say "hold on a second, I think you may have incorrectly assumed a few things here" and proceed to try and state my position as explicitly as I can. It took you ten pages of posts to do that. It would have saved a lot of time if you had done it sooner.

You seem like an intelligent person who may actually be interested in a serious discussion but you shoot yourself in the foot on a regular basis because you engage in the sort of behaviours I've already described.

The problem appears that many in thread, and to a greater extent in this forum, believe if you question someone or challenge them it's because you disagree. That is faulty logic.

Take what happened with Spy earlier. I never, not one time in that discussion, challenged the ideas of socialism. I disagreed with the argument he was using. The analogy I then used was never to make the two to seem equal. It was to show that the route he was taking would then logically allow for such amazingly bad ideas. I said as such when first making the analogy.

That was all missed because the moment I challenged him, it was assumed that it was about the topic. No matter how many times I said otherwise, people whom held a bias could not perceive anything else and filtered everything said. One person crash something seemed to get it.

You as well as others fell victim to this. If you go back you can see you and others defending socialism. You will then see me trying to get people back on track, and failing quite badly.

I think this happens because I often jump in on discussions already taking place. People are thus well entrenched in their role and I get labeled as the opposite side because of my questions. If I agreed then I would support them. If I have a question I must be against them or their position. I almost never find utility in coming onto a forum and making a post simply saying I agree. Nobody cares about my virtue signaling.

If you have time and are willing... go back and re-read my posts in a tone of someone whom is interested in getting an answer, and not of someone that is judging the person, but the idea.

As for being bad at math, meh. I'm in the 30% when it comes to my working memory. Means among other things I'm pretty much useless at math. I excel at verbal comprehension (88th) and perceptual reasoning (84th). That is why you will see me dive into long discussions and getting into the weeds. Doing that plays to my strength and allows me to best understand what is going on. Sadly, when it happens people perceive me as trying to bog down the discussion. I never try and deflect, and I do try to support my position, but for all the aforementioned reasons that gets lost.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem appears that many in thread, and to a greater extent in this forum, believe if you question someone or challenge them it's because you disagree. That is faulty logic.

Take what happened with Spy earlier. I never, not one time in that discussion, challenged the ideas of socialism. I disagreed with the argument he was using. The analogy I then used was never to make the two to seem equal. It was to show that the route he was taking would then logically allow for such amazingly bad ideas. I said as such when first making the analogy.

That was all missed because the moment I challenged him, it was assumed that it was about the topic. No matter how many times I said otherwise, people whom held a bias could not perceive anything else and filtered everything said. One person crash something seemed to get it.

You as well as others fell victim to this. If you go back you can see you and others defending socialism. You will then see me trying to get people back on track, and failing quite badly.

I think this happens because I often jump in on discussions already taking place. People are thus well entrenched in their role and I get labeled as the opposite side because of my questions. If I agreed then I would support them. If I have a question I must be against them or their position. I almost never find utility in coming onto a forum and making a post simply saying I agree. Nobody cares about my virtue signaling.

If you have time and are willing... go back and re-read my posts in a tone of someone whom is interested in getting an answer, and not of someone that is judging the person, but the idea.

As for being bad at math, meh. I'm in the 30% when it comes to my working memory. Means among other things I'm pretty much useless at math. I excel at verbal comprehension (88th) and perceptual reasoning (84th). That is why you will see me dive into long discussions and getting into the weeds. Doing that plays to my strength and allows me to best understand what is going on. Sadly, when it happens people perceive me as trying to bog down the discussion. I never try and deflect, and I do try to support my position, but for all the aforementioned reasons that gets lost.

It’s important to remember that none of my posts addressed your support for socialism or the lack thereof. I focused entirely on the flaws in your argument and your continuing attempts to misrepresent them. I imagine this is similar to what other people are saying when they mention your dishonesty.

It is amusing to me that you think you excel at verbal comprehension considering your ongoing difficulties with verbal comprehension not only in this thread with me but in numerous other ones.

 

[mikeymikec]

The problem appears that many in thread, and to a greater extent in this forum, believe if you question someone or challenge them it's because you disagree. That is faulty logic.

True, however people tend to perform better when faced with an adversary. In a discussion, lots of like-minded people generally result in an echo chamber and little of value is gained from it. However, when opposing views are discussed, critical analysis is more likely and therefore more value is likely to be gained from it. As a result, like-minded people don't often discuss a topic at great length unless one asks a question based on understanding their limited grasp of a particular part of the topic, like if I had a question to ask urville about details of Australia's current political climate or healthcare system.

While I sometimes do critique a person's opinion despite theirs being generally in alignment to my own, I'll say something like "while I generally agree with what you're saying, I do however disagree on this point because...", so then instead of seemingly barging into a discussion and comparing say socialism to rape and subsquently being mocked for an apparently absurd statement (and frankly, 99% of the time that someone makes such a comparison on this forum, it is for completely absurd reasoning/basis), everyone has a good idea of what my general opinion is, rather than having to assume it from the small amount of information I've provided to indicate my position.

So you can either complain that other people often get it wrong when forced to guess your position to interpret your contributions correctly based on the little information you've provided, or you can alter your technique to allow for the fact that most people tend to work in the way I've described (at least in my experience).

People do infer and imply an awful lot, and it's not good for a discussion between strangers. Since an experience I had where I worked many years ago, I try to be as explicit as possible in all my communications, but it's a struggle to work that way because to be 100% explicit would result in posts that are often ten times longer than they need to be if people get the implications and inferences one makes. For example, when I wrote my post to you about my remaining assumption of your general position, that paragraph got re-written about four times because I felt that it was important for me to leave nothing to chance there.

If you have time and are willing... go back and re-read my posts in a tone of someone whom is interested in getting an answer, and not of someone that is judging the person, but the idea.

Most of the time I was genuinely interested in getting an answer and was truly baffled by your position, but to be honest I've now been sucked of any enthusiasm for the topic. I think even if glenn1 were to drop another completely absurd scenario in which he'd consider supporting a socialist healthcare model that includes flying Ferraris powered by ground-up rainbow unicorns, I'd be like, "meh".

 

[realibrad]

True, however people tend to perform better when faced with an adversary. In a discussion, lots of like-minded people generally result in an echo chamber and little of value is gained from it. However, when opposing views are discussed, critical analysis is more likely and therefore more value is likely to be gained from it. As a result, like-minded people don't often discuss a topic at great length unless one asks a question based on understanding their limited grasp of a particular part of the topic, like if I had a question to ask urville about details of Australia's current political climate or healthcare system.

I disagree. Utility can be gained from discussing things with like minded people, so long as it revolves around exploring their beliefs. I have found many times where people that thought they agreed did not. It was small seemingly small details, but the implications were large. It also furthered both of their understanding on the topic discussed. So it can be true. That said, there would be far more times when likely so much was agreed on that it would be silly to try and find the few times where there was a difference or further understanding to be gained.

While I sometimes do critique a person's opinion despite theirs being generally in alignment to my own, I'll say something like "while I generally agree with what you're saying, I do however disagree on this point because...", so then instead of seemingly barging into a discussion and comparing say socialism to rape and subsquently being mocked for an apparently absurd statement (and frankly, 99% of the time that someone makes such a comparison on this forum, it is for completely absurd reasoning/basis), everyone has a good idea of what my general opinion is, rather than having to assume it from the small amount of information I've provided to indicate my position.

I believe you have done it again. I was not trying to equate topic a to topic b. I was saying that the logic used to defend topic a could be repurposed and used to justify topic b. I also said it would be faulty to do so. I know you are probably not willing to do so, but this interests me that you still hold this view and I would love to know why.

So you can either complain that other people often get it wrong when forced to guess your position to interpret your contributions correctly based on the little information you've provided, or you can alter your technique to allow for the fact that most people tend to work in the way I've described (at least in my experience).

Nobody is forced to guess. If people want to know my positions, they should ask. I have made my positions clear in other threads, but, if the person feels I could give more, its up to them to let me know that. I think its clear that I'm more than willing to respond to people. This also interests me that you hold the view that I do not provide information. At no point did I want or try to make the topic about my view on socialism, so it did not seem pertinent given what I was talking about. Would you mind expanding on this?

People do infer and imply an awful lot, and it's not good for a discussion between strangers. Since an experience I had where I worked many years ago, I try to be as explicit as possible in all my communications, but it's a struggle to work that way because to be 100% explicit would result in posts that are often ten times longer than they need to be if people get the implications and inferences one makes. For example, when I wrote my post to you about my remaining assumption of your general position, that paragraph got re-written about four times because I felt that it was important for me to leave nothing to chance there.

I find this interesting because I believe you have done so with this discussion. As I said before, if you are willing, I would want to talk to you about this. I do not disagree with the abstraction of what you have said though.

Most of the time I was genuinely interested in getting an answer and was truly baffled by your position, but to be honest I've now been sucked of any enthusiasm for the topic. I think even if glenn1 were to drop another completely absurd scenario in which he'd consider supporting a socialist healthcare model that includes flying Ferraris powered by ground-up rainbow unicorns, I'd be like, "meh".

Just let me know.

 

[realibrad]

It’s important to remember that none of my posts addressed your support for socialism or the lack thereof. I focused entirely on the flaws in your argument and your continuing attempts to misrepresent them. I imagine this is similar to what other people are saying when they mention your dishonesty.

It is amusing to me that you think you excel at verbal comprehension considering your ongoing difficulties with verbal comprehension not only in this thread with me but in numerous other ones.

Well, given that I was tested by a doctor, yes I would say empirically that is the case. I literally went to a psychologist and had my IQ tested. The purpose was to build a baseline for other things we are trying to measure, but in that test was verbal comprehension. So if you want to attack me on that, go ahead, but you are going against a lot of work done by people far more adept at this topic.