Edwards Says an Apple a Day Won't Do

ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, then if you read the article it never gives a valid example or explains that sentence. It was probably added by Stringfield.
Click to expand...
Here ya go:

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slippery_Slope.html

Read up on it. As an informal logic without deductive steps, it is fallacious. So, if they say. Well, this means we'll be paying for pet insurance through our taxes too! That would be fallacious.

If they say, "The law says this, I therefore predict this." and one follows from the other it is a valid, not fallacious argument.

The pretense that it is always fallacious is, as I said, a fallacious argument.
 
Oh fun another 10,000 foot high level proposal with zero detail and analysis such as:

1) how many doctors would this require.
2) What about specialists considering most doctors refer to them for many common problems such as allergies and dermatology.

Just to name a couple.


Fucking typical top down approach of government.
 
Anesthesiologists 23,790
Family and General Practitioners 111,990
Internists, General 50,140
Obstetricians and Gynecologists 19,180
Pediatricians, General 26,910
Psychiatrists 19,530
Surgeons 49,730

Total 301,270

Total population is say 320M including illegals. how does the math work on this smart guy Edwards.

LOL 2857 appointment for each general doctor per year.. LOL NO PROBLEM.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, then if you read the article it never gives a valid example or explains that sentence. It was probably added by Stringfield.
Click to expand...

You can check edits. Show us a recent edit that came from my area. Who's spinning?

And what of the two other sources that say the same thing.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, the horror! Going to the doctor once a year for a physical!

Doesn't sound like much of a burden to me. It actually makes good economic sense. People who blow off preventative healthcare, cost the rest of us money - through increased healthcare costs and premiums.

A universal healthcare system requires shared responsibility. If you're going to require employer to provide healthcare insurance (which edwards plan does), you have to reduce their cost by requiring people to get preventative healthcare. Give both employers and employees shared responsibility. One of the biggest costs of our current system, is that it focuses on treatment, and not prevention.

Oh, and no one is going to jail if the refuse to go to the doctor. Edwards plan simply rewards those who go for preventative checkups, and sign up for healthy living plans, with lower premiums. If one is too fucking lazy to go to the doctor once a year, they'll pay higher premiums. That's the sanction. They're not going to be arrested. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...


This is a hysterical thread.

Libertarians...blech. But they are amusing little worms.
 
Liberals actually should be outraged, I was ridiculed by Lorax by saying government healthcare means force and here it is proven that is exactly what it means.
Do Liberals no longer believe that people have a right over what happens to their own body or does that only apply to abortion (probably the part that is technically the LEAST part of their body)?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, then if you read the article it never gives a valid example or explains that sentence. It was probably added by Stringfield.
Click to expand...

OMG.

This is why I always hate citing wikipedia.

People say that I "added it myself". That's why you always have to have Brittanica right beside you to shut their dumb mouths up. The two are basically as accurate as each other.
 
Watermark said:
OMG.

This is why I always hate citing wikipedia.

People say that I "added it myself". That's why you always have to have Brittanica right beside you to shut their dumb mouths up. The two are basically as accurate as each other.
Click to expand...

OMG

I don't really think String added it. But to make a point once, TanMan added a bit to the wiki about Fascism to make it say that ib1 and Mussolini liked to take baths together and rub olive oil on each other.

The point, of course, is that the article never expounds upon its assertion that it's sometimes a valid form of reason - it clearly is never a valid form of REASON, but the predictions do sometimes come true.

And I was particularly tickled to see that the very first example they gave of faulty reason was an argument from a civil libertarian about governmental policy slippery slopes. How much more specific a rejection of String's reasoning does he need?
 
ib1yysguy said:
OMG

I don't really think String added it. But to make a point once, TanMan added a bit to the wiki about Fascism to make it say that ib1 and Mussolini liked to take baths together and rub olive oil on each other.

The point, of course, is that the article never expounds upon its assertion that it's sometimes a valid form of reason - it clearly is never a valid form of REASON, but the predictions do sometimes come true.

And I was particularly tickled to see that the very first example they gave of faulty reason was an argument from a civil libertarian about governmental policy slippery slopes. How much more specific a rejection of String's reasoning does he need?
Click to expand...

Three sources, all said the same thing. You keep spinning and denying.

Not only is a slippery slope not always fallacious, my argument was not a slippery slope and you have failed to offer anything to defned the assertion that it is.
 
ib1yysguy said:
OMG

I don't really think String added it. But to make a point once, TanMan added a bit to the wiki about Fascism to make it say that ib1 and Mussolini liked to take baths together and rub olive oil on each other.

The point, of course, is that the article never expounds upon its assertion that it's sometimes a valid form of reason - it clearly is never a valid form of REASON, but the predictions do sometimes come true.

And I was particularly tickled to see that the very first example they gave of faulty reason was an argument from a civil libertarian about governmental policy slippery slopes. How much more specific a rejection of String's reasoning does he need?
Click to expand...
Which is why I provided a totally different site, from a university that expounded on that very idea.
 
Is it the SS number or card that is not to be used for identification ?
SS numbers were issued to be a form of identification.
 
USC, what a stupid comment. No, Hillary Care, never existed clearly the point was that that is what it proposed.
//
yep string, so why did you say it outlawed insted of proposed outlawing ?

Spin and false outrage ?

The "proposed" point was not at all clear.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Which is why I provided a totally different site, from a university that expounded on that very idea.
Click to expand...

Guess I missed it. Even still, in this instance, String's usage was obviously fallacious. The Wiki example of fallacious use mirrors his very closely.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Guess I missed it. Even still, in this instance, String's usage was obviously fallacious. The Wiki example of fallacious use mirrors his very closely.
Click to expand...

You did not miss anything. You evaded. I provided other sources.

You obviously are looking for additional schooling.

Tell us how my usage was fallacious? You can't because I made no conclusive staement. I even offered a reason why I did not believe it would get to that point.

Tell us how one step turns into a slope?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top