I don't understand. Aren't you asserting that performance in school is not a valid indicator of intelligence? If so, why are you using your SAT and ACT scores to justify your claim that you're 'moderately gifted?"

I'm making a big deal out of this because I'm trying to determine if this is another situation that can be succinctly described by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Before I can agree or disagree with you, I need to understand if you are using some form of empirical measurement to compare your intelligence versus others with greater academic standing, or if you simply perceive others as less intelligent as a consequence of an effect well-described in certain published psychology papers.

I use "gifted" in a general sense. I say moderately gifted because I figure myself to be pretty well in the middle. I'm not saying I'm super intelligent, I'm saying I think i'm sufficiently smart, and have the ability to get good scores on tests. I'm just saying, as someone who is not super smart, nor super dumb, I know super smart people who suck at school, and super dumb people who are really good at school. And all other combinations. Point being: grades are not the be-all-end-all indicator of intelligence.

To directly answer your question: Yes, I'm saying that performance in school is not a valid indicator of intelligence. My evidence to support this is that I got good grades and good test scores at one time, and now I don't get particularly good grades, all the while remaining basically the same level of decent intelligence.

Regarding your indication of the "slope" in my argument. Yeah. I acknowledged that there was a "progression". But it wasn't the point. You're really good at latching on to one particular item and debating it endlessly to spite the point. The "slippery slope" label implies that as you progress forward, things inevitably get worse and worse. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying once you hit a certain point, it's all bad. It's a discrete step DOWN, followed by a sequence of things which are bad. They're all bad. It doesn't get worse and worse...it's all bad. It's a level area. I don't know how many other ways I can say this before you understand.

I realize I made a mistake by illustrating it as a "suggesting-strongly suggesting-telling-enforcing" progression. Yes, that implies slippery slope.

However, to state it again, by all rights this should not be a slope. If I pay for it, I should get to make you use it the way I want. This is what I mean by "it's only a slippery slope if you want it to be". If you WANT to slowly slide towards it because it makes you feel better, fine, but the fact is that it's a simple relationship. No slope. Just an immediate drop from you paying for your own **** and living how you want to me paying for it and making you live the way I want.

Actually a slippery slope argument implies that an initial, diminutive event will inevitably result in a significant outcome without adequately explaining or justifying the result (typically with a chain of events connecting the two, although in my experience this is provided for little more than dramatic effect.)

For example: your assertion about public healthcare inevitably resulting in a widespread loss of personal freedoms is a slippery slope fallacy because you do not offer a reasonable explanation for how the introduction of public healthcare will lead to the majority of Americans in favor of abandoning their diet of - and keep in mind that people have been shot for suggesting less offensive restrictions - Cheetos and Coca-Cola Classic.

Other examples include the claim that limited gun control (such as a registry) will inevitably lead to the banning of all firearms, the elimination of world governments leading to a socio-anarchist utopia, or the argument that conspicuous consumption will inevitably result in the technological singularity.

Fair enough. But again, the "slippery slope" portion of the argument STILL isn't the point. It's completely irrelevant to the point, even.

To distill it down to the point, hopefully enough so that we don't get caught up in the details of the argument:

If I am paying for healthcare for other people, I believe I have a right to determine how that health care is used.

For example, if someone has eaten himself into obesity and requires medical procedures of any kind to treat illnesses related to that obesity, I don't think I should have to pay for that, since I try to eat and live healthy. Another example: My roommate broke his neck this summer trying to do a backflip while drunk at a party. I, myself, do not engage in risky activities such as this, and so I don't feel that I should have to pay for that, either.

At the same time, I don't believe anyone should have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life. Therefore, in my mind, the idea of any kind of government run healthcare is impossible to reconcile with my principles.

No, the slippery slope portion of your argument is still the entirety of your initial argument. Rephrasing it doesn't change the reality of what you had written, but I'm willing to accept your concession.

And you shouldn't have to pay to treat melanoma, because you don't go outside?

Whether it's provided by the government or a private company, the whole reason insurance exists is to distribute the costs of misadventure across a large group. The only way you can avoid paying to correct the mistakes of less responsible people is if you have no insurance at all, which would be really dumb if you do any sort of risk analysis (which is why the government makes liability insurance mandatory in almost all cases.)

No, you DON'T get that right. With public healthcare, you get the right to free health care. You don't get the right to dominate its implementation.

You pay for the military, you don't get to choose what conflicts it is involved with. You pay for public schools, you don't get to choose what they teach. You pay for public roads, you don't get to choose what sort of asphalt they're made of. In no way do you have direct control over public services, and you shouldn't. You don't get to choose how your tax money is spent, you can't refuse to pay taxes if you disagree with a certain war.
Similarly, you won't have control over the healthcare system.
The control you have is to vote. You vote for a particular candidate with particular policies on public issues.

If my argument was presented that way initially, I apologize. I have that problem a lot. But my core point is as it is in my revised statement.

Of course, I see what you're saying. Where's the line between what I consider to be someone's own fault? After all, everything has a cause of some kind. And yes, the point of insurance one way or another is to distribute the price of high-cost things among many people. However, ideally this would be a voluntary buy-in to this deal. If I don't want insurance, or I don't want a certain kind of insurance, that should be MY decision. If I want to pay for everything out-of-pocket, or through a loan, or just take the risk, that should be MY decision when it regards my own person or my own property.

It's not the existence of the system, it's the forced participation/compliance, you see?

To Mort-Hog:

The whole point is that if I don't get that right, then I am being deprived of my rights. Which is bad, mmkay. You're right, the control I have IS my vote. I'm not talking about direct control. I DO have control over the military...I elect the people who decide what to use it for. I do have control over public schools, I elect the people who determine what they teach. I elect the people who determine how to spend the money that I'm forced to pay. I DO get to choose how my tax money is spent. That's the whole point of the damn country. And guess what, everyone else gets to say that, too. They get a say in which wars to fight, what to teach in schools, and how to pave our roads. That's how it's supposed to work. But I don't want other people telling me how to live, and I have no desire to tell them how to live. I want no stake in peoples' personal business.

double post.

I understand your objection, but that doesn't make you right.

Anybody rich enough to pay for all possible medical expenses out of pocket is way too smart to maintain that kind of liquidity all the time just in case something bad happens. The only people who will be affected by a "forced participation" are those with preexisting conditions (the uninsurable), people who cannot afford normal health insurance and people who are really stupid.

That's 18% of the American population. You may divide it up as you wish.

That's what makes it a good discussion.

I understand the desire to help people. I believe strongly in self-sacrifice for the greater good. Hell, my goal in life is to save lives, even if it means risking my own. But as I said, I am opposed to forced self-sacrifice. No one is out there forcing you to run into a burning building and pull people out, no one is forcing you to step in during a violent confrontation to protect innocents. It's on principle that I object. Glad we all understand.

Really.

I just want to keep my money. I work my *** off earning it, and the government just ups and takes it. ****ing bum deal, if you ask me.

Except we don't all understand, because you're still walking away from this conversation with the impression that it's okay to be uninsured and that it won't harm society as a whole to have an entire underclass of stupid, sick and poor people who will leave gigantic medical debt behind for the government, medical and financial institutions to absorb.

I guess we don't all understand then. I didn't say it doesn't harm society, I just said that I don't think the help the alternative provides is worth the price. I didn't say I thought it was okay to be uninsured. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's "okay", nor does it mean that you have to make it "okay" at any cost, because you might just make something else not okay, or worse.

...What?

I mean just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean we HAVE to go fix it, even when the fix might make something else worse.

Ah yes, Argumentum Ad Traditio, a favorite of fallacies among people who don't actually use something so they don't believe that there might be problems with it.

Where did I say that nothing was wrong with it? Where did I say that it didn't need to be fixed? I just said I don't want to rush into some big solution when that solution causes more problems.

Actually you said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Wordiness is hubris.

I didn't say that. For someone who acts so smart, you have a real hard time reading simple sentences. Nowhere did I say anything that can be translated as "it ain't broke". Nor did I say anywhere "don't fix it".

Edit: as in the other thread: you're trolling, we're done.

Let's break down the problem:

If something doesn't need to be fixed in order to function, it's not broken. It may not be perfect, but it works. Thus,

"it ain't broke"


If making changes or improvements would be a waste of effort or maybe even make the situation worse, we shouldn't make changes or improvements.

"don't fix it"


Combined:

"[if] it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Like I said, we're done. If you really care about the actual discussion and our viewpoints, PM me and I'll read it tomorrow. Otherwise you can just be a smartass on internet with someone else.

I guess it's basically impossible to have a discussion about issues and not technicalities of language on here. And to think I'm still so optimistic when I see a thread with some discussion about something that matters.

Stop being a child. There's no shame in admitting that you think we should cleanse the gene pool of the poor and sick.

To be fair, Jon, your arguments may be more productive if you were a bit less abrasive.

On the other hand, how can you tell getting all offended isn't a cover for a weak argument? And why argue seriously with someone who clings to his ideas so voraciously that to attack the idea is to attack the man?

I oppose nationalized health care, but this post is a beauty.

Certainly true, I'm only suggesting a point at which one may not want to bother arguing with Jon.

Obama may be many things but stupid is not one of them. He appears to be getting his agenda through and acheiving the results he desires.

But but but
they banned you

I'm glad they're banning clove cigarettes in Seattle, because maybe then that will cut down on the hipster population, or at least force them to migrate to something classier.
Also, I love taxes, partly because I'm a government employee so you guys are paying my paycheck. And partly because paying my taxes gives me a sick sense of moral superiority over tax dodging hypocritical "capitalists". It makes the food I purchase with food stamps taste better.

-On a serious note, I don't support this ban and am surprised I heard about it here first. I also don't support banning smoking in places like bars or smoke shops. There should be "safe venues", if you will, where you can smoke all you want. Tax 'em? Sure. But don't ban 'em altogether, that's a huge cash cow right there.

Psst, check the OPs post date.