 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 09:45 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
> this idiot mess is a bad idea,
The same way we fixed the idiot messes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet
Nam? Have we since tuned up our magic wand?
> or that someone more people will die, by
> making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
> damn first place..
I have absolutely no bloody patience for people who go on for paragraphs
about preventive vs. trauma care while obviously having no idea what
trauma care is.
Too bad that guy's head went through a windshield. Maybe if we'd given
him some antibiotics ...
> It shows a complete, and total, oblivious ignorance
> of what is going, on, what doctors themselves say on the subject, what
> the actual problems are, or why the fuck they got that way, in the first
> place.
Complete AND total? Do go on.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
> A typical authoritarian question.
That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 09:45 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
>> this idiot mess is a bad idea,
>
> The same way we fixed the idiot messes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet
> Nam? Have we since tuned up our magic wand?
>
Yeah, because that is **exactly** the same thing. And people claim I am
bad at analogies sometimes...
>> or that someone more people will die, by
>> making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
>> damn first place..
>
> I have absolutely no bloody patience for people who go on for paragraphs
> about preventive vs. trauma care while obviously having no idea what
> trauma care is.
>
> Too bad that guy's head went through a windshield. Maybe if we'd given
> him some antibiotics ...
>
WTF? No, its - lets ship this guy 50 miles to another hospital, because
we are too busy given 10 idiots, who should have gone to a regular
doctor, but couldn't, antibiotics, for shit that could have been treated
with a damn bandaid three weeks earlier. But, yeah, I get that you have
no damn clue what the problems really are, or how they got to be such a
damn mess in the first place. Worse, you think that actually making sure
people get the bandaid - note, not forcing doctors to hand out bandaids,
but just making f-ing sure they can get to a primary doctor, for one, is
"forcing" those non-specialist, non-trauma care, non-emergency room,
doctors to do things, while somehow taking away the ability of the ones
that "are" in those emergency care locations to deal with the real
trauma cases, which they can't right now, because they are too busy
dealing with crap that should have never gotten to them in the first place.
How does that make any damn sense? Next you will be telling me that
hiring more school nurses will "take away necessary staff from, and
further overload emergency responders, by **forcing** them to work in
schools, instead of driving ambulances." It makes about as much damn
sense as claiming that trauma care professionals are going to be somehow
"forced" to hand out antibiotics to people who can, with actual fraking
health care coverage, now see regular doctors.
Now, **if** you are claiming that there might be an increase in idiots
showing up in places they shouldn't, **instead of** going to primary
care physicians, then you would have a point. Not much of one though,
since ***they are already doing that, because its the only care, without
insurance, they can get right now***.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> A typical authoritarian question.
>
> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>
Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 11:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
Yes, the world is full of stupidity, and, yes, maybe YOU could improve
some of it if you had infinite, incorruptible power at your disposal.
But this is a fantasy, and no amount of problem-pointing-out makes it
any less of a fantasy.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:02:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> A typical authoritarian question.
>>
>> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>>
>>
> Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
>
> I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
> understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
You assume that my position is an authoritarian position, and then you
constructed a debate against that assumed position. You also assumed
what answer I wanted, and then "graciously" provided that answer, rather
than actually answering the question.
I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/12/2013 10:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 22:02:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:32:57 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> A typical authoritarian question.
>>>
>>> That pretty much tells me what I need to know, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>> Dismissive for a third time. No surprise there.
>>
>> I contrasted my position with yours to provide an opportunity for
>> understanding. I can't make you take that opportunity.
>
> You assume that my position is an authoritarian position, and then you
> constructed a debate against that assumed position. You also assumed
> what answer I wanted, and then "graciously" provided that answer, rather
> than actually answering the question.
>
> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>
And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:31:59 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>>
> And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
> had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
>
> If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
> beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
<shrug>
That's really just complete nonsense, that the "strawman" is itself a
strawman. You've decided what question I asked and answered that, rather
than answering the question I actually asked.
You had the debate you wanted to have, answered the question you wanted
to answer, and ignored my question.
When you're interested in having a discussion about reality rather than a
hypothetical situation that actually isn't reflected in reality, you let
*me* know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/13/2013 03:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:31:59 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>>> I'm not going to get into a strawman debate on the issue.
>>>
>> And here we are, right back in the middle of every argument you've ever
>> had with Warp ... at the "Strawman" strawman.
>>
>> If you're EVER interested in understand the case for limited government
>> beyond "some people hate the poor," let me know.
>
> <shrug>
>
> That's really just complete nonsense, that the "strawman" is itself a
> strawman. You've decided what question I asked and answered that, rather
> than answering the question I actually asked.
>
> You had the debate you wanted to have, answered the question you wanted
> to answer, and ignored my question.
>
> When you're interested in having a discussion about reality rather than a
> hypothetical situation that actually isn't reflected in reality, you let
> *me* know.
>
I answered your questions, Jim. Both of them. Only after pointing out
the inferences loaded into them, but I did answer them. You'll do
anything to avoid actual discussion of this topic. It's transparent.
I don't know if you spend your days surrounded by children or idiots who
fall for that kind of crap, or if you just *think* you do. But I've laid
out my case plainly enough for anyone willing to learn from it.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:21:24 -0500, Shay wrote:
> I answered your questions, Jim. Both of them. Only after pointing out
> the inferences loaded into them, but I did answer them. You'll do
> anything to avoid actual discussion of this topic. It's transparent.
>
> I don't know if you spend your days surrounded by children or idiots who
> fall for that kind of crap, or if you just *think* you do. But I've laid
> out my case plainly enough for anyone willing to learn from it.
I'm not going to debate this with you any more, Shay. Trying to make the
argument now that "Jim's too stupid to understand what I'm saying" isn't
making your case any stronger.
I'm more than happy to discuss the topic, but only in a reasonable,
rational, and respectful manner.
So when you're ready to do that, then let me know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
