Gee, nobody with a semi-automatic assault rifle shouldered and ready for some action instead of written or spoken words on that image?

Strange how invariably obvious & constitutionally opportunist any form of public protests are in the USA.

ID please.

Given that false premise is a formal term with an exact meaning, one would presume that someone familiar with it would have noticed either that A: in order to make such a charge, one has to actually both state and debunk the premise they consider incorrect, or B: my comment is in the form of sarcasm, and does not even loosely follow the form of a syllogism.

Neither of these evidently being noticed by you, one might think you would refrain from attempting to debunk an argument using 'logic' that only advertises that you can search wikipedia for a good official sounding term rather than actually arguing against the argument presented, i.e. that this is standard form for this type of legislation.

Jonnan

Derp, derp:

Premise: Government has made America great (FALSE: assumed statement that is not widely accepted nor factually justified)

Premise: Government wants to run healthcare

Conclusion: Government will make healthcare great

Except that's not what I said, nor is it implied. I said that certain specific portions of our legal system have kept a format for 200+ years, and it is a tried and true format. Since that format was being criticised as being, in and of itself, a bad and foolish way of doing things, it was entirely germane to the conversation that it has a track record.

But even in that conversation I noted, albeit in passing, that their had been both successes and failures using this system - had the original poster offered some alternative method rather than merely screaming about how stupid it was to use this system, then by not commenting upon it I might at least be accused of being intellectually dishonest - but there was no such alternate given.

At best it would be:

Premise: Creating a framework, but leaving the detailed regulatory decisionmaking to an officer of the executive is a tried and true format, with long historical record.

Premise: The Format in use under HR 3200 largely complies with the previously described format

Conclusion: The format in used under HR3200 is a tried and true format (...)

I *AM* a fan of big government programs, within certain highly specific areas, but none of that is actually germane to my original post and I think one can only try to posit that as a premise by entirely distorting the post.

Jonnan

Alright then, let's look at what was said:

Above, you make an irrelevant set of statements. These statements are irrelevant because they make no logical claim on why the government would run healthcare well, but only demonstrate how the various branches of government may implement a healthcare system. Saying that the executive branch will provide a "regulatory implementation" for government-run healthcare does not speak to the quality of said implementation, and therefore holds no gravity in your argument. You summarize the workings of Federal Government of the United States, according to your understanding. You follow with,

You conclude that our federal constitutional republic has succeeded due to its very design. You claim that our type of government has helped to make our nation great. However, you use this to suggest that the government will therefore handle government-run healthcare well.

Humor me, but for the sake of logic, how can you conclude that a government will run healthcare better than private industry when your premise is that our style of government has made us a great nation? You cannot rightly conclude that it is government that has made us great, as elements other than government have contributed to the growth and prosperity of the US. Such elements include individual innovation, free enterprise, and geographic/territorial advantages. You also fail to consider the role of the Constitution itself, as the document is intended to stand above government (surely it must have a greater influence than that which it oversees, no?). Thus, if your premise has no sound footing, your conclusion certainly cannot be upheld.

Last post for the night.

You've gone over the border from "Badly mistakenland" you're in "Deceitfulograd".

Because *this* is what I quoted orignally

This is a very specific commentary of the format of the bill - attempting to quote me without reference to that context is deliberately deceitful, because in that context it is obvious I am countering this insipid attack on setting up a framework and letting the executive regulate.

If there were any doubt about that, by acknowledging, albeit in passing, that there have been legitmate failures of this approach makes it clear that the context you are trying to imply is entirely off the mark.

I'm sorry, but at this point you are quite simply trying to lie about what I said in a clever limbaugh-like ignore the context fashion in order to make an easily debunk-able straw-man.

Stop it. It's dishonest and disrespectful of those around you whom you think are too stupid to notice.

Jonnan

Ouch, straight to the ad hominem. Er, I mean, now you are in Adhominemistan (I hope that is an acceptable name)!

...I guess I hit a nerve there.

Funny to be sure, but the best? I dunno...this one is pretty good too, provided you have a sense of humor....and talk about guys running....

I hope this dude had his Nike's laced well.

Another funny protest sign.

*i only posted the link not the picture as some folks may find it offensive. So consider youself warned should you choose to click the link.

SD, remove if needed.

Well, she could be a young looking 14 year old... But yes, it is most likely her parent's putting her up there.

EDIT: no... i looked over again and she is way too young. no way she is a 14 year old.

Jonnan001 -

Did I say I was fond of any other such bills?  Congress has been this lazy for decades.  Doesn't mean we should continue to acquiesce in their laziness.

Fact is they're leaving a lot more than just the 'administrative details' to the executive.

Yet another term you don't actually understand - per wikipedia

or informally

Your argument, the way you propose it, contains factual inaccuracies. As it contains factual inaccuracies, and those inaccuracies are obvious enough be deliberate rather than, at this point, some misapprehension about what I said, they qualify as lies, which in turn makes you (in my judgment ) a liar.

Now, if I said that without some evidence, or said we should ignore your arguments because you were some 'effete liberal', 'lying conservative', 'damn yankee', whatever, that would be an ad hominem attack. It turns out however - holding you responsible for the factual inaccuracies, attempts to ignore the context of what I said, and repeated attempts to put up this straw man argument that you want to argue rather than the real argument I posted - that's not an ad hominem. That's holding you responsible for your actions.

Thank you and thanks for playing, here are the prizes you didn't win . . .

Jonnan

No you didn't - although I actually disagree with what you posted (I think Congress *should* stick with frameworks. Most, although not all, of the the times it's really blown up is when a commitee of 538 people tries to micromanage.). My sarcasm aside, you certainly have the right to an opinion on the issue.

My argument with Melchiz is different - You had an opinion and posted it honestly, and I responded in kind. He otoh is attempting to attribute to me something that I did not say, indeed is not even relevant to the posts in question, and then whine about how holding him responsible for his postings is some kind of 'ad hominem' attack, an entirely different beast.

My apologies if my contempt for his tactics in any way implied anything beyond my simple disagreement with your original post.

Thanks - Jonnan

rather than fighting: give me more funny protest signs.

Jonnan001:

Relying on personal attacks such as "you are quite simply trying to lie" and calling me "limbaugh-like" pretty much disqualifies your abilities in debate, unless of course, you wish to appeal to emotion over reason, which, surprise, is another logical fallacy. I am disappointed in your lack of diplomatic ability.

Right. Calling you on misrepresenting the context of what was said is a 'personal attack' that disqualifies my abilities in a debate.

Sorry, no. You tried to set up a straw man. I said, unequivacably that that was not at all what I tried to say.

You tried a second time, this time explicitly extracting a premise that was, at best, twisting what I said to fit the argument you wanted to attack. I again said unequivocably that that was not at all what I intended.

You tried a third time, this time quoting, without the context of what I was responding to, to force me into the position of defending a straw man 'big government is always best' argument that is patently ridiculous.I said that, with three patently obvious attempts to misrepresent my statements, I considered you at this point to be dishonest.

So, rather than taking any responsibility for misrepresenting me, you decided you would call that an 'ad hominem' attack, as if noting that someone has misrepresented facts is what 'ad hominem' was referencing. I came back with the actual formal and informal defintions of 'ad hominem' and demonstrated that they did not even vaguely apply.

Now, still without acknowledging that your original statements misrepresented what I said, you are trying to claim I am appealing to emotion over reason, yet another fallacy seemingly picked from a dartboard without an actual understanding of what it actually means. Right.

I start with a presumption that any given person merits respect. Frankly, you have debunked that presumption in record time - but that is *my* emotional response to you. Anyone else's emotional response to you is certainly not dependent upon me, but on whether or not they feel you have misrepresented my position and whether such misrpresentation was deliberate or due to some other miscommunication - in some quarters they even find the capacity worthy of respect in and of itself.

For myself, after watching you attempt to do so three times only to respond with red herrings after being held responsible for your posts, I feel you have condemned yourself to contempt far beyond any feeble linguistic skills of mine to somehow place you there.

Jonnan

I am quite proud of this accomplishment. It's not every day that you get to annoy someone so much by doing so little.

Truth is, in itself, argumentative -- unless proven false.

Better to laugh than to try contradict reason though when you can't admit you're (somehow) wrong... that also applies to me, btw.

Given that your ideology is far closer to Jonnan's than mine, I'm not surprised by your statement. Bias is, in itself, argumentative, unless proven -- what? I don't know, I just like to make up pseudo-intellectual lines to grant authority to my claims.

I have no ideology and since i'm innocent until proven guilty, neither of you can squeeze me into taking sides for the truth that i MAY believe in. Unless, of course... 

Damn...and i thought this was going to be a funny thread to keep track of.....

But no.....ya'll have to go ruin it with all this BS.

(sigh)

They started it!

Sorry, no. You started it, and are clearly trying to drag others into it with bullshit comments like this:

Nice of you to simply dismiss someone by calling them biased without any supporting information. This is the textbook definition of trolling.

Frankly, I'm shocked Kryo hasn't locked this topic yet. Take your idiocy to the appropriate part of Joe User, we'd rather not hear about it.

WIlly, did you bother reading the entire thread? Also, lighten up.

Yes, I did. And I'll lighten up when you get a clue. Looks like we'll both be waiting a while.