EOW: You in turn have said equally (or more) unproductive things. But first, I completely agree with your observation that Dave’s comment would make it impossible for anyone to disagree with him unless they want it directly implied that they have no heart (or compassion). That is straight up verbal abuse, and despicable. I tend to think that markd’s comments, where he says something is foolish, can very easily come across the same way where (in my reading – and maybe I missed it or forgot it) no one has come out and agreed that, in fact, Dave’s comment was insulting and abusive. Here no one displays the good sense and compassion to agree with that (other than to hurl insults at Dave), and no someone else comes along calling your observations “foolish”. Absurd (in my opinion) semantics aside of whether that indicates you as a fool or your comments under discussion as foolish, it’s adding a possibly-hurtful distraction to ignored hurt (and it hurts any human being to be told they have no heart). And that’s really the question, which now I ask markd: okay, if you’re calling his comment foolish, you’re allowing that other things he says may not be foolish. However, whether other things he says are wise or foolish, you offer no opinion. It is very easy to guess in such an unsettled contentious environment as Dave has created, and where you have not offered either any respectful agreement with EOW, nor have you opined that anything else he says is wise, that you may think other things he has to say might also be foolish. And if you offer no evidence that you think anything else he says might be wise, it’s also an easy guess that, if everything else he says might be foolish, he might be, on the whole, himself, foolish. After all, you don’t take the time to build him up at all as a person by pointing out his wisdom. Is that respect? No. Is it on the whole insulting? Absolutely, and I think you know that, however much your squabbling with semantics distracts from it.

But EOW, turning around and casting his rhetoric and reading comprehension as juvenile and slow lost you all the ground you built.

Seriously, I came into this thread reading opposing points of view that began respectfully and had me thinking about the topic of universal health care. Then it erupted into a flame war in nothing flat. I still remember a thing or two that was pretty useful, but I have to work past all the contention and insults to remember it, which isn’t pleasant.

We’re squabbling about words because you read my original comment and took the word foolish out to prove a point. That’s the only thing that happened. You were more interested in proving your point than anything else. So we’ve gone from there. The word foolish didn’t poison anything. Your need to be right did. So we’ve gone round and round.

And now you point to the conclusion and thrust your chest out saying “look, I was right from the beginning”, when that was the only conclusion you would allow.

You comments, frankly have been bizarre, and yes, winer like. From the comments I’m obviously not the only one that holds that opinion. So we’ll agree to disagree and I’ll wait for for your next spot on observation on winer while realizing that in many ways, you’re very similar to the big guy.

And in that quote I was simply letting you know what was coming. I didn’t say you couldn’t keep up… more people can follow things that are slow. I was just being considerate, no?

I see you’re not such a big fan of turn-about. Fancy, that.

“I’ll assume you’re just playing games now.”

It’s the same game as “Oh, I didn’t call you foolish… I just said your opinion was foolish.”

It’s a game that I pointed out, at the beginning, doesn’t yield fruit… and what do you know… here we are squabbling about the meanings of words and phrases instead of engaging in intelligent, meaningful debate. Can’t say I’m surprised.

“I’ll take this slow, maybe you can keep up.”

And calling your post foolish I don’t know what to tell you. And you criticized my reading comprehension (I had even skipped over that insult)?

Are you really telling me you can’t see the difference? You can’t be that dense, so I’ll assume you’re just playing games now.

1. Comments about what I will be doing in the future and
2. Comments about myself as a young person

…but I’m the hypocrite? Interesting.

Or maybe now you see my point: parsing the literal meaning of words doesn’t really change how people feel about hearing them.

“I remember when I used to think like that… I think it was High School.”

and this:

“I’ll take this slow, maybe you can keep up.”

are personal insults. So add hypocrite to your resume.

Yes I did. Twice.

No, you didn’t. You tossed an opinion out there. One I don’t agree with. Having had quite a bit of experience with preexisting conditions and insurance by way of family members, I’ve never seen anyone unable to buy insurance. Rejected by several insurers? Sure. Had to pay a lot? Sure. Completely unable to find insurance? Never. You saying it’s true doesn’t make it so, despite your alleged experience.

Regardless, you failed to answer the question: what does calling a differing opinion from yours “foolish” gain you? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Maybe smarter? Why not just disagree, explain the reasons for your disagreement, and call it a day?

You either don’t understand the difference between a personal attack and an honest assessment of a foolish idea or you are simply too sensitive to discuss the idea.

I clearly do understand the idea, though your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Observe:

In terms of the civility of a discussion or debate, any of those are going to have the same effect: to alienate your listener.

The difference between calling an idea foolish and calling a person foolish is really one of semantics. It typically has the same effect on the listener. Neither you, nor the vast majority of the populace, are smart enough or persuasive enough to convince someone of something who doesn’t want to be convinced… and when you start a debate by calling a person (or their opinions or ideas) foolish you start at a disadvantage. It’s a concept some people learn as they mature and some, quite obviously, do not.

You started out comparing my comment to winers. They’re nothing alike.

They are different in their semantic meaning, but they’re very much alike in their effect (and, usually, in their intent). You can dismiss people who don’t make the distinction all you want, that’s your call, but if you’re trying to move the discussion forward, you fail by when you parse words like this. Also, though you’ve said it several times, it’s false that I’ve said that you attacked me personally. My point, though not clearly made at the start (I tend to overestimate people’s capacity for critical thought, I guess), is that alienating people is bad if you’re trying to get things accomplished.

You simply don’t have the knowledge to understand the health care industry. Nothing wrong with that, you can still have your opinion. But be prepared to be called on by others that do know what they’re talking about.

This is probably the most hilarious line of your comment. You have no idea what I do or do not have the knowledge to understand… but obviously, since we disagree, you must know more than I do. Heh.

I remember when I used to think like that… I think it was High School.

The bottom line, for all of your ranting, is this: social programs like universal health care are contentious issues. They will succeed more often when the discussion is respectful and both sides feel that their concerns are actually being heard and considered by the other side.

Calling a person or their opinions (or, hell, even the things they may be confused or factually wrong about) foolish/stupid/etc doesn’t advance your position. It puts people on the defensive, and you’re going to have a much harder time finding middle ground.

Yes I did. Twice. In your initial post you said:

“You fall into one of three categories: you cannot afford health care, you will not afford health care, or you have health care.”

Which misses out on one of the biggest reasons for universal healthcare. People who can not get it, no matter how much money they’re willing to pay. People who are dropped, people who have preexisting conditions.

I’ve stated this TWICE, in two different comments, and you still act as if I simply called your post foolish without giving a reason. Your post is foolish for that reason. It’s like adding together all the expenses for taking a trip and forgetting gas for the car. That would be foolish; missing an expense that should be obvious to anyone. The same goes for your post regarding health care. To ignore one of the biggest problems facing those who want healthcare is either ignorant, in that you were not aware of the problem, or foolish, in that you’re just ignoring the problem.

And even though I’ve brought this point up twice, not only have you not responded, you’re acting as if I never brought it up.

“While (maybe) technically true, I think we both know that from a practical perspective, it’s a load of crap.”

No it’s not. You either don’t understand the difference between a personal attack and an honest assessment of a foolish idea or you are simply too sensitive to discuss the idea. If honest, productive debate ends when someone calls your idea foolish, you need to barricade yourself in a bunker.

You started out comparing my comment to winers. They’re nothing alike. He’s calling a person heartless. I’m calling your post foolish. You can spin that anyway you want. They’re not the same. I realize you came out fighting wanting to show that I was giving an example of a personal attack and now you’re backed in a corner and not going to budge, but that’s your own doing, not mine.

“You keep focusing on the substantive issue of the debate because you really want to argue it.”

No, I don’t. Which is why my initial response was one paragraph. This isn’t my site. I’m not going to comment with my own ideas on health care. I simply pointed out why your post was foolish. Your idea are not based in the real world. It’s based on the assumption that most people could have health care if they desired, and the small percentage that can’t just need a little help to afford it. You couldn’t be more wrong.

I worked in a clinic as I said before, in the insurance department, so I call BS when I see it. That’s far more important than walking softly hoping that the word foolish doesn’t make you take your ball and go home. You simply don’t have the knowledge to understand the health care industry. Nothing wrong with that, you can still have your opinion. But be prepared to be called on by others that do know what they’re talking about.

This will be my last comment on this topic simply because we’re not getting anywhere and this isn’t the site’s purpose as I understand it. But seeing the way you’ve called my comment a personal attack when it wasn’t, and continue to ignore that I did give reasons behind my comment, well, maybe I’m being too hard on winer. In this entire post and the subsequent comments the only difference I can see between discussing this with winer and you is the non-deletion of my comments. I’ll give you that.

Besides, if I just said that a reasonable argument existed but did not provide it, I’d have been encouraged by those who didn’t believe me to provide it in the comments.

But, in the future, I’ll try to signal the point a little more clearly at the beginning.