[JoeRedskin]

I waited a week for this pile of steaming rhetorical BS?

Originally Posted by saden1

I suppose the first meaning of self-interest is irrelevant? Talk about cheery picking Joe. I hope the cherries are at least ripe and juicy. I'll address the issue of selfishness/self-interest in your voraciously verbal Selfishness and Human Nature thread.

As you chose the word “selfish” and accused me and all mankind of “selfishness”, I provided the definition of the term and disputed its applicability. On the other hand, self-interest was my term and I was making clear what definition I was using so we wouldn’t be confused as to any possible “colloquialisms”. If you have a definition for “selfish” that does not include the disregard of others, I’ll be happy to concede I was splitting rhetorical hairs.

Originally Posted by saden1

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo Joe, cock-a-doodle-doo! You fail to see the conflict of interests that ensues when your interest do not align with that of others and the fact that self-interest is a zero-sum game. What do you intend to do then Joe? Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family and their super-dooper health care? Of course not, you've said as much with your "my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children" nugget bellow. Oh, no, wait, you're not being selfish but less selfless towards others. If you look in the mirror Joe you'll see that "The Prince" has no cloths.

My point was in response to your accusation that I (not my family) was selfish. You: “You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I.” I responded by saying that, while I consider my own interests (including the happiness I personally receive by providing for my family), I do not do so with disregard to others as your original accusation expressly stated.

If you believe self-interest to be a zero-sum game, fine. I disagree. When multiple people act with an appropriate balance between self-interest and a consideration for the needs of others, the sum does not necessarily equal zero. Rather, I believe action inspired in such a fashion allows for determining whether or not we, as individuals acting within a group, are, in fact, able to promote the general welfare.

And again, you state as unequivocal that upon which I have equivocated. You: “Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family (a luxury) and their super-dooper health care (a necessity)?” I have clearly and concisely stated when and how the needs of those outside my family will come into play. You of course conveniently ignore my statements to accuse me, yet again, of acting selfishly. No matter how you cut it, by its definition, I am not acting “selfishly” as I am expressly considering and prioritizing the needs of others when I consider my personal interests or advantages.

You cling to a word, ignore its definition, and ignore my statements that would remove me from its definition. Can you recognize this point or is arguing for the sake of arguing all you can now do?

This prince is well clothed (and often provides clothing for others - thank you very much).

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't fool me Joe, not one bit. I see right through your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments.

Bait and switch? Bullshit. Stop attempting to move the target to save face. Your original analogy was imperfect: “If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending.” Defense spending is specifically mandated by the express language of the Preamble - funding for UHC is not so mandated. If you can find, “universal health care” in the Constitution please point it out to me.

You can’t, you lose.

Originally Posted by saden1

My belief system is not based on hypotheticals asserted as truisms but on reality and deducing the best course of action for a give circumstance, the fact that we disagree on what the best course of action is entirely a different matter. As for your non-argument argument what you fail to notice is that your argument, and it is an argument, is a perfect example of both informal and rhetorical argument.

You’re belief system is not now and never has been self validating. Rather, it is based on your belief that secular humanism ultimately defines the universe and the appropriate actions of humans within that universe. It is your failure to see the act of faith implicit in this belief that is proof of my statement.

As to the question, it was a hypothetical that was predicate to the statement I asserted as true. The original question and the numbers relied were expressly not posed for the truth of its numerical assertions which you assert invalidated the underlying question. Although a structural part of the entire argument it was not the ultimate fact I asserted as true. The ultimate fact which I assert as true was made in the following paragraph - an argument which you neither acknowledge nor address. Rather, you once again attempt to displace your rhetorical failure by asserting a deeper knowledge of rhetorical argument than you actually display - You know the words, but you can’t speak the language.

Originally Posted by saden1

It most certainly was up until you added "[Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC]." My master and I are still working on the mind reading chapter of the curriculum.

Tell your master to read the preamble and tell me where he finds UHC.

Originally Posted by saden1

We agree that both "provide for common defense" and "promotes the general welfare" can't be debated and that what constitutes defense and welfare spending can be debated.

So why all the rhetorical bullshit leading up to this concession? Rather than simply say this up front, you are intent on finding ways to accuse me of rhetorical lapses ("your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments"). Petty and wasteful.

Originally Posted by saden1

saden: We should pay for it just like we pay for defense (implying that funding should be mandatory).
Joe: I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy (taking UHC and equating it to entire domain of defense spending).
saden: Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted (suggestion that defense spending can be debated).
Joe: Defense spending can't be debated because you can't "provide common defense" without defense spending (talk about begging the question).

All of which is logically disconnected from the argument actually posed and to which your statement responded that being: “reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others ‘promotes the general welfare’.”

Originally Posted by saden1

The meat of this paragraph is the last few sentences and that tells me all I really need to know. I feel exactly the same way too BTW. Oh and I am not dismissive, I am simply prioritizing the ideas of others into buckets of worthy and unworthy.

Fine, I would not accuse you of being “selfish” in your actions.

Yes - You are being dismissive as your “prioritization” is simply a division based on your refusal to consider the possibility that your preconceived ideas and beliefs are subject to question.

Originally Posted by saden1

I repeat, "in action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet." That is to say when you act in the interest of yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet you are one in the same.

And I repeat, I am not “one” with any group either by action or thought. I am and always will be an individual and will be responsible for my actions accordingly. You may wish to subject your individuality to the some groupthink, I refuse to concede this. My family is a group of individuals of varying capacity for self-awareness and I act within in it and, on occasion, for it but I am not “it” in any sense of the word.

Originally Posted by saden1

Reasonable people they might be under certain circumstances but reasonable position they do not hold on this subject matter. As far as proving it, it is already being proven in the 36 countries ahead of us in healthcare.

Again, claiming your position alone defines reasonableness on this issue and, thus, demonstrating the truth of my assertion. As for the proof of the 36 countries, it is what “proof” they provide for the US and its system that has been subject of much of this debate. In your opinion, they provide “proof”. In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, they do not.

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...that was pretty good find on the proverb. My statement actually contradicts your take Joe. I fully understand who I am and what I'm capable and those three characters (the good, the bad, and the ugly) speak of my "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and "capacity of self-examination."

Blah Blah Blah – Aren’t you the clever little boy. The characters chosen are also a perfect example of your unfounded intellectual arrogance. The day I see you exhibit "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and a "capacity of self-examination” on this forum is the day Hell freezes over.

Originally Posted by saden1

If you don't subscribe to my "belief system" I can't put you in club "my folks" can I now Joe? There's room for everyone in club "my folks," membership is open and anyone can apply for entry.

You have no club. You have labels and arrogance.

But, let’s cut all the rhetorical crap. At the end of the day, you bring two things to the table: 1) The US must provide everyone coverage; 2) The Government should do a study. All your arrogance, dismissiveness, accusations of selfishness in others boils down to this.

You are so concerned with being right, both substantively and rhetorically, that you cannot acknowledge you bring nothing truly creative to the table. Clearly, in choosing to respond to this rather than my second post, your show that your priority is now to simply split rhetorical hairs rather than to actually accept my invitation to see if we can reach consensus.