There is no sophistry here. None.

Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.

No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.

If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.

Absolutely,...another unfortunate demonstration that the world is insanely malformed.

What little truth contained is grotesquely distorted and morphed into atrocities guised as reasoned conclusions supported by jingoistic evocations.

Insane, in that both sides of this and all such disagreements exhibit this fallacious bent, the extant jingoism notwithstanding.
>> ^enoch:

lemme go ahead and call this mans argument what it actually is: sophistry.

lemme go ahead and call this mans argument what it actually is: sophistry.

...Doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

In every country on Earth there are thousands of bankruptcies. Other nations do not offically list 'medical expenses' in a legal docment as the cause of their bankruptcy because of nationalization. However, those charges (which still exist) are in the taxes that went to supporting aforementioned medical systems and contributed to the person's bankruptcy. Person "X" still had medical expenses and had to pay all his life. What Franken does is confine his definition to ONLY include persons who filed for chapter 7 or chapter 13 (a specific legal action) with medical expenses as a factor. Well, that 'factor' contributed to the bankruptcies of persons in Germany too - but didn't get listed in an official legal document. It's nothing but semantic humbuggery.

Fewer U.S. citizens are going bankrupt than Canada (proven). That probably extends to Germay, France & Switzerland as well, but maybe not. Regardless, it is sophistry to claim make propogandistic emotional pleas for 'no one should go medically bankrupt' and claim it doesn't happen in other countries. Bull. It happens all the time. It just isn't listed in the documents because it got smooshed into the tax code.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

It's exactly what Democrats said. You just don't like it. Cowboy up, pardner, and stop running away from what your guys are saying. Democrats have openly stated they are going to have no choice but to ration health care based solely on economic motivations. Their legislation is being crafted to relect that. By design, their plan will treat old people as nothing but expenses to be written off the books ASAP, and young people as cash-cows who get no treatment but have to pay taxes to support the program. Those are their words. This is medical care as envisioned by liberal democrats...

But that means you--particularly you young healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens. As I stated above, just because their bankruptcy costs were hidden away as 'taxes' instead of defined as 'medical costs' going to a medical provider doesn't mean they didn't go medically bankrupt. It is legalese. It is buearucratic legerdemain.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

No - the whole point of the Democrat vision of health care is so they can go to dinner parties and not have to get crap from other liberals about America not having a 'European' medical system. There are tons of better solutions than the specific policies of liberal democrats. They just don't want to try them. They don't even want to study them.

Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

Standard neolib ad hominem bilge. I served as a volunteer unpaid missionary. I donate a large percentage of my personal income to charities. I volunteer in the community to help people get jobs, find work, and train. I visit the sick & widows in my community frequently. And just because I disagree with a top-down socialist so-called 'solution' to a problem I therefore don't understand sacrifice? All your words prove is that you don't know jack about me, and that you are a very small-minded, simplistic, judgemental buffoon.

My god what a douche, luddite, and a hypocrite. After hearing week after week of him condemning people who don't believe the science of evolution, he leaps into the same trap of sophistry.

He's the one putting words in people's mouths and saying that he knows what they're thinking. I'm just calling him out on his BS. "If he's using your definitions what are you upset about?" That doesn't make any sense. He's not using my definitions. He's using HIS definitions. He's the one saying that the mass of protesters are 'right wing' when they aren't. He's the one saying they are 'tolerating' the racists, and he can't possibly know diddly-squat-doodle about what the general mass of protesters are thinking & feeling. He's created a bunch of definitions that he is using to frame the events, and he is the only person who accepts them. By pure basic common sense he isn't using my definitions, the general publics defintions, or anyone else's definitions except his own idiomatic ones. That's why his entire line of commentary is complete sophistry.

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

So what? When do liberals care what anything COSTS? If our health care costs were less, the difference would be wasted elsewhere in other ways, probably on gold-plated schools.

Almost 90% of Americans are happy with their health care even with the problems it has now.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and well being of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah. Karl Marx was wrong. No matter the business, you cannot remove the profit motive from the equation and expect excellent or even adequate results. The soviets tried it...end result: with massive natural resources they lived in poverty. The profit motive is what makes a company value its customers' satisfaction. Even a heavily-regulated company is NOTHING like the nightmare of inefficiency in a government organization. FEMA, Amtrak, Post Office...

The Constitution is a "negative document", mostly dedicated to telling the federal government what it CANNOT do. If the feds were supposed to have a blank check and give the people whatever they demanded, the Founders would not have 'wasted time' being very specific about the limited powers granted.

That shyster, Lord Obama, is on record as saying the Constitution didn't go far enough in spreading the wealth around. He cannot be trusted.

This liberal sophistry about what the Constitution means, why not just go all the way and claim you have a "right" to a free home, car, high-paying job and a life free from struggle and pain? There's always another Ted Kennedy ready to spend someone else's money to make your dreams come true.

Again: WE'RE GOING BANKRUPT on all the entitlements (aka fake "rights") we've got now. We can't afford any more Christmases on the backs of yet-to-be-born generations. The tit's run dry.

I've really got to stop trying to write koans when I'm drunk. My comment was just supposed to be a bit of rhetorical sophistry. Me = fail.


On the other hand, BRM, your response invites a closer look. So you reject the concept of the Abrahamic God based on a lack of evidence. Well, that's not really saying much. I do too. I find it disturbing, though, that most atheists extend that rejection to the notion of any kind of divine existence, based on little more than "guilt by association". Since the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, then there can't be any other kind of divine presence. You demand evidence for such? Contemplate your own consciousness. From whence does it arise? Can you see it? Can you touch it? What evidence do you have that it exists all? You certainly can't offer me any evidence that it exists. But I believe it does anyway.

As you mentioned, the amount of evidence required to sustain a belief is partially dependent upon the nature of the belief. So, for instance, how much evidence do you require to believe that a painting is beautiful? Do you trust your own eyes when everyone else is telling you different?

Not everything can be subjected to scientific analysis. Evidence for or against such things has to be examined differently. Could you prove to me that you love your mother? You might offer numerous anecdotal examples of things you did for her, but I could easily interpret your actions as little more than a result of societal control.

Part of what I'm getting at here is that there are not just some things in the world that we don't understand, but that there are some that we cannot understand. The kind of divine existence I'm talking about above is one of those things. We can see examples of it everywhere we look, but those examples are hardly evidence for someone else.

Boy - the left wing of the political class sure does think that everyone is incredibly stupid.

Bush had about - and I'm being generous - two days of VERY begrudged relative silence from the Democrat party after 9/11. During the election Bush was assailed relentlessly as a moron/drunk/fratboy. Immediately after the election he was relentlessly assailed as illegitimate because of FloriDUH. The opposition from the Democrat side immediately after his election was staunch, persistent, and rather personal. There were contant calls for his failure, and for knee-jerk resistance and rejection to any and all of his policies. "Tax cuts for the rich" anyone? I - unlike too many people here it would seem - have not forgotten that in 2001 it was the DEMOCRAT party that was the "Party of NO!"

Then 9/11 hit, and for about two days the Democrat party had a reluctant, bitter, and resentful cease-fire. But even then they were clearly chomping at the bit to lite into Bush, and they couldn't help themselves entirely. Even in those dark days there were Democrats and left-wing media pundits saying it was all a Bush conspiracy. And there were constant jibes at Bush for his 'handling'. Whining about him reading to the kids... Insinuations that he was a coward for staying on his airplane... It went on, and I (unlike some of YOU) have not forgotten it.

Then Bush started moving at Iraq and the party of "NO!" came back 100-fold. And since that day the Democrat party resisted everything Bush did, called for his failure, worked to aid and abet our enemies, and generally did everything they could possibly do to cause Bush problems and ensure that Bush 'failed' in the polls.

I - unlike some of YOU - have not forgotten that 99.93151% of the Bush administration's term was 100% pure partisan contrariness. I haven't forgotten that the left wing hoped for, prayed for, called for, and (most importantly) WORKED for Bush failure. It is pure sophistry for some of you to imply that Democrats somehow were hoping Bush succeeded as they were actively torpedoing his administration, and calling it a complete failure every day in the news.

Now - here's the point... I - unlike YOU - am not a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with people wanting Bush to fail. I was no fan of Bush, and I WANTED many of his policied to fail completely. His big spending agendas... He toss-away liberal policies... His terrible management and domestic agenda... His pointless persistence in Iraq... I WANTED them to fail, and I wanted them to END because they were BAD POLICY. There is nothing wrong with wanting a stupid man's BAD policies to fail because they are bad for the country.

And you know what? Obama's plan to socialize America, tax productivity, cap & trade energy, and otherwise turn America into "Euroloserland" is also BAD POLICTY. I want all of Obama's BAD POLICY to fail and fail hardcore. And I will do what I can to aid and assist in the resistance to Obama's bad policies. I will march against Obama like some of you marched against Bush and for the exact same reasons... Because he's a terrible president who is enacting idiotic policies that will cause incredible damage to this great nation for years to come.

You see - I'm not a slave (like some of YOU) to a 'party'. Those of you that mindlessly hew to party politics must dance to the tune of your pied piper. You don't mind selling out your honesty, fairness, and common sense because you have whored them out in the name of partisan fanboism. I - as an intelligent principled person who stands on pure philosophy am not shackled by such limitations. And so for me there is nothing inconsistent in my PRINCIPLE BASED resistance to both Bush's and Obama's bad policies. You - sadly - are party slaves who have no choice but to surrender your integreity when your messiah snaps his fingers. I pity you. But fret not. Those of us with a stiffer spine and more courage will fight the good fight with our without you...

" You only see them as false analogies because you don't like them..."

No, I see them as false analogies because there are (rather obvious) morally relevant differences between them. I'm sorry you feel that "tolerance"--or whatever bastardization of it you are peddling--requires you to overlook them.

"The only difference is we do it one way, And they do it another way, So it's natural that people whos cultural influences have forced him/her in to dressing a certain way will see what others do as being "incorrect"."

No, that is not the only difference, and to say so indicates a profound misunderstanding of the way cultures view both themselves and their interactions with other cultures.

Moreover, you know very little about what it is "natural" for me to do. I was raised a Muslim. My father is Pakistani. My mother (a convert to Islam) wore a hijab every time we left the house for most of my childhood. In other words, I speak from a place on the border between 2 cultures. I have experience with what might be considered a broader Islamic culture, but also with the current "American" culture.

It's reasoning and research rooted in that dual perspective which has lead me to the conclusion that many Muslim countries treat their women poorly. So, don't condescend to tell me how I'm thinking. You simply don't know enough about me, or the cultures you are attempting to defend, for that matter.

"I'm sure the cultures that walk around naked would see us as being as oppressed and repressed as most westerners seem to think arabs are."

Maybe. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether or not that opinion could be supported by the evidence.

"it seems the only alternative to being a cultural relativist is to be intolerant to the fact that some times some people may do things a little different than we do. . .We can't assume that we are correct and they are incorrect just because they are different."

That's a false dichotomy, unless you think toleration is synonomous with "agreement" or "endorsement." What's more, even a cultural relativist cannot be completely "tolerant" in that sense, since they are committed to the idea that THEIR culture is entitled to its own practices and beliefs, and these will--given the amount of diversity in the world--inevitably conflict with the cultural mandates of another group. And, for the last time, I'm not assuming that others are incorrect "just because" they are different. You can keep repeating that all you like, but I won't be duped by your sophistry.

I suggest you read the chapter on cultural relativism from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th Ed," by James Rachels. It might help you think more clearly on this matter.

FOX= evil pompous clowns
i don't buy the 911 conspiracy theories either, but i condone the dialectic as a way of getting at the truth. fox is ridiculous, as they do not even try to hide the fact they want anything but a real dialogue. they're experts at self-induced hysteria - they can't even discuss a course syllabus without the clownlike attempts at sophistry.

and the regular viewers are the most ridiculous. give them anything but a challenge to think for themselves, or to imagine a shade of nuance. this stuff pisses me off, and is just another example of how -- as jon stewart put it -- the media are hurting america.

grrr. somebody drop a house on me, quick.