CamzingIf you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
Do you have health insurance? Well guess what, then you are paying for it already, only more than with universal health care.
I don’t believe in gambling.
The entirety of our economic structure is gambling.
All of it.
No, I set a value on my labor and I take that value, no more or less.
gregorumYou’re gambling that there’s someone willing to pay that amount for your labor. The stakes? Your financial security.
That’s not gambling.
That is working.
That is working.
Not if you lose your bet that anyone is willing to pay you your desired wage. Then it’s unemployment because you gambled and lost. And even if they do agree, it’s just luck that you won— but it’s still a gamble.
Unemployment insurance is insurance too so I wouldn’t apply for that as a matter of principle.
Good thing it’s typically mandated by state law. You don’t have a choice when it’s deducted from your paycheck in most cases, and you’re automatically enrolled. (In some states and situations, it’s paid for by the employers). Whether you ever take advantage of that is another matter.
However, that’s irrelevant. All you’ve done here is demonstrate poor decision-making skills, and a profound misunderstanding of the concepts of both insurance and gambling.
I already said I wouldn’t apply for it.
Then that’s foolish, but not really relevant to this discussion about health insurance… Unless your point is to illustrate that you have no real idea about what insurance is or how it works.
My point here is something else entirely, but you wouldn’t understand.
Since you haven’t managed to make your point in nearly a dozen comments on this subject…. I doubt that…
Unless you’re saying that you wasted all this time discussing something other than your point, in which case… why?
Coming from the person who doesn’t “get” what insurance is or the meaning of the word “gambling” means until I had to post the definition from a dictionary.
I’m talking about being against gambling and you are trying to define gambling as doing anything because it might have an outcome - this isn’t a good-faith stance in this conversation which we are having.
I didn’t define gambling— the dictionary did. Blaming me because certain words have certain meanings is irrational, and is certainly not good-faith. And attacking me personally just because you have no other argument is just an Ad hominem.
Where am I attacking you personally?
Have lost track of what you’ve said already? Are you having a sudden attack of very convenient amnesia?
I have not attacked you personally so I’m asking you to show me.
If it is a personal attack I will apologize.
I am not responsible for your actions nor for helping you to gain absolution or forgiveness. If you lack the self-awareness to realize what you’ve said or have a such a poor memory that you can’t remember from one comment to the next, then perhaps you should be tending to those issues rather than arguing with strangers online.
Different people have different levels of tolerance when it comes to things like this.
You seem very sensitive so I obviously can’t judge what you feel is a personal attack or not and that’s why I’m asking for clarification.
Because I don’t want to cause you any anguish.
So, it’s more ad hominem attacks rather than actually presenting an argument to defend your point.
You said I attacked you personally but won’t clarify what I said to cause you anguish.
to cause you anguish.
So, in addition to your evident memory problems, you have sadistic fantasies in which you imagine the people you lose arguments to in “anguish”? Yikes! Too bad about that health insurance you don’t have, as you’d be able to talk about that with a therapist.
Shouldn’t have gambled your health on your ignorance of what insurance is and what the word “gambling” mean… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You told me I was personally attacking you so I figured it must be a big deal to you if you are bringing it up.
But you won’t tell me what I did that you feel was attacking you so I can apologize to you and not repeat the words that are causing you as much anguish.
You told me I was personally attacking you so I figured it must be a big deal to you if you are bringing it up.
I keep mentioning it because you keep doing it. I am not responsible for your actions, so it pretty absurd to blame me for the things you keep doing— especially when you put the responsibility of doing the work to address it on me.
But you won’t tell me what I did that you feel was attacking you so I can apologize to you and not repeat the words
Perhaps you shouldn’t have gambled on personally attacking me if you don’t like the outcome.
that are causing you as much anguish.
You seem to be obsessed with imagining me in “anguish”. Do you often fantasize about strangers in anguish? Do such thoughts give you pleasure? They must because you can’t seem to stop…
Perhaps you shouldn’t have gambled on personally attacking me if you don’t like the outcome.
See?
You’re expressing your anguish and redefining everything to gambling again.
It’s like our whole conversation distilled into one sentence.
See?
You’re expressing your anguish and redefining everything to gambling again.
Once again, I don’t define words, the dictionary does. I simply used the word “gambling” correctly. Blaming me for using a word correctly is irrational.
It’s like our whole conversation distilled into one sentence
And that sentence is: Your “beliefs” are based on ignorance, and you keep attacking everyone who points that out rather than to simply admit that you’re wrong.
Would you like me to admit I’m wrong about my belief in Christianity while I’m at it?
Changing the subject again?
Would you consider Christianity to be based in ignorance?
I would consider it an irrelevant subject in a debate over whether heath insurance is gambling.
Also, a blatant straw man argument.
My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
Considering that you only mentioned this in response to my pointing out that your “beliefs” in Christianity are irrelevant to a debate over health insurance is gambling, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying in order to conflate the two.
And, considering how obviously dishonest you’ve been in almost every comment you’ve made here, my conclusion that you’d resort to lying rather than lose an argument is well-supported by the available evidence.
Just because my briefs don’t align with yours it doesn’t make me a liar or dishonest.
Just because my briefs don’t align with yours it doesn’t make me a liar or dishonest.
No, but your comments here sure do.
Here is a well known Christian with the same beliefs as me.
So? That just another fallacy:
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority.
The fallacy is an appeal to authority and a conditional fallacy.
It seems like you’re a master debater.