Way to edit your post.
Not that I'm going to blame you for it.
So lets see...
Quote:
|
No, a discussion is a EXCHANGE of ideas, and when you refuse to acknowledge another person's ideas and then IGNORE them when those ideas expose your own as folly, that is called having a speech or at the very best, a conversation with yourself. Also, opinions can change in the face of logical argument and contradictory evidence. This is what Socrates meant when he intended his form of debate to be "enlightening". You "style" enlightens nothing, and your ideas couldn't be less clear. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one so in the having having one is meaningless. Those who treat their opinions with respect are the ones treated with some level of seriousness.
|
You're taking the high ground now after saying I was rhetorically masturbating? Hahahah.
Anyway, I think that your problem is that you want me to be 100% opposed to what you are saying when I am not. You want me to not acknowlege the downsides of the public option, even though I am. You're problem with me is that I have a realistic outlook on things, and that I'm willing to point out the faults in the public option openly.. but I point out those faults in a way to where I think that the positives of having that program out weigh the negatives.
In your world, the public option has no upside that you're willing to acknowlege, and you feel like you've proven 100% that it won't work. But the fact is that you haven't.
Quote:
|
I'm open to ideas that work as soon as you propose one that has half a chance of providing universal care without sabotaging the quality of care for the vast majority of American citizens.
|
I'm not sure how many times I have to go over this, but the public option would be an OPTION. And that is the key reason why I accept it. If it provides less quality, then people simply will not use it unless its their only choice.