Seriously, fuck those little shits, getting sick on us.
![Kinda Cool :kindacool:](./images/smilies/kindacool.png)
Moderator: Moderators
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Or alternatively, if I want their to be prestige in not being called an idiot, me not calling people an idiot should be rare. Take a supply and demand class. If only 4 people have I acknowledged as "not an idiot", you can be sure those four people are much smarter than all the dumbasses.TavishArtair wrote:If you want to pretend there's some sort of prestige in being acknowledged by you as "not an idiot", you shouldn't overuse it.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
Her examples were related in the primary aspect: spending X leads to more/improved results and saves Y over time. That's called analogy, and it made sense to everyone else in the thread. Why didn't it make sense to you? At this point I'm genuinely curious and not intending to be condescending. I would like to understand how your thought process went, especially with respect to why you considered each of her examples inapplicable to the health care situation, so that I'm better able to explain similar concepts to the people I talk to on a daily basis.Zinegata wrote:My original statement was said in the context of the HEALTH CARE BILL. Crissa gave examples that were widely UNrelated to it.
Which is why, as I keep saying, she's comparing apples and oranges. She's talking about spending money to make money in very, very general terms, whereas this thread is about the healthcare bill.NineInchNall wrote:Her examples were related in the primary aspect: spending X leads to more/improved results and saves Y over time. That's called analogy, and it made sense to everyone else in the thread. Why didn't it make sense to you? At this point I'm genuinely curious and not intending to be condescending. I would like to understand how your thought process went, especially with respect to why you considered each of her examples inapplicable to the health care situation, so that I'm better able to explain similar concepts to the people I talk to on a daily basis.Zinegata wrote:My original statement was said in the context of the HEALTH CARE BILL. Crissa gave examples that were widely UNrelated to it.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
This, maybe?CatharzGodfoot wrote:And I'm too biased to even contemplate why this is.
I find myself falling into this more and more myself. I'm noticing I'm getting more and more knee-jerk to right-wing idea, which is really kind of sad; I'd like to think I'm making informed opinions and not just deciding based on what I want to believe.CatharzGodfoot wrote:And I'm too biased to even contemplate why this is.
"Apples and oranges" doesn't refer to "specific versus general".Zinegata wrote:Which is why, as I keep saying, she's comparing apples and oranges. She's talking about spending money to make money in very, very general terms, whereas this thread is about the healthcare bill.
The thing is that your initial statement, reproduced below, read to some like you're challenging the very concept of spending money to make money - in the general sense.Her points made sense. But they're not relevant to the subject at hand. See my reply to Kaelik why each of her examples was inapplicable to the healthcare bill. Seriously, are you gonna argue that the healthcare bill lowers the deficit by putting the money away in a savings account and letting the American people reap the profits from the interest?
Crissa's analogies, while they did not explain the manner in which the health care bill will accomplish those numbers, did in fact address the perceived challenge to the general case. So while your actual, intended concern is not handled by her examples, the intent that people read was.zinegata wrote:It still boggles the mind how they are gonna spend 1 trillion dollars to save 200 billion
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I read his piece, and it really seemed like a bizarre partisan hack job. He's saying that the congressional bill has set up a set of sleight of hand, where it starts raising money now and spends it later, so that in 10 years it's ahead, but the reality is that it would be spending net money at that point. Which is a fine piece of criticism. I personally am offended by the deficit wanking that people do all the time, and I really wish that people would just roll out programs rather than unroll them over a period of six years just to change the 10 year budget analysis.Gelare wrote:Really the whole discussion about spending money to save money was fairly pointless, since that's not going to be the effect of the health care bill anyway. In the best case scenario - where the bill does what is actually intended efficiently - it'll add a half trillion dollars to the debt over the next decade. And if that's actually all it contributes to the debt, I'd be okay with that, because I know the government can piss away half a trillion dollars like it's nothing. It's the extremely likely increase of those deficits that worries me.
(Oh shit, it's the former director of the Congressional Budget Office writing in the New York Times, rather than someone on Fox you can easily ignore!)
You are correct. Which is why I didn't say "You are a fucking idiot for answering stuff about banking". I said "Apples and Oranges". Which was meant to say "That's not really related to what I'm talking about. It's a whole different category".NineInchNall wrote:That's the thing that bugs me about this discussion: people are arguing right the fuck past each other. You voiced a concern that appeared to mean one thing (to most of us here). They responded based on what they interpreted. You said that they didn't address your concern, which is fair enough, since they didn't address what you meant. What they inferred, however, they did address.
Nah. I hang out in the Den specifically because I think most people here aren't dogmatic assholes.CatharzGodfoot wrote:The real problem is that, when this is all over, Zinegata will probably go away thinking 'What a bunch of dogmatic assholes, I couldn't get through to them at all.'. And we'll go away thinking 'Yet another right-wing moron immune to logic.'. Energy will have been spent, arguments will have been made, but no work will have been accomplished. Just a lot of waste heat, and everyone will be less willing to engage in rational discussion in the future.
And I'm too biased to even contemplate why this is.
Like I told NineInchNails, outside of the wailing over "Apples & Oranges", the Den actually gave very good answers, and nobody was insisting on standing by answers that defied the laws of physics..CatharzGodfoot wrote:That makes me feel better. I was mainly referring to the impression I got when Tzor finally stormed off, but maybe I was reading it entirely wrong then too. Reason enough for optimism.
Yeah, finding medical problems early almost always saves money in the long run. It's a lot cheaper to treat the early stages of an infection with penicillin tablets than have to go to the hospital for IV antibiotics. There are also a great deal of surgeries that can also be avoided if a problem is identified quickly enough.FrankTrollman wrote: So paying people's actual bills in actual money for preventative care costs less than not paying any money at all and having those people go to the ER more often and skip out on the bill. This is actually pretty similar to Crissa's Water Heater example - you're going to end up paying for all the gas anyway, paying "more" for a better insulated heater actually makes your total bill less.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.