ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[SomeGuy]

(01-27-2017, 10:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

I don't think you understand the difference between a "fact" and an assertion.  Much of your discourse in this thread, and others, tends to be heavier on the latter than the former.

I try to avoid calling things 'facts' unless they are; I'm also not perfect.  You also make your fair share of assertions.  We're discussing subjects not fully defined, so is this surprising?

But the basis of this argument was Tim Taylor's difficulty discussing issues involving healthcare and treatment with Warren.  Do you want to discuss that?

Then why posture about Warren denying "demonstrable facts", which I don't see him having done, rather than agree with the statement that it is at the root of it a dispute about political philosophy?  Seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here, rather like the "fake news" subject.

Quote:In any given conversation between extreme partisans, each side will believe it has facts, while perceiving the other as making partisan assertions.  This dichotomy is the basis of much of the lack of communication and comprehension.  As long as everyone is dead certain that they are right and the other has no basis, the conversation goes in circles.

All the more reason to understand the difference between the two.  If they are actual facts, then they can be demonstrated empirically, you can establish a common basis for discussion, and where your political philosophies diverge on the conclusions to be drawn you will know where and why.  This continued willingness to blur the lines between fact and opinion is not conducive to having an actual discussion, and leads to the sort of group-think, distrust, narrow partisanship, and other ills that you and your ilk regularly wring their hands over.  If you're going to continue doing it, you might as well admit that what you really dislike is people who have the temerity to disagree with you.