The coming collapse in US health care

[JimC]

It's a Marxist river!

[pErvinalia]

Tero has become the Scandinavian Crumple!

[Seth]

If every personal attack was sanctioned then you'd have to close down the whole internet.

Exactly my point.

Fuck, I remember the funny days when Jonno use to come here with the sole intent of getting sanctioned and he couldn't do it. He eventually went to the extreme of even reporting his own posts. But he couldn't get a sanction.

Me too. Sadly, thanks to JimC, those days are gone. He's managed quite nicely to quash vigorous debate by arbitrarily and capriciously expanding the definition of "personal attack" so as to intimidate members out of taking chances and pushing boundaries.

And therein lies my entire point.

It hasn't quashed vigorous debate,

Yes, in point of fact it has. I now self-censor to a much greater degree than previously because I've been intimidated by biased moderation. And it can, that's the point.

as you don't need to personally attack anyone to have vigorous debate.

Er, the problem is that attacking an abstract group is not, by any rational measure, a "personal attack" on a forum member...except in JimC's opinion, which he's allowed to enforce at his whim and caprice sans restraint or appeal.

If you haven't figured that out yet, I cannot help you further.

[pErvinalia]

If every personal attack was sanctioned then you'd have to close down the whole internet.

Exactly my point.

Fuck, I remember the funny days when Jonno use to come here with the sole intent of getting sanctioned and he couldn't do it. He eventually went to the extreme of even reporting his own posts. But he couldn't get a sanction.

Me too. Sadly, thanks to JimC, those days are gone. He's managed quite nicely to quash vigorous debate by arbitrarily and capriciously expanding the definition of "personal attack" so as to intimidate members out of taking chances and pushing boundaries.

And therein lies my entire point.

It hasn't quashed vigorous debate,

Yes, in point of fact it has. I now self-censor to a much greater degree than previously because I've been intimidated by biased moderation. And it can, that's the point.

Shutting you up increases the quality of debate around here, not diminishes it.

And no it can't. Rigorous debate doesn't rely on personally attacking people. Anyone who thinks it does doesn't know what rigorous debate is.

as you don't need to personally attack anyone to have vigorous debate.

Er, the problem is that attacking an abstract group is not, by any rational measure, a "personal attack" on a forum member...except in JimC's opinion, which he's allowed to enforce at his whim and caprice sans restraint or appeal.

If you haven't figured that out yet, I cannot help you further.

You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

[Seth]

If every personal attack was sanctioned then you'd have to close down the whole internet.

Exactly my point.

Fuck, I remember the funny days when Jonno use to come here with the sole intent of getting sanctioned and he couldn't do it. He eventually went to the extreme of even reporting his own posts. But he couldn't get a sanction.

Me too. Sadly, thanks to JimC, those days are gone. He's managed quite nicely to quash vigorous debate by arbitrarily and capriciously expanding the definition of "personal attack" so as to intimidate members out of taking chances and pushing boundaries.

And therein lies my entire point.

It hasn't quashed vigorous debate,

Yes, in point of fact it has. I now self-censor to a much greater degree than previously because I've been intimidated by biased moderation. And it can, that's the point.

Shutting you up increases the quality of debate around here, not diminishes it.

Your opinion is noted, as is your truculent ad hominem attack.

And no it can't. Rigorous debate doesn't rely on personally attacking people. Anyone who thinks it does doesn't know what rigorous debate is.

Strawman. I pointed out that it's not a "personal attack" to make a critical reference to an abstract group merely because a member of that group happens to be a member here. But the threat of sanction for making such an "indirect" group-based attack substantially inhibits both my and (theoretically) your freedom of speech and the vigor of a debate. If you can't vilify Catholics or Christians or Libertarians or Republicans or Conservatives by group reference, what WILL you do? Such vilification and insult is part and parcel of your rhetorical style and has been since the moment we first met. Therefore, if the "rule" against indirect group-based attacks is fairly and evenly enforced, you'll have pretty much fuck-all to say to anyone that won't get you suspended because in my long experience with your arguments, that's pretty much all you ever have to say.

as you don't need to personally attack anyone to have vigorous debate.

Er, the problem is that attacking an abstract group is not, by any rational measure, a "personal attack" on a forum member...except in JimC's opinion, which he's allowed to enforce at his whim and caprice sans restraint or appeal.

If you haven't figured that out yet, I cannot help you further.

You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Now, if only your rhetoric exhibited an understanding and respect for this concept....*sigh*

[pErvinalia]

So you'd be fine with me saying, for arguments sake, that "libertarians are fuckwits"? You wouldn't consider that a personal attack of you? I think you would, and rightly so.

[pErvinalia]

You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Now, if only your rhetoric exhibited an understanding and respect for this concept....*sigh*

Non-sequitur. You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

[Seth]

So you'd be fine with me saying, for arguments sake, that "libertarians are fuckwits"? You wouldn't consider that a personal attacked of you? I think you would, and rightly so.

No, I wouldn't and haven't on the many, many occasions over the years where you have done exactly (or substantially) that. Your use of the coinage "Libertard" is a classic example of just such an act.

You see, unlike Marxist Progressive liberal fascists who take umbrage at anything critical of their dogma, I am a person of wit and intelligence and I am able to remain emotionally detached from a debate and therefore I can remain objective and rational even when those about me are not.

That's why previously I never, ever (well, hardly ever) reported you for your many transgressions against me, specifically or the sacred cows of my ideology generally. I just take such things in stride and either tit your tat or deconstruct your habitually silly and ignorant arguments in detail and leave them bloodied and broken on the floor and move on to the next inevitable insult from you.

It's a form of entertainment for me, you see, so how could I take umbrage? I volunteer to be here, so I volunteer for the inevitable abuse that will be heaped on anyone expressing an opinion to the right of Josef Stalin. Doesn't bother me a bit.

[Seth]

You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Now, if only your rhetoric exhibited an understanding and respect for this concept....*sigh*

Non-sequitur. You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Your style of argumentation makes this statement rank rhetorical hypocrisy of the highest order.

If only you'd learn your own lesson...

[pErvinalia]

So you'd be fine with me saying, for arguments sake, that "libertarians are fuckwits"? You wouldn't consider that a personal attacked of you? I think you would, and rightly so.

No, I wouldn't and haven't on the many, many occasions over the years where you have done exactly (or substantially) that. Your use of the coinage "Libertard" is a classic example of just such an act.

Well you certainly sooked like it was a personal attack.

In any case it's clearly a personal attack as you are a libertarian.

[pErvinalia]

You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Now, if only your rhetoric exhibited an understanding and respect for this concept....*sigh*

Non-sequitur. You don't need to attack a group to have rigorous debate. You only need to attack ideas.

Your style of argumentation makes this statement rank rhetorical hypocrisy of the highest order.

If only you'd learn your own lesson...

Non-sequitur

[Seth]

So you'd be fine with me saying, for arguments sake, that "libertarians are fuckwits"? You wouldn't consider that a personal attacked of you? I think you would, and rightly so.

No, I wouldn't and haven't on the many, many occasions over the years where you have done exactly (or substantially) that. Your use of the coinage "Libertard" is a classic example of just such an act.

Well you certainly sooked like it was a personal attack.

Not until lately, and I only do so for the specific purpose of putting biased moderation in the spotlight.

In any case it's clearly a personal attack as you are a libertarian.

No, it's an attack on an abstract and unidentified group of people, nothing more. To be personal you have to add something along the lines of "You libertards," which is what personalizes the attack.

But thanks for admitting that you commonly engage in what YOU consider to be personal attacks, which admission comports with the historical record.

Therefore you should be suspended when you do so because according to the rule is is not the umbrage of the object of the purported attack that matters, it is the arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable umbrage a moderator takes at the comment that matters.

[pErvinalia]

So you'd be fine with me saying, for arguments sake, that "libertarians are fuckwits"? You wouldn't consider that a personal attacked of you? I think you would, and rightly so.

No, I wouldn't and haven't on the many, many occasions over the years where you have done exactly (or substantially) that. Your use of the coinage "Libertard" is a classic example of just such an act.

Well you certainly sooked like it was a personal attack.

Not until lately, and I only do so for the specific purpose of putting biased moderation in the spotlight.

In any case it's clearly a personal attack as you are a libertarian.

No, it's an attack on an abstract and unidentified group of people, nothing more. To be personal you have to add something along the lines of "You libertards," which is what personalizes the attack.

Actually, you could be right with that, at least concerning the current implementation of the law. JimC made this point the other day. So it seems you two are in agreement. How does that work when he's a secret Marxist out to imprison you in a gulag in Soviet Germany?

But thanks for admitting that you commonly engage in what YOU consider to be personal attacks, which admission comports with the historical record.

As usual, you can't follow what's written. I've admitted that about a billion times in the past. Hence why I rarely ever contest my sanctions for personal attacks.

Therefore you should be suspended when you do so because according to the rule is is not the umbrage of the object of the purported attack that matters, it is the arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable umbrage a moderator takes at the comment that matters.

Made up bullshit. You should start your own forum and moderate it. It would be fucking hilarious. I'd join just to watch!