Hi wavydog,
I'm an evidential kinda guy.
The friends thing was derived from your previous post:
"Do you people ever actually interact with other members of society? You seem to have an incredibbly skewed vision of reality."
... the inference being you are in a position to determine reality and other members of society see it your way.
Limbaugh by wavydog:
"OK, then we can put your thoughts in perspective by listening to Rush Limbaugh."
#msg-731505
I didn't imply you watch Fox. I used it as a proxy for a person who listens to Limbaugh. Their opinions are usually interchangeable in my experience.
If I were to guess, I'd put you down as a Fox News viewer as your views and theirs seem coincident. But it could be you just listen to Limbaugh and read micro!
The academic works and the numbers I cite are all based on the evidence available. My views sit on top of that heap. That's how I form them. They appear to me to conform with the facts that are available. But they are always subject to modification where reality conflicts.
That's my foundation.
You wish an argument based on unsupported principle and anecdotal information to have the same value. I (and really the whole world that has law and science and economics in it) don't think it does. But it works for you and many others in the realms of uncertainty. In that universe, it is called faith. Faith is based on dogma.
The trick is not to apply faith in the factual universe, or to imply fact in the realm of uncertainty.
Seems to me you want to cross that line at will. Okay. But you shouldn't be surprised that I describe your views the way unsupported statements which claim to have an authority to them usually are.
Supplying the basic support necessary to make a strong argument is also available, of course. I have encouraged you to engage on that basis. But you've come up empty. eg over your statement that tort reform would help transform health economics - hey it was you that made it, not me. But it just seems there's no foundation under your hypothesis.
And then it turns out it is just right wing dogma that you are repeating.
What do you expect? That you will get a free pass for puking third party hypotheses that have no basis in the available facts?
To me, it just seems you will slavishly repeat the things that you are told to believe. And you haven't even got the energy to follow links that suggest your theories are empty of content.
Now - oh, it is me that is wrong for supplying the corrective data. Er. Okay.
You want to assert what you've heard. And you believe what you've heard because it comes from the folks you wish to believe.
I understand. But why wouldn't I just listen to Limbaugh and Fox?
| 