when it is valid to ignore someone's arguments by claiming it's not a valid debate tactic?

When they're not. Perhaps something called a "book" would help you.

Ziyal:

Finding the truth or attention-hungry?

Exactly why would I give a darn whether I got the attention of people I don't know or not?

Ritten:

Isn't flaming a topic the same as flaming a person

No. There's a difference between a persons actions and beliefs and the person themself. Just because, say, someone believes something wrong or stupid, that does not necessarily make THEM stupid.

"Farmy-tootykal" kompanyes are out, like all big corporations, to make money for their stock holders.

Obviously. What's wrong with this? They make money by providing a service people are willing to pay for, and they create jobs in the process. And, of course, since without the stockholders the company wouldn't exist, it's their right to take the profits. Works for me, and has for this country for the past couple centuries.

------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson

"As for your incredibly wonderful government health care, how EXACTLY does it work, on the receiving end? Do you just show up at the doctor, he treats you, and you go home, never worrying about the money?"

Yes.

"The Doc just sends a bill to wherever the local branch of the medical bureaucracy is located?"

I'm not exactly sure how decentralised the NHS is, but yes, I assume something like that. It wouldn't be a bill as such though, anymore than the photocopying department of a large company would send a bill to the finance department.

I was pointing out the fact that a huge portion of the world is ruled by greed, just ask the politicos in Michigan, which just gave themselves a 37% pay raise.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

But people can change their opinions, thus rendering your point moot. Thus I deem your statement to be incorrect. I say this so people can't accuse me of ignoring it.

Saying "You're wrong" does not constitute flaming a person.

Case in point...

I was pointing out the fact that a huge portion of the world is ruled by greed

You're wrong. The world is ruled by the desire to better the condition of yourself and those you care about. Only a few translate this into anything that can legitimatly be called greed.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"

quote:

---

Daryus, you're forgetting one thing. Actually, you're missing a couple other things, too, but this just screams out, "I've just shot meself in the foot!"

---

Uh huh. This I have to see.

quote:

---

If the pharmasutical companies went out of business, where, exactly, would the patients get necessary drugs?

---

Who said anything about them going out of business? All I stated was that they push the private angle for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the consumer. Speaking of which, are you aware of the steps these firms take to ensure that they remain in business? Lets take an example. You're all aware by now that the bulk of international trade law is rigged to be favourable to the USA. This is not news. Here's a recent example. In southern India there is an ancient system of medicine known as the Aruvedan (Not sure on spelling) system. It uses pressure points herbs etc. Now, they have certain herbs which are very effective in combating respiratory problems. A US pharmesuitcal firm bought the patent on this when they 'discovered' it. You'd assume they'd be happy now that they have the patent right? Wrong. After getting the patent they had the natural version of the drug put on the dangerous list, in effect this means that traditional practitioners can't practice anymore. Now, you can only buy the synthesised drug from them, legally anyway. This is one tiny example of how corporate wankers act.

How are you, as a so called advocate of the free market, willing to support companies that charge outrageous rates for medical supplies, such as drugs, which are an essential to life? Doesn't that go against some moral beliefs you hold. Or, is it all ok under the guise of a 'free market'?

quote:

---

And where would R&D take place on new ones? Exactly what do you think these companies do with their money, anyhow? Fill their mattresses with it? They spend it on R&D to create new drugs! This is generally considered a good thing.

---

Sure, but then do it on a non-profit basis. Any funding beyond their bare minimum should go to a hospital fund, or something. Get rid of profits alltogether if you're doing this for such moral reasons.

quote:

---

Thus, if pharmacutical companies would, in fact, go out of business with central health care, we can determine central health care to be a BAD THING, on that basis alone.

---

Nonsense. You do jump to some interesting conclusions. These companies are made up for people with brains. It wouldn't matter if they were working for the government, or that donkey down the street. They'd get the same results.

Daryus Said: Do you think so many people would do it, all over the world, if it didn't work?

Omega replied:

quote:

---

And if all the other countries decided to nuke themselves, or declare war on the US, or some other patently stupid thing, would you do it, too? Appeal to mass popularity is not a legitimate debating tactic.

---

Legimiate tactic? Dude, this is not a nice little controlled arena. I'm going to make points, however I damn well like. If you can't grasp what I am getting at, then spend more time getting to the crux of the message. It'll be worth it, beleive me.

By the way, your example above is so lame I think an irrate ant with a toothpick would overcome it.

Daryus said: What they are for is everyone shelling out for everything.
Omega replies:

quote:

---

Bingo. What an amazing concept: paying for what you want, yourself.

---

Wait, did you just MISS THE POINT yet again. Lets go over it chum.

Australia, AD 2001.

You earn $50 000. You pay $250 in medicare inside your tax payment. For that, you get cover.

Now, you could go private in which case you'd be paying $3000 a year.

You get it? This is far more cost effective. Everyone is eligable for cover. From Mr Kerry Packer, Australias richest man to Mr Daryus Aden who isn't worth anywhere near $8bn.

quote:

---

As for your incredibly wonderful government health care, how EXACTLY does it work, on the receiving end? Do you just show up at the doctor, he treats you, and you go home, never worrying about the money? The Doc just sends a bill to wherever the local branch of the medical bureaucracy is located?

---

The doctor submits an invoice to the medicare. They process it and pay him for the consultation. I just have to sign on the dotted line confirming that I have in fact been to the doctor and had the ailment taken care of. The invoice covers the details.

quote:

---

Which also reminds me: you honestly think that that $250 a year is all you're paying? Does that include paying for bureaucrats to run the system? Or does that come out of general funds? I'd like to see your federal budget, personally, just as a matter of curiosity.

---

You don't get it as yet. It still works out more cost effective than your little private empire. And not only that, everyone is covered. Which is more important to me than the end cost. Even if it were more expensive (and its not) I'd support it, because every man woman and child deserves to be cared for. Old boy

As for the budget, I think you'll be able to find it through www.liberal.gov.au or somesuch.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Calling someone dumb or stupid is the part that I find, mmm, repulsive.

Which is why I don't do that.

Daryus:

How are you, as a so called advocate of the free market, willing to support companies that charge outrageous rates for medical supplies, such as drugs, which are an essential to life?

Did it ever occur to you that that's what they cost to make?

As for your plant example, that would be an example of bad laws. You shouldn't be able to patent a natural substance.

Get rid of profits alltogether if you're doing this for such moral reasons.

Daryus, man, you may be older than me, but there are some things you really need to learn about people. For one, if everything that got done was done for moral reasons, then almost nothing would get done. People are out to better their lifestyle, and that means making money and getting paid, and THAT means the private sector. Which, funnily enough, works pretty well over here. For most people, if given the choice between developing a drug for nothing, and doing so for the money they need to support their family, the latter will win, hands down.

These companies are made up for people with brains. It wouldn't matter if they were working for the government, or that donkey down the street. They'd get the same results.

Not true. If there was only one buyer, then prices would be dictated by that buyer. Prices would be forced down, with detrimental effects on the company, and thus the product, jobs, and R&D.

I'm going to make points, however I damn well like.

And I'll shoot them down based on either factual error, or logical fallicy, of which appeal to mass popularity is one. Fair enough?

The doctor submits an invoice to the medicare. They process it and pay him for the consultation.

Who determines how much he gets paid?

It still works out more cost effective than your little private empire. And not only that, everyone is covered.

And all you have to give up is innovation, the rights of doctors and medical companies, and a huge chunk of your economy. This, compaired to the fact that it's cheaper. Let's see. Figure in obvious costs, plus bureaucratic costs, plus detriment to your economy and the other disadvantages listed, and I'd say that we're just a LITTLE better off with our system, under which everyone can get treatment, too.

which is why I don't do that

Hold up. I seem to recall you calling me an ignorant liberal. You say you don't do that? I beg to disagree.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000

All I'm saying is, how is saying something is not a valid debating tactic a valid debating tactic?

Debates are based upon logic. All legitimate debating tactics are logical, and the converse is also true. Pointing out that a statement is not logical is thus a legitimate debating tactic.

Perhaps I would have been better served to say that the statement was not logical.

He seems to be doing that in nearly every Flameboard thread. It's not just you.

"Exactly why would I give a darn whether I got the attention of people I don't know or not?"

If you don't care, why do you post? If you don't care, why do you care about changing the opinions of others?

quote:

---

Calling someone dumb or stupid is the part that I find, mmm, repulsive.

Which is why I don't do that.

---

Is that from the Pot Calling the Kettle Black Department or from the Bureau of Out and Out Lies?

And from the Land of the Convoluted

quote:

---

Debates are based upon logic. All legitimate debating tactics are logical, and the converse is also true. Pointing out that a statement is not logical is thus a legitimate debating tactic.

---

Your singular pronouncements as such hold as much water as a tin cup on a fence post in Texas duing shotgun season.

One of maximus of debats is to back up what you say and answer questions about things you say. Neither of which you do with any sort of regularity Omega. Instead we get the duck and cover debate tatics. More avoidance and evasion than during the Nixon administration.

You fail to answer one question more than any other. Why. Why are things the way you say they are. Simple as it sounds it lies at the heart of good arguments. When questioned on that issue, you bugger out like a Thunder Chief with a Surface to Ail Missile on it's tail.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

But that's not my point. What I called "attention" may be better termed as "control" (there's an even better term, but this is not the setting for it). It's a cycle nearly everybody has fallen into, certainly everybody who's ever participated in an argument. I'm trying to stop the cycle, but I'm not sure how to go about this.

What about when someone disagrees or mocks what you're saying? You get mad and you try to get back at them (Ignoring someone's argument or saying "it doesn't count" applies).

Uh... no. I don't. And no, it does NOT apply. Pointing out logical holes in someone else's argument can not possibly, in any rational setting, be construed as getting back at them.

Jay:

You fail to answer one question more than any other.

Oh, please, tell me what this great mythical question is, and I will do my best to rectify my apparent error.

Maybe you should be more careful about what you write instead of printing retractions and adding spin.

Yes. Again, I was in a hurry. Sorry, and all that. Not that I expect you to believe me.