Libtard Overflow

[Kinich Ahau]

Michael wrote

Indeed. If only more people would stop assuming they knew everything and listen to what others have to say, they just may learn that tiny dinosaurs rode comically ill-rendered bees during their conquest of Italy.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who think they are always correct, are experts in every field, and can tap-dance their way out of anything.


And only I can do that.

As for the book, unfortunately I cannot give you one of my own large collection, as they are currently being used as a beer-pong table whilst I study for my next research paper: "Laser Eye Surgery: Just how is it that you get Laser Eyes?"

I'm not really sure you're an authority on the subject of bees, nevertheless I like your arrogance as it helps me believe almost everything you say about them and any other topic you wish to delve.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Would it be more special if you could be subjected to an unwanted pregnancy?

No. Other, un-mandated prescription drugs can prevent my slow, painful death. Next to that, birth control seems pretty trivial.

Irr wrote

My position is that I don't support what you're attempting do, and I'm arguing against your insistence that I support you in your endeavor here.

Since my position is simply not to force people to do things against their will, then your position must be to force people to do things against their will. What's your justification for doing that, in this specific case?

Irr wrote

And women who cared that the contraceptive pill was not covered have had their say, working through the various channels of their government. As a result, it's now covered by their health insurance.

Your fight is actually with them, not me.

Which just brings us back to my earlier points, you're not offering any content to the debate. You're just shrugging it off and referring me to some abstract women's lobby.

Irr wrote

My main objection here is to you drawing other people into a fight to achieve your ends, which is to strip women of the mandatory access they now have to the contraceptive pill through their health insurance.

Correct. But they could simply ignore the debate if they weren't interested.

Irr wrote

You. And the person they should consult, according to you, appears to be you.

And how, exactly, would they be forced to consult me?

Irr wrote

I don't have the medical credentials to engage in that kind of advocacy.

But you know enough to advocate (or defend) the status quo, wherein women must run their reproductive decisions through other people? If you don't know enough (anything?) about the subject, then what are your grounds for supporting such an onerous restriction on women's freedom to choose.

Irr wrote

But you claim to have worked in a sexual health clinic, so I guess you think you do.

Even if I knew nothing about reproductive health, I wouldn't presume to know enough to force women to run their reproductive decisions through others. The question is, why do you?

Irr wrote

Why are you advising me to look at your prior posts? You say the same damned thing over and over again in practically every posting.

I repeat myself because you seem to be unable to read what I write.

Irr wrote

You're advocating that women be stripped of mandatory access to prescribed birth control through their health insurance coverage while claiming not to care what their insurance covers.

Correct.

Irr wrote

So now you're advising them to buy insurance for contraceptive pills and you won't stand in their way?

Correct.

Irr wrote

I'm not lying. You've said in several posts in this thread that women have access to alternative over-the-counter contraceptives that contain the same chemical compounds as the contraceptive pill, which requires a prescription to obtain. Why else would you make this claim if you were not suggesting/advising/insisting that women purchase these products instead?

The key word here is 'alternative'.

Irr wrote

It's not just one post, Victus. It's pretty much what you've been doing in every post. That is suggesting, advising and insisting that women access other means of obtaining birth control than the way in which the law proposes, which is through their health insurance. Somehow, you seem to be construing that as a demonstation of your alleged concern for women and their reproductive health.

If the concern is access, then what's wrong with pointing out that women already have access to cheap and effective contraception without forcing anyone to do anything. Indeed, to the extent that the government already does place restrictions on this market, it reduces access.

Irr wrote

By restricting mandatory coverage of prescription birth control for women. Duh.

If they wanted to buy birth control pills, they're free to do that with or without insurance in the absence of a mandate. The only gain had by instituting a mandate comes from forcing an insurance company or employer to do so against their will.

So where's the restriction on choice in the absence of a mandate, exactly? Indeed, a mandate forces women to by contraception even if they don't want it. Why aren't you complaining about that restriction on choice?

Irr wrote

Apparently, you think you know better than the women who have fought for this access and their advocates in the field of women's healthcare who joined them in that battle.

Nope, I simply don't think they know better what's good for insurance companies than the insurance companies themselves. The restrictions enshrined in law, after all, are on insurers.

Irr wrote

Not at all. If there is a consensus in the field of women's reproductive health that women should be able to access the contraceptive pill over-the-counter and without consulting a physician or other women's healthcare professional, who would I be to argue with that?

If you don't have any knowledge one way or the other, then where does your support for the prescription restriction come from in the first place?

Irr wrote

But is there a consensus amongst medical professionals that the contraceptive pill should be dispensed that way?

Suppose that there wasn't, and every single medical professional in the world thought that a woman should run their decision through them before taking the pill. Is that a compelling reason to force women to do so against their will? You seem to think so.

Irr wrote

You're right; I can't, since I wouldn't be qualified to do that. Of course, I never worked in a sexual health clinic, like you claim to have done. As a result, I can't claim to have any expertise on women's reproductive health.

But in the absence of any knowledge of the subject, you believe women's reproductive choices need to be regulated by other people.

Irr wrote

The better question is why should anybody here care about your perspective on women's reproductive health? I mean, you're entitled to think what you think, but why are you making it other people's business?

I'm not, they're free to leave the discussion at any time. But suppose I got everything I wanted policy-wise, then end result would simply be 'mind your own business'. That is, I bring this up (or participate in it) as a topic specifically because the mandate entails refusing to let people mind their own business by forcing them to buy birth control, whether they want to or not.

Irr wrote

But it didn't mention anything about that being the case where the contraceptive pill is concerned, did it?

No, but it demonstrates that you can't simply presume that policies are crafted by scientists. Indeed, sometimes politicians inject themselves directly into such regulations.

Irr wrote

Sounds like you're talking about the Morning After pill, which has an entirely different function than the contraceptive pill. Are you now advising women to use emergency contraception instead of consulting their gynecologists?

No, I'm questioning the impetuous for forcing women to consult other people when making reproductive decisions. So far all you've offered is "I don't know", which seems wholly insufficient to outlaw women from making decisions for themselves.

Irr wrote

Calm down, Victus, and re-read your own postings. Right now you are in such denial about what you're advocating here that I could re-post everything you've already posted in this thread (including this very long post to which I am now responding) and you would deny that you mean what you're saying.

And again, I would simply invite you to read what I've written more slowly, since you're apparently having trouble grasping the meaning.

Irr wrote

Frankly, I'm not interested in indulging that kind of crazy.

But regulating women's reproductive choices is a kind of crazy you're willing to indulge. Heh.

[Victus]

Davin wrote

Hilariously incorrect. Being an authority has nothing to do with being correct, if you think that it does, then you're irrational.

Go ahead and look up the distinction between the fallacious and non-fallacious uses of arguments from authority. I'll wait here.

Davin wrote

You pretend to, yes.

If I only pretended to do so, I couldn't have cited an example. Yet there it is all the same.

Davin wrote

I said it bordered on, but thanks again for yet another example of your inability to comprehend what is written.

It doesn't even border on the fallacy in question, hence why I provided an example. Maybe you should look that one up too.

Davin wrote

Yeah, you can sound as emotional as you want.

Thanks!

Davin wrote

Aye, you frequently cite things... if you consider them evidence, that's your delusion.

Above you said I don't cite things, but here you say I do so frequently. Which is it?

psychodiva wrote

rofl- I can't believe he thinks he knows what empathy is cos he did research on it !!!!!!!!

please please stop

So, is it your view that authors and university-level teachers don't understand the topics on which they study?

ILOVEJESUS wrote

You can do all those things, but they wont result in that burger. My point remains, thingsdo not always run ideally. Empathy helps you communicate with others.

Sure, but none of the examples are situations where empathy gets me a burger. If I'm late for the breakfast special, being able to empathize with people won't get me my desired meal. Empathy is important, but it's not some all-powerful deus ex machina of human interaction that solves all problems.

Michael wrote

I once wrote a school essay on bees, so you should be assured that I'm an expert when I tell you they don't exist.

And I should know, I researched them once. Went outside and everything. Couldn't find a single one.

In which case, I would dispute your position as a bee expert.

Sol wrote

What did you contribute ? the graphs and diagrams...?

The design of the studies, the supervision of data collection, the statistics, the literature review, the write-up, and the admin related to publishing the studies via peer-reviewed journals. I usually shun graphs and diagrams in professional papers in favor of tables or in-text statistics. I use pictures for lay-persons to avoid unnecessary confusion.

[Michael]

Michael wrote

I once wrote a school essay on bees, so you should be assured that I'm an expert when I tell you they don't exist.

And I should know, I researched them once. Went outside and everything. Couldn't find a single one.

Victus wrote

In which case, I would dispute your position as a bee expert.

Don't get me wrong, Victus. You're a seemingly smart guy, and I don't disagree with everything you've written. But right now you're either being incredibly dense, incredibly naive, or just plain dickish.

The fact of the matter is that I do know all about bees. Believe me. After all, I claim to have done research on them, written a research paper. Heck, I even claimed to have written book about it.

So you think what you know about bees is correct, and therefore I'm not an expert? Well, I'm sorry but I am the expert and therefore what you say about bees is clearly wrong.

So how dare you accuse me of not knowing about empathy bees when I make unsubstantiated claims about my vast superior research on them!


If it's still not getting through, here is my point. If you're going to claim to be so much smarter than everyone else because you've "done research", "published" even, at least back it up with something.

So far all I've seen is you say "I know about this, I've done studies", but then stop short of actually proving you've done jack shit. If I've just missed the point where you direct us to your vast wealth of "studies", then by all means point me in the direction of where you did.

Until then you've got about the same level of credibility as a Taiwanese Street Walker has as far as I'm concerned.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

No. Other, un-mandated prescription drugs can prevent my slow, painful death. Next to that, birth control seems pretty trivial.

How long have you been taking medications to relieve a slow and painful death and do you anticipate that you will continue ingesting them throughout your childbearing years?

Victus wrote

Since my position is simply not to force people to do things against their will, then your position must be to force people to do things against their will. What's your justification for doing that, in this specific case?

I'd say you're misrepresenting your own position and mischaracterizing mine. The clear and obvious fact is you'd like to force women to give up coverage of the contraceptive pill, and if others don't support you in that endeavor, you will continue to falsely claim that they're imposing something on you. It's madness.

Victus wrote

Which just brings us back to my earlier points, you're not offering any content to the debate. You're just shrugging it off and referring me to some abstract women's lobby.

Abstract as they may be to you, collectively, they comprise the entity to which the government was responding when it mandated that the contraceptive pill be covered by health insurance companies. I don't have a problem with that outcome but, apparently, you do.

Victus wrote

Correct. But they could simply ignore the debate if they weren't interested.

True, but your obstinate insistence that we should all be innundated with your odious politics at every conceiveable opportunity makes ignoring you a difficult challenge.

Victus wrote

And how, exactly, would they be forced to consult me?

You're proposing to re-write the rules. If you had that authority, they'd be your rules. In which case, who else would women be consulting?

Victus wrote

But you know enough to advocate (or defend) the status quo, wherein women must run their reproductive decisions through other people? If you don't know enough (anything?) about the subject, then what are your grounds for supporting such an onerous restriction on women's freedom to choose.

I'm not aware that women find this to be onerous. At least, I haven't heard that masses of women are complaining to that effect, just you. And as far as I know from what you've revealed about yourself, you don't have any ovaries.

Victus wrote

Even if I knew nothing about reproductive health, I wouldn't presume to know enough to force women to run their reproductive decisions through others. The question is, why do you?

That's not at all a reasonable question to ask me, since I am not forcing women to run their reproductive decisions through others. You are the one attempting to advise women on such matters, not me.

Victus wrote

I repeat myself because you seem to be unable to read what I write.

But repeating the same nonsense does not aid comprehension.

Victus wrote

Correct.

I know it's correct. And the crux of the whole thing is you are the one clamoring for this deprivation, supposedly, on behalf of women. It does not appear to be coming from the women that you're claiming to be interested in helping.

Victus wrote

Correct.

And you think this makes you a freedom fighter for women? Have you talked to any of them about this?

Victus wrote

The key word here is 'alternative'.

Except the Morning After pill is not an alternative for women seeking to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Nor are the Morning After pill, the sponge or a diaphragm alternatives to the contraceptive pill for some women who may be taking the latter as part of hormone therapy for a medical condition.

Victus wrote

If the concern is access, then what's wrong with pointing out that women already have access to cheap and effective contraception without forcing anyone to do anything. Indeed, to the extent that the government already does place restrictions on this market, it reduces access.

Vic, you're advocating your own perceived interests and not those of women, so it's, frankly, laughable that you keep insisting you're doing the latter.

Victus wrote

If they wanted to buy birth control pills, they're free to do that with or without insurance in the absence of a mandate. The only gain had by instituting a mandate comes from forcing an insurance company or employer to do so against their will.
So where's the restriction on choice in the absence of a mandate, exactly? Indeed, a mandate forces women to by contraception even if they don't want it. Why aren't you complaining about that restriction on choice?

I'm not complaining about your allegations because they exist only in your mind.

Victus wrote

Nope, I simply don't think they know better what's good for insurance companies than the insurance companies themselves. The restrictions enshrined in law, after all, are on insurers.

Nope. You're falsely claiming to advocate for women when you're actually advocating on behalf of insurance companies, specifically, and more broadly on behalf of your favorite pet dog, an unfettered market, no matter what the result. But that's pretty much your entire raison d'etre as of late.

Victus wrote

If you don't have any knowledge one way or the other, then where does your support for the prescription restriction come from in the first place?

I already told you that I have no choice but to trust the physicians and other scientists. When they start preaching to your tune, only then would it behoove me to listen.

Victus wrote

Suppose that there wasn't, and every single medical professional in the world thought that a woman should run their decision through them before taking the pill. Is that a compelling reason to force women to do so against their will? You seem to think so.

Where are you getting this idea that women are acting against their will when they consult their physicians?

Victus wrote

But in the absence of any knowledge of the subject, you believe women's reproductive choices need to be regulated by other people.

That's up to women, don't you think? Are they, en masse, clamoring for what you're proposing, which seems to be that they make uninformed medical decisions about their reproductive health? Why would they want to do that?

Victus wrote

I'm not, they're free to leave the discussion at any time. But suppose I got everything I wanted policy-wise, then end result would simply be 'mind your own business'. That is, I bring this up (or participate in it) as a topic specifically because the mandate entails refusing to let people mind their own business by forcing them to buy birth control, whether they want to or not.

Nobody is being forced to buy birth control.

Victus wrote

No, but it demonstrates that you can't simply presume that policies are crafted by scientists. Indeed, sometimes politicians inject themselves directly into such regulations.

Where is your evidence that politicians injected themselves on the question of whether the contraceptive pill ought to be prescribed or purchased over-the-counter? I'm not even aware of an ongoing debate amongst medical professionals surrounding the question.

Victus wrote

No, I'm questioning the impetuous for forcing women to consult other people when making reproductive decisions. So far all you've offered is "I don't know", which seems wholly insufficient to outlaw women from making decisions for themselves.

You're questioning the idea of women consulting their gynecologists? On what basis?

Victus wrote

And again, I would simply invite you to read what I've written more slowly, since you're apparently having trouble grasping the meaning.

To the contrary, I think you're struggling to be coherent.

Victus wrote

But regulating women's reproductive choices is a kind of crazy you're willing to indulge. Heh.

You're crazy if you think powerful drugs don't need to be regulated.

[Victus]

Michael wrote

Don't get me wrong, Victus. You're a seemingly smart guy, and I don't disagree with everything you've written. But right now you're either being incredibly dense, incredibly naive, or just plain dickish.

The fact of the matter is that I do know all about bees. Believe me. After all, I claim to have done research on them, written a research paper. Heck, I even claimed to have written book about it.

So you think what you know about bees is correct, and therefore I'm not an expert? Well, I'm sorry but I am the expert and therefore what you say about bees is clearly wrong.

So how dare you accuse me of not knowing about empathy bees when I make unsubstantiated claims about my vast superior research on them!

The difference being that, in addition to correcting the definition based on my expertise, I linked to the main wiki article on it.

Michael wrote

If it's still not getting through, here is my point. If you're going to claim to be so much smarter than everyone else because you've "done research", "published" even, at least back it up with something.

So far all I've seen is you say "I know about this, I've done studies", but then stop short of actually proving you've done jack shit. If I've just missed the point where you direct us to your vast wealth of "studies", then by all means point me in the direction of where you did.

Until then you've got about the same level of credibility as a Taiwanese Street Walker has as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe you're too new to remember.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I believe I easily showed you how you were wrong Victus my suger plum. I cannot believe that you are going back to it and stating you somehow were correct. Human interactions require empathy to some or other degree, or bees or whatever the fuck we are calling it now.

[Stargazer]

Michael wrote

Don't get me wrong, Victus. You're a seemingly smart guy, and I don't disagree with everything you've written. But right now you're either being incredibly dense, incredibly naive, or just plain dickish.

The fact of the matter is that I do know all about bees. Believe me. After all, I claim to have done research on them, written a research paper. Heck, I even claimed to have written book about it.

So you think what you know about bees is correct, and therefore I'm not an expert? Well, I'm sorry but I am the expert and therefore what you say about bees is clearly wrong.

So how dare you accuse me of not knowing about empathy bees when I make unsubstantiated claims about my vast superior research on them!


If it's still not getting through, here is my point. If you're going to claim to be so much smarter than everyone else because you've "done research", "published" even, at least back it up with something.

So far all I've seen is you say "I know about this, I've done studies", but then stop short of actually proving you've done jack shit. If I've just missed the point where you direct us to your vast wealth of "studies", then by all means point me in the direction of where you did.

Until then you've got about the same level of credibility as a Taiwanese Street Walker has as far as I'm concerned.

Brilliant, Michael. Might we also ask Victus to cite an incident where he experienced empathy?

[psychodiva]

Victus wrote

So, is it your view that authors and university-level teachers don't understand the topics on which they study?

no- just you sweetie

[Davin]

Victus wrote

Go ahead and look up the distinction between the fallacious and non-fallacious uses of arguments from authority. I'll wait here.

It's irrational under any case to use the appeal to authority fallacy, that's why it's called a fallacy.

Victus wrote

If I only pretended to do so, I couldn't have cited an example. Yet there it is all the same.

Yeah, you cited a poor example, you don't show that you're correct, you assert that you are. There is a difference, but I'm sure your limited mental capacity can't see it.

Victus wrote

It doesn't even border on the fallacy in question, hence why I provided an example. Maybe you should look that one up too.

Wow, thanks, I had cited the wrong fallacy!

Victus wrote

Thanks!

No problem!

Victus wrote

Above you said I don't cite things, but here you say I do so frequently. Which is it?

Really? Where in the above did I say that you didn't cite things? Stop lying.

Victus wrote

So, is it your view that authors and university-level teachers don't understand the topics on which they study?

To assume that they're correct by virtue of being an authority, is the appeal to authority fallacy. But you are a very illogical person, so I understand that you're mentally inferior brain can't handle that concept.

[Victus]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I believe I easily showed you how you were wrong Victus my suger plum. I cannot believe that you are going back to it and stating you somehow were correct. Human interactions require empathy to some or other degree, or bees or whatever the fuck we are calling it now.

In any of those scenarios, how does empathy get me a burger?

[ILOVEJESUS]

Like I said, if you empathise with someone struggling to cope, they are more favourable to you. Who orders a burger with Burger and chips? No please? Thank you? Cold weather at the moment? It's busy in here isn't it? Your arse is nicely filling up those Burger King trousers? It is no guarantee, but you are increasing your chances.

[ubs]

Well, if you define empathy loosely enough to include all social constructs then you are surely correct.

[psychodiva]

I'm happy if my empathy gets me a burger without spit in it- which invariably does, as predicted

[Eternal]

Spit! Spit! You must use one of those upmarket places, we get popped zits and cum where i'm from.