So what took all you folks so long to catch on? Some of us figured that out about Bricker long, long ago. And took some amount of shit from you about it, too.
I don’t know. Perhaps they, like me, would take a score of Brickers over one snide, hostile, overwhelmingly nasty piece of work like you, and thus wished to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The best SDMB neologism I’ve seen in years.
Oooh, *somebody *has some hostility issues, don’t they?
Hey, it ain’t my fault you’ve been so slow to catch on.
Bricker, it is clear that Boxer made an untrue statement. But the difference between what she said and what Kyl said is that if she corrected her statement to omit mammograms and just mention all the other stuff, it wouldn’t change the impact of what she said very much. If you change 90% to 3% or even 15%, it has a significant impact on what Kyl said.
Saying that someone provides mammograms when they only provide breast exams, pap smears STD testing, birth control, cancer screening, in an effort to show that they do more than provide abortions is not really a big deal.
Saying that someone spends over 90% of their time or money providing abortions when its only 3% or 15% is a fucking lie.
That’s why its a false equivalence.
I have no use for Barbara Boxer but…
So if a senator got up there and said that over 90% of Hispanics in Arizona are illegal aliens then you would call that hyperbole?
If a senator said that over 90% of conservatives are members of the Klu Klux Klan, is that hyperbole?
If a senator said that over 90% of abortions are partial birth abortions, is that just hyperbole?
So why is it hyperbole when you say that over 90% of the what planned parenthood does is abortions?
3% to 90%+ is not hyperbole, its either a disregard for the truth or an intentional attempt to mislead.
Sticking mammogram in there is not hyperbolic. Its either a lie or an error, depending on whether what she knew. But why would she lie about mammograms? What does sticking mammograms in there get her that sticking breast exams in there doesn’t?
You seriously don’t see why there is a difference between what Kyl did and what Boxer did?
But neither was Kyl.
[/QUOTE]
He generally argues honestly and has changed his position based on new facts much more readily than “more than 90%” of the other posters on this board.
I don’t agree with his views but he doesn’t doggedly hold on to his views as if being right in the first instance is more important than being right ultimately.
You should probably catch up with the thead, Damuri. Not only has Bricker repeatedly conceded the point, but it’s been determined that Boxer wasn’t even wrong.
No it doesn’t take unimpeachable evidence. Sticking to your guns until it is impossible to continue to maintain your position is not reasonable. Bricker changes his position when his point has “reasonably” been refuted, not refuted beyond doubt. That is what makes him better than others on his side.
There are people on this board who, if they found themselves in the position of saying “the sun will not come out tomorrow” would continue to defend that position until the sun actually came out. Bricker will admit the sun will drop his entire argument when he realizes that his position is no longer reasonably defensible.
Well, I went ahead and replied anyways as if PP actually doesn’t have a damn thing to do with mammograms, mostly because I responded before reading the whole thread (a habit I have to remedy)
Its not that they don’t care because they don’t know. They don’t know because they don’t care.
Not to entirely derail this thread but patients are not a protected “group” (usually we say protected class)
I don’t think Bricker is denying that people have in fact been denied service. He is asking for instances where this denied service amounted to denied access to service.
Bricker conceded the point BECAUSE it turned out Boxer was not wrong. My point is that even if Boxer HAD been wrong, his point would not be valid.
Why would you respect someone who constantly plays these little nitpicky “gotcha” games? For me to respect someone they have to earn it.
No shit.
While you’re at it, if you could stop the habit of replying 8 times to the same thread in rapid succession that would be good too.
In one of Lawrence Block’s Matt Scudder novels the detective tells an anecdote about Alcoholics Anonymous. At Scudder’s AA chapter meetings, there’s a tradition of having attendees introduce themselves and relate how long they’ve been off the booze, after which each gets a round of applause.
“Two weeks.” (applause)
“Four years.” (applause)
“Three months.” (applause)
One regular is having a very hard time with the sobriety thing, and moreover doesn’t seem very concerned about it. He habitually shows up to AA meetings fresh off a bender, woozily proclaiming “I drank yesterday. But I haven’t had anything today. So I been sober one day!” (applause)
After this pattern repeats itself over and over and over again, the other AA members get sick of applauding the guy and decide to change their policy so there’s no longer applause after sobriety announcements.
Someday Dopers may decide that the ability to apologize does not make you a Very Special Poster if you constantly keep creating the need to apologize by saying provocatively stupid things. Such as this (in the current GD thread about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives):
He actually said this in a thread related to abortion.
Oh wait, after he was called on it, he apologized.
What a wonderful fellow. :dubious:
Am I the only who thinks that **Bricker **quit posting about a year ago and someone else is using his account?
Excellent advice.
Never play poker with a man named “Doc”, and never buy a robot from Mom’s. Never trust a naked busdriver.