“Could”? You are “supposed to.” Are you sure that your friend wasn’t mistaking a sprain and a twist-with-no-consequences?
Uhh Jeez, it’s like debating with a recalcitrant third grader. “Mommy to its citizens” is a derogatory comparison. “Nanny State,” “Father Land,” “Mother Land.” When we are talking about the government taking care of it’s citizens and taking a greater role in their day to day well-being, the comparison to a parent is one that has both precedence and acceptance, because every one knows what you mean.
It would be a misrepresentation if:
- Parents are not generally considered to be responsible for taking care of their children
and
- NHS is somehow not the government taking a greater role and responsibility for the well being of its citizens.
You may argue whether the comparison is fair, apt or what have you. But it ain’t a strawman.
You deliberately left an inaccurate information in your post so you could insult whomever corrected you? o_O
So how does one enforce the law without interfering? Shouldn’t you be learning to fight off criminals on your own?
Which doesn’t cover everyone.
When I visit my local GP I don’t need anything. I just get an appointment, walk in and I’m good to go. I’ll probably be in the waiting room no longer than it would have taken to fill in the form (if I were visiting the GP I wasn’t registered to). If I’m in an accident, they’ll simply take me to the hospital (no need to check my insurance) and get on with not letting me die.
Well I think you’ll find that the quality of public schools is unaffected by the presence of state schools.
I myself went to a comprehensive and I had no trouble going on to college (my secondary school lacked a 6th form) passing my A levels and going into university. Perhaps the problem isn’t with the concept of a state run school.
Well when you put it that way, the government does have a reason to be efficient.
I didn’t said you did. It’s the entire subject of the topic (as mentioned in the OP you claimed to be responding to).
While straw man refers to the logical fallacy, it may also be used idiomatically to describe someone who conforms to a position which resembles the straw man construct. A “self parody” if you will.
No, I said “king” as synonym for “monarchy,” and I thought there would be a dearth of those so picayune as to take issue with a technical semantic innacurracy.
Ok. There’s a certain minimum standard that I require from a debating opponent. You’re not living up to the standard here, so I’ll move on.
It’s not a “technical semantic innaccuracy” it’s an actual, unambiguous inaccuracy. King is not a synonym for “monarchy” and there is no leeway to interpret it as such. It describes the ruler and not the system and most certainly isn’t gender neutral. If you want to be specific, use “queen” and if you want to be gender neutral use “monarch”. This technicality of yours exists only in your head. If I referred to Barrack Obama as a woman I would no doubt be correct and I’ll hold you to the same standards.
Very well then. Not resorting to an ad hominem is one of my own criteria. Perhaps you’ll be able to find an opponent who won’t question your argument in the same place you keep those non-interfering methods of law enforcement.
So, you live in a… Queendom?
Queendom.
No. You can’t make me. And I won’t, especially because you’re wrong.
A “male monarch” is one definition. However, “Ruler, or Chief” is another, as is simply preeminent.
“Devil’s food is the King of cakes.”
Gender neutral.
As is:
“England is one of the few remaining countries with a king.”
As is the old adage:
“Soon there will be five kings left in this world: Spades, Diamonds, Hearts, Clubs and England.”
The usage of king as synonym for monarch enjoys precedence, and is acceptable.
You have to be a special kind of narrow-minded picayune nitpicker to take such longstanding issue with it.
If English is a new language to you I can understand you’re confusion.
The standard you are failing to live up to is frankly one of competence and demonstrated intelligence.
Nothing in anything I said suggests that I am advocating a non-interfering form of law enforcement. Suggesting that I am though can be used as an educational opportunity, as that would constitute a “straw man.”
Please show me where I said the government should enforce the laws in a non-interfering manner, and I’ll gladly retract and apologize.
How’s that glass house you’re living in?
Shatterproof.
Yes, you better watch out so that you dont end up like us here in Sweden.
King isn’t gender neutral when referring to a head of state. Maybe you should write a letter to the OED and complain.
A misquotation of Farouk I of Egypt,
King Farouk to Lord Boyd-Orr at a conference in Cairo, 1948, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations; Elizabeth Knowles.
That’s funny, 1948… yes I think we still had a king then; one with dangly bits just so you’re clear on that front.
If by precedence you mean something you’ve just made up, and struggled to find support for in the OED or on the internet, then yes it has precedence. And yes, you are wrong, but no I can’t make you.
Yes, we were all very impressed with you looking up ‘petty’ in Roget’s Thesaurus the first time. However, your language games aren’t really the issue of this thread.
Kingdom derives from “king” (obviously) and “dom” (jurisdiction, rulership itself derived from “doom” meaning judgement). Both the word king and kingdom share linguistic roots but these have diverged to give us the gender neutral word kingdom and the masculine word king.
While “King” can be used to mean the most powerful or prominent example it always means a male leader when used in the context of a monarch. In all the examples you give either no ruler is specified or an inanimate object is used.
Of course if you were simply describing Britain as having a “powerful person” ruling it, it wouldn’t mean much.
We have a queen. She can’t be described as a king. Live with it.
More ad hominem. Good stuff.
I’m not saying you claimed that the government should enforce the law in a non-interfering manner. I’m saying you claimed it can.
The point being such a thing is impossible (“Sorry lad, but we have to arrest you without interfering” “Aren’t you doing that right now by talking to me?”)
I asked you what a government is supposed to do if it doesn’t interfere with its citizens and you gave law enforcement as an example.
Incidentally, I thought you weren’t debating with me any further? If you’re changing your mind I’m going to need you to refute or accept my other points.
It is the way I used it, the concept of king in abstract. This is why in England we have a queen ruling a kingdom.
Farouk wasn’t really suggesting King George VI was immortal but rather remarking on the English attachment to the monarchy. So, yes. The king being referred to in this case was not just the present ruler, but also the concept of “king” itself.
Could have fucking fooled me, as it seems that three of you think it is.
Than you would have a quote wherein I make this claim, wouldn’t you? Where is it?
No. You didn’t ask that. What you asked was “if the government isn’t supposed to look after you, what does it do?”
That is the question to which I gave the answer “law enforcement” as an example.
Now you are attempting to retroactively change the question to make it look like I gave a nonsensical answer.
I consider this tactic either dishonest or incompetent.
Tough titties. I’m not inclined to extend courtesies to those employing dishonest tactics.
Excellent point. One mistake Democrats tend to make (and I’m one myself, mind you) is addressing their message only to people who need help, and assuming the need is self-evident to all.
As a society, we don’t work like that - not anymore, anyway. If I got mine, then what you need is just an entitlement you’re not entitled to, if not Creeping National Socialist Commie Something-or-another. Oh, and before I forget, no one really wants to help people; they just want to raise taxes. I think it’s a fetish or something.
And one more thing, Mr. Educated Black Ass President: the system’s been good to me, so why the hell shouldn’t I let it manipulate my opinions? It’s my right in a free country to choose what to think, or if I want, not to think.
Very well;
Dealing with crime is looking after you. Looking after citizens is interfering with their lives. The government can either interfere with citizens’ lives by enforcing the law and dealing with criminals, or they can do neither. As I’ve been trying to point out. You trying to twist this into me employing a straw man argument is itself a straw man argument (and the metafallacy, and as I’ve mentioned, an ad hominem argument).
More ad hominems.
Well since I’m so dishonest and incompetent you’ll have no problem refuting my previously ignored points;
Boy, for a minute there I thought Prince Phillip was in for a bit of surprise.
No one you are debating is suggesting that the government should behave like a mommy. Consequently, its a strawman.
Further, I can’t think of any relevant difference between what a mother would do for her child in terms of looking after them when sick that she wouldn’t do for them in terms of protecting them from a criminal.
So with all your talk about law enforcement, frankly, I think you’re advocating that the government be Mommy to its citizens. Which isn’t to strawman you of course, I’m just making a derogatory comparison.
The Prince of Wales probably choked on his cornflakes reading this too. Oh well, better luck next time Charlie boy!
I am arguing that NHS is the govenment acting like a mommy. Your statement is false. Even if it wasn’t it doesnt’ make it a strawman.
Let me get this straight. You will go on at length objecting to the use of “king” as synonym for monarch, but you would argue that “interfering (which is to impede)” is synonymous with “to take care of (which is to help.)”
“interfere with” and “take care of” are practically antonyms. They mean almost exactly the opposite. Nice try.
I think debating should be people using words to communicate ideas. The arguing should be about the ideas. You, can’t seem to get beyond semantics.
A worthy debater would realize that the idea being expressed here is the degree of involvement of government in the day to day life of its citizens, specifically, that enforcing the law of the land is an acceptable amount, but running their healthcare is an unacceptable amount of involvement.
An unworthy and disingenuous debater (such as you have been) ignores the idea, and argues semantics and absolutes as a substitute.
My arguing that NHS is excessive involvement does not mean that you can rationally or honestly argue that I am saying all involvement is bad. This is particularly so, when I brought up this specific point in the post you are quoting from when I said that a certain minimum is necessary.
Hence, you continue to confirm my initial judgement that you don’t really deserve serious consideration as a debater.
Probably I wouldn’t. But, I won’t offer you the consideration and respect of doing so while you are continuing to debate poorly and in bad faith.