4 ms·

Weird, since typically the issue is seen in reverse where leftist views don't hold up to statistics and logic. Check out some of Ben Shapiro's talks, or Crowder

Weird, since typically the issue is seen in reverse where leftist views don't hold up to statistics and logic. Check out some of Ben Shapiro's talks, or Crowder's 'Change my mind' series

the_gastropod 8y ago
Ah, yes. Let's review a few classic "leftist" views, and see if they hold up: 1. Single payer healthcare is both more effective and cheaper than the for-profit model we have now. [1] 2. Climate change is both actually happening and is largely caused by human activity. [I really hope I don't need to cite this...] 3. Gun control tends to lower gun violence. [2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-h... [2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/g...
- monksy 8y ago
  > 1. Single payer healthcare is both more effective and cheaper than the for-profit model we have now. [1] Personally, I agree with this one, if they're done right. (I think Germany is the best one in the western world) [One conservative view] This won't be done right in the context of the US given it's size and demand on it's people. (That also is where the anti-big gov arguement comes from as well) There is also a bit of FUD in reguards to it's change to the economy after implementation. [Higher taxes and a higher COL] (There are many other _good_ arguements against it.. such as the right to conduct business without government interference.. but see Ben Shapiro for that) > 2. Climate change is both actually happening and is largely caused by human activity. Most of the anti-climate change arguments that I've seen on this stem on weird twisting of data. I haven't seen a lot of solutions on the otherside. So that's equally weird and it just seems that people are yelling to convince some government body to "do something." (Whether it's effective or not.. that's a VERY big concern) > 3. Gun control tends to lower gun violence. It depends on context. There are many cases where this fails. (IL being one of those [it's easier to buy in IN].. since you can get and transport a firearm with different gun control requirements across the border). This goes for Canada, US, and Mexico. (Although if you enforce the borders strictly you can maintain gun control) The issue with this: Gun control is more restrictive on those who wish to legally use firearms, but barely does much to inhibit those who intend to use them illegally.
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  1. call the current way healthcare is delivered in this country "for-profit" is stealing a base. It's truer to say it's a heavily regulated sector with public and private elements. If you're not happy with the status quo you could increase the public part of increase the private part. It seems unfair to increase the public role, continue to complain about the situation and then propose increasing the public part still more to fix those problems.
- stevewodil 8y ago
  LOL CITES VOX AS A SOURCE. Enjoy your bubble! https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media#section-investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media#section-in...

Weird, since typically the issue is seen in reverse where leftist views don't hold up to statistics and logic. Check out some of Ben Shapiro's talks, or Crowder's 'Change my mind' series

the_gastropod 8y ago

Ah, yes. Let's review a few classic "leftist" views, and see if they hold up: 1. Single payer healthcare is both more effective and cheaper than the for-profit model we have now. [1] 2. Climate change is both actually happening and is largely caused by human activity. [I really hope I don't need to cite this...] 3. Gun control tends to lower gun violence. [2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-h... [2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/g...

monksy 8y ago
> 1. Single payer healthcare is both more effective and cheaper than the for-profit model we have now. [1] Personally, I agree with this one, if they're done right. (I think Germany is the best one in the western world) [One conservative view] This won't be done right in the context of the US given it's size and demand on it's people. (That also is where the anti-big gov arguement comes from as well) There is also a bit of FUD in reguards to it's change to the economy after implementation. [Higher taxes and a higher COL] (There are many other _good_ arguements against it.. such as the right to conduct business without government interference.. but see Ben Shapiro for that) > 2. Climate change is both actually happening and is largely caused by human activity. Most of the anti-climate change arguments that I've seen on this stem on weird twisting of data. I haven't seen a lot of solutions on the otherside. So that's equally weird and it just seems that people are yelling to convince some government body to "do something." (Whether it's effective or not.. that's a VERY big concern) > 3. Gun control tends to lower gun violence. It depends on context. There are many cases where this fails. (IL being one of those [it's easier to buy in IN].. since you can get and transport a firearm with different gun control requirements across the border). This goes for Canada, US, and Mexico. (Although if you enforce the borders strictly you can maintain gun control) The issue with this: Gun control is more restrictive on those who wish to legally use firearms, but barely does much to inhibit those who intend to use them illegally.
hackeraccount 8y ago
1. call the current way healthcare is delivered in this country "for-profit" is stealing a base. It's truer to say it's a heavily regulated sector with public and private elements. If you're not happy with the status quo you could increase the public part of increase the private part. It seems unfair to increase the public role, continue to complain about the situation and then propose increasing the public part still more to fix those problems.
stevewodil 8y ago
LOL CITES VOX AS A SOURCE. Enjoy your bubble! https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media#section-investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vox-media#section-in...