3 ms·
> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order. Refusal to engage with indivi
by smush 7y ago
> There's nothing useful to discuss with such people, and for them to complain on such grounds is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Refusal to engage with individuals on subject A (cyber-security) because you disagree on subject B (healthcare in this case) is unfortunate, and possibly a similar level of hypocrisy if one would otherwise posit being open-minded as a general rule.
- dariusj18 7y agoI think the perceived issue is not that they disagree on the subject, but that they fundamentally don't trust them to be working with you in good faith.
- smush 7y agoI agree. If I were to place myself in the position of this congressman, I don't have a good answer to as how to convince them that I'm arguing in good faith. If the criterion for arguing in good faith is too narrowly defined, it can turn into 'agree with me on everything or else you are arguing in bad faith'
- mbrameld 7y agoIt's not because of the disagreement, though. That's a creative interpretation of the comment you're replying to. This is the crux: > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics?
- smush 7y agoI guess I must admit not seeing why the ACA directly relates to this cyber-security conference.
- arkades 7y ago> exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics One may agree or not, but I think his position is fairly clear, and not healthcare -specific.
- mbrameld 7y agoIt doesn't and I guess I must admit I'm having trouble seeing where you're getting confused with this concept. It honestly feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not the ACA that's the problem, it's the behavior of the Republican legislators regarding the ACA. It could have been any piece of legislation. It's the behavior that's the issue. > Republicans that sought to repeal it for years and then didn't actually have any real policy ideas to replace it when they took control in 2016, exemplifying their bad-faith approach to politics? Read that quote. Now read it again. It fully and clearly explains the issue without naming the ACA. That's because the fact that the behavior was bought to light by the ACA is irrelevant. The ACA isn't the problem, the behavior is. "It" in that quote could be any piece of legislation and the behavior would still be troubling. Does that help you see? Do you finally understand?
- smush 7y agoI believe I follow what you are arguing, something to the effect of repealing a law without an immediate replacement plan can demonstrate bad faith. I would not necessarily agree with the above point, as depending on a given law, it is possible there would be those who would support its repeal with no replacement. That is not to say I do or do not advocate such a course of action for any particular law, just pointing out the option exists.
- mikeash 7y agoIt’s disagreement when it’s some person with political opinions. When it’s a legislator, it’s not disagreement, it’s someone working against you. If it was about opinions he had that are not reflected in his legislative work, that would be different, but when lawmakers lawmake based on their opinions, it goes beyond just a difference of views.