Every single objection you have to this article has nothing to do with either its content or form.
Help me to understand why you would post a comment like this:
>Color me critical, but it seems like, basically, the point of this article was to show off exactly how informed in her 'hard-nosed' critiques, and how that is proffered as justification for the obvious bias present in the article.
I'm not sure how to translate this other than "He thinks she's so smart, so he's asserting that he has an opinion worth listening to."
>I also find it interesting that despite the apparent mountains of reading, the author cannot determine any good reason why one might oppose ${THING_THAT_AUTHOR_SUPPORTS}, which tells me that either her bias refused to allow her to accept posed oppositions as valid, or that she simply doesn't care that other people do object.
Translation: "He has an opinion, and he thinks that there are no reasonable arguments against that opinion, so his opinion must be worthless." Remind me never to tell you what I think 3 times 5 equals, because my opinion will not pass this criterion.
>I think there are plenty of valid reasons for opposing it, just as there are plenty of reasons to support it, and frankly, I think all of major justifications on either side of the argument fall into the category of fairly obvious.
Now we know what you think - but you're not considering telling us why because it's "fairly obvious?" The author told us why he thought what he thought, and you attacked him for not telling us why everybody else thought what they thought, too.
>That said, kudos on ${ACTION_OF_AUTHOR_SUPPORTING_THING}. It is a tough decision, and it will ${COST_OF_SUPPORTING_THING}, but despite that, if you're ${WHAT_AUTHOR_IS} who ${HAS_AUTHORS_OPINION}, it is the obviously correct choice.
Do you think the author is searching for your vague tautological approval?
Comments like this trouble me. I don't understand why people take the time to make them. Color me honestly troubled.
Sorry to have been so troubling. What I meant to point out, and admittedly did a bad job of, is that I sensed a pattern of "thoroughly investigating" both sides of an issue as merely justification for calling someone a dick. I don't think that holds muster, especially as the same thorough investigation into health care reform led to absolutely zero evidence of why anyone could think it's a bad idea?
No matter which you you side on the issue of the Affordable Care Act, there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. I don't see how you can do thorough investigation and come up with the conclusion that it is wholly good, unless you're just happy to categorize everybody in opposition as either dumb, naive, uninformed or just wrong.
As for what I think, I did post reasons against in another thread here, which you're of course welcomed to find and/or respond to, but that's just a few of the rather obvious reasons against, and don't necessarily reflect my stance.
My real stance is that it's a complicated issue, and both sides have very compelling truths in support of their stance. The willingness to ignore those compelling truths, even after seeking them out, speaks to a greater bias, in my opinion.
You're correct in that perhaps I was overly harsh. I didn't intend to come off as negatively as my re-reading of my statement affirms that I did, but as there are currently more detractors of Obamacare than supporters, the assertion that the majority simply doesn't have a point at all, smacks of arrogance to me.
There is another argument at play, that I think more accurately reflects the author's viewpoint, which is that there are not any good arguments against universal health care as a concept, and has to ignore the specifics of the particular universal health care bill that's been introduced and enacted.
As a vague example, I'm betting you'd get pretty high poll numbers for a question that asked "Would you support a bill that could eliminate crime?", but would almost certainly be against any particular bill that sought to do exactly that as it would almost certainly entail the restriction of many of our American freedoms.
All that said, yes, I am sorry to have posted a response that didn't more accurately measure how I felt, or at least try to temper that response with more supporting evidence, but at the time I was in a hurry. I don't really see how your response is very different than mine either, so I'll just assume we both responded with too much knee-jerk response and hope to call it a day.
For what it's worth, the proverbial straw that tipped me into a frenzy was the line about Reddit - asserting that Reddit has never been excellent, and that despite this one particular case in which it obviously delivered excellence, the author assures us that it will never reach those heights again. Reddit is a big place, and there are pockets of excellence hidden amongst the mass of everything else. One man's trash being another man's treasure, the likelihood of a particular subreddit being considered universally good is of course slim, but to assume that this one particular thread is the very best that Reddit ever has, ever can, or ever will do just smacked too much of bullshit to me to let the rest go.
Help me to understand why you would post a comment like this:
>Color me critical, but it seems like, basically, the point of this article was to show off exactly how informed in her 'hard-nosed' critiques, and how that is proffered as justification for the obvious bias present in the article.
I'm not sure how to translate this other than "He thinks she's so smart, so he's asserting that he has an opinion worth listening to."
>I also find it interesting that despite the apparent mountains of reading, the author cannot determine any good reason why one might oppose ${THING_THAT_AUTHOR_SUPPORTS}, which tells me that either her bias refused to allow her to accept posed oppositions as valid, or that she simply doesn't care that other people do object.
Translation: "He has an opinion, and he thinks that there are no reasonable arguments against that opinion, so his opinion must be worthless." Remind me never to tell you what I think 3 times 5 equals, because my opinion will not pass this criterion.
>I think there are plenty of valid reasons for opposing it, just as there are plenty of reasons to support it, and frankly, I think all of major justifications on either side of the argument fall into the category of fairly obvious.
Now we know what you think - but you're not considering telling us why because it's "fairly obvious?" The author told us why he thought what he thought, and you attacked him for not telling us why everybody else thought what they thought, too.
>That said, kudos on ${ACTION_OF_AUTHOR_SUPPORTING_THING}. It is a tough decision, and it will ${COST_OF_SUPPORTING_THING}, but despite that, if you're ${WHAT_AUTHOR_IS} who ${HAS_AUTHORS_OPINION}, it is the obviously correct choice.
Do you think the author is searching for your vague tautological approval?
Comments like this trouble me. I don't understand why people take the time to make them. Color me honestly troubled.