Quoting Ben Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Platt, your arguments as I best read it goes something like this: > > 1) Platt read the Independent article as being critical of the NHS/or > socialized medicine. > 2) Either the article was or was not critical of the NHS. > 3a) If the article was critical of the NHS, then you can criticize > socialized medicine. > 3b) If the article was not critical of the NHS, then it's misleading, so you > can criticize Jos Laycock. > > I generally agree that all points are sound. You've effectively put > Jos/Arlo on the defensive, where they'll remain so long as this discussion > continues. Having said that, I don't see your points as being particularly > strong or important and I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish > beyond scoring some rhetorical points. FWIW, I'm not particularly > interested in defending either socialized medicine of the Independent, only > in clarifying the strength of your case against them. > > I've already said that I see anecdotal evidence as having little value in > the discourse on socialized medicine. Similarly, I think that to base your > argument against the Independent on one misleading headline is really weak. > Misleading headlines seem to be a relatively minor error for a publication; > by contrast, virtually every American media outlet at some point projected > Al Gore as winner of the 2000 election. Mistakes happen across the board. > That's why it's important to approach all sources with skepticism and to, on > important issues, verify across sources. Articles that are easier to > understand are better articles, but that doesn't absolve readers of a > responsibility to read carefully. > > If you want to have a real discussion about socialized medicine, or about > journalistic integrity, or about the underlying differences between your and > Arlo's political philosophies, I'm all ears. But the present discussion is > neither.
Your points are well taken. Sorry you have missed the context. Arlo and I (and others) have been arguing socialism vs. capitalism for a number of years on this site. It all springs from Pirsig's comment in the Lila: "From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality. You go to any socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's little Dynamic Quality." (17) I've been battling the static point of view ever since. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
