Posted: Oct 02, 2017 7:28 pm
Sendraks wrote:Ball’s in your court. Either you want to explain your position or you do not. That you keep erecting ever more lengthy points to avoid providing a explanation at this point makes your willingness to do so functionally no different from your ability to do so.
If I hadn't wanted to explain it, I wouldn't have stated it. My reasons for not doing so haven't changed; the requirements to proceed remain as modest as ever.
Sendraks wrote:
I've revisited the posts on the vagueness of "free at the point of need" and at no point have you been tasked with defending a position you do not hold. I stated my understanding of the principle which underpins it, I did not task you with defending that, as you clearly articulated your view between "the principle" and how you felt "free at the point of need" was vague. I then asked you to provide an explanation of why it (free at the point of need) was vague. I'm only asking you to explain your original position, nothing more, nothing less.
But this simply isn't true, and obviously not true:
Tracer Tong wrote:Sendraks wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:Sendraks wrote:
I see. So the principle of people not having to worry about payment when recieving care is somehow vague is it?
You're going to have to explain why you think it is vague.
I didn’t comment on a principle of people not having to worry, but on the idea “free at the point of need” .
Which is the principle of people not having to worry about paying for their care.
So again, you're going to have to explain otherwise.
Which is a different principle from people not having to worry about paying for their care (a matter of simple English, actually). So, again, I’m quite happy to explain why the idea of “free at the point of need” is vague, as I’ve suggested, but not why some other, what you take to be related, principle (“of people not having to worry about paying for their care”) is vague, which I’ve not suggested.
There you are, explicitly equating the two principles, and getting me to defend an assertion of vagueness about a principle I hadn't ever referred to. There I am, pointing it out; and here you are now, denying you ever did it. Good grief.
Sendraks wrote:
On the matter of you quote mining me. I stand by my position. I acknowledge that you disagree and your apparent strength of feeling on the matter. However, I'm not going to change my position simply because you disagree.
I haven't asked you to change your position.
Sendraks wrote:
You can continue to chose to avoid explaining your position and come up with endless excuses as to why you won't or you can crack on. Your call. I've no interest in dancing to your requirements just because you think I should. Either you discuss the issue of substance or you leave.
Standard corrective: there's been no avoidance (you mean declining), nor excuses (you mean reasons); it's sad you think this rhetoric is necessary. If you've no interest in meeting the exceptionally modest requirements for further dialogue I've referred to, feel free not to respond further. I agree: either you discuss the issue, or you leave.
Your choice, mate.