You told me I couldn’t read 127 comment in the nearly seven minutes between comments.
No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.
I did and had time to respond to you but you don’t believe me because you must read slower.
There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias
Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people’s tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case.[4] This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions.[5][6] In economics, “zero-sum fallacy” generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.
Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now, being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
There’s that amnesia again! I’ve provided evidence repeatedly. All you can do is sealion.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now
More personal attacks because you have no rational response.
being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
Except when I read and responded to every single thing you said. Just because I used evidence to prove you wrong over and over and over again - and you ignored it every time - doesn’t mean I didn’t listen to you— it proves that I did.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
Another coping mechanism fantasy you”ve invented; this didn’t happen. But, if your “beliefs” still hold that this happened, please link to the facts and evidence and so-called “logic”. This should be interesting considering that you don’t even understand how health insurance works, what it’s for, or the definition of the word “gambling”.
As I’ve said several times before: you’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict them.
Insurance of any sort is a gambling as Ned from The Simpsons proves in his quote from the 8th episode of the 8th season of The Simpsons.
Fictional characters in a cartoon are not a source of reliable, verifiable facts, especially regarding healthcare and/or economic advice. And, wow, if you’re telling me that you base your financial and healthcare decisions (not to mention your religious convictions) based on a line from The Simpsons, then don’t simultaneously claim that you’re making a rational argument based on logic and facts. “Ned from The Simpsons said it” is a claim so ridiculous it really proves how desperate you are to hold onto your “beliefs” in the face of facts, evidence, and actual logic.
Now, you’re free to disagree but you haven’t been able to disprove either of those facts that together form an air-tight case for what I’m saying.
It’s your responsibility to prove your claims, not for me to disprove them, and you haven’t done that at all. Oh, and some throwaway joke from a fictional cartoon - on its own - isn’t proof of anything other than that your “beliefs” have a fictional (and very silly) basis.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.
There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias
Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.
How am I supposed to provide the evidence you’re looking for?
That’s your problem, not mine. Unlike you, I have no problem backing up my claims… and very well know better than to tell ridiculous lies.
You continue to refuse to back up your claims.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now, being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
There’s that amnesia again! I’ve provided evidence repeatedly. All you can do is sealion.
More personal attacks because you have no rational response.
Except when I read and responded to every single thing you said. Just because I used evidence to prove you wrong over and over and over again - and you ignored it every time - doesn’t mean I didn’t listen to you— it proves that I did.
Another coping mechanism fantasy you”ve invented; this didn’t happen. But, if your “beliefs” still hold that this happened, please link to the facts and evidence and so-called “logic”. This should be interesting considering that you don’t even understand how health insurance works, what it’s for, or the definition of the word “gambling”.
As I’ve said several times before: you’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict them.
My religion says gambling is a sin.
Insurance of any sort is a gambling as Ned from The Simpsons proves in his quote from the 8th episode of the 8th season of The Simpsons.
Now, you’re free to disagree but you haven’t been able to disprove either of those facts that together form an air-tight case for what I’m saying.
Irrelevant to the discussion and a straw man
Fictional characters in a cartoon are not a source of reliable, verifiable facts, especially regarding healthcare and/or economic advice. And, wow, if you’re telling me that you base your financial and healthcare decisions (not to mention your religious convictions) based on a line from The Simpsons, then don’t simultaneously claim that you’re making a rational argument based on logic and facts. “Ned from The Simpsons said it” is a claim so ridiculous it really proves how desperate you are to hold onto your “beliefs” in the face of facts, evidence, and actual logic.
It’s your responsibility to prove your claims, not for me to disprove them, and you haven’t done that at all. Oh, and some throwaway joke from a fictional cartoon - on its own - isn’t proof of anything other than that your “beliefs” have a fictional (and very silly) basis.
Nice self-own.
Why are you calling my religion irrelevant and a straw man?
Because we are discussing health insurance and the definition of gambling. You keep trying to change the subject to various other subjects, such as:
and including religion, which is a straw man
That amnesia is really hitting you hard!