The narratives about Trump thread.


Private doctors in Taiwan is quite good. Very respectable and there’s a reason biomedical firms are coming to Taiwan. Technology is not that far behind but the demand is low since most cases are covered by NHI. So only a few great doctors, and you’ll have to wait a long time to see them unless you know someone or have a lot of money.


I’m letting go the fact that you merged my point in your last post with that of another poster. If this is the sort of game you play then I’ll drop out - but I’ll assume it was just a mistake,

Anyway, I wouldn’t know if I were confused and neither would you. So, I’ll keep it simple for both of us:

Taking advantage of socialized medicine in a country while at the same time criticizing socialized medicine is hypocritical.


The fact that a large company can easily hire people who don’t have proper work documents is insane. I mean, I could understand a random small stores hiring an illegal migrant who’s a friend of a friend of a relative etc etc, but 7/11 ? Dafuq.


7-Eleven is based in the Dallas, TX, area. My understanding is that 7-Elevens are mostly owned by franchisees, however, and that they are the biggest employers of illegal immigrants.


What would be hypocritical is moving to Taiwan specifically to take advantage of its low cost national health care system while criticizing the concept of national health care. Moving to Taiwan for other reasons and using NHI isn’t hypocritical though because it’s the “only” game in town.

Just as it would be hypocritical to move to Taiwan specifically to take advantage of its low tax, business-friendly environment while criticizing tax reductions and business friendly policies in the west as “giveaways to the rich.” Otherwise, no.

Having said that, I’m a fan of Taiwan’s national health care system but routinely criticize government-run health care in the U.S. and Britain, which apparently makes me a hypocrite. My beef though with government-run programs in mature democracies is that bureaucrats and special interests have so infiltrated governments there that their interests inevitably trump the common good whenever they’re put in charge.


Absolutely. The number of English-teaching people taking advantage of Taiwan`s low tax and unenforced regulatory environment while preaching the left wing gospel simply astounds me.


Only if you package all your opinions and beliefs into one simplistic package such as left, right, neoliberal etc.


Not to me it wouldn’t. Complaining about a specific example isn’t hypocrisy. Complaining about a generality is clearly different.


I never really thought of Mac Miller as a wise man, but it looks like he successfully predicted the Trump presidency!


Comrade Politbureau, when you make these arguments, are you careful to explain them?

X works in A but not in B ergo we should choose Y when we’re in B.

X doesn’t work. Choose Y! But I’m not a hypocrite for choosing X!

See the difference?

And then there’s this:

X works in A but not in B because of L (contrary to popular belief that says X is a recipe for a socialist death spiral). Should we abandon all hope for X and choose Y instead? Or should we try to do something about L? :ponder:


:man_singer: :musical_note: :heart: :rainbow: :slight_smile:


God I love this presidency! Trump is literally the new punk rock.


Fallacious counterarguments are neither careful nor explanatory:

An Example of Obfuscation Fallacy: Black and white swans?
Here is an example of deliberate obfuscation:
“I cannot say that I do not disagree with you.”
(American comedian Groucho Marx, 1890–1977)

Deliberately clouding the message to help press home a point or to avoid answering a difficult question means you are committing the Obfuscation Fallacy. Obfuscation is not, in itself, a logical fallacy. It can only be described as a fallacy if it forms part of an argument. Here’s an example. Firstly, without the obfuscation:

Lee: "Swans can be black or white. Jack is a swan. Therefore, Jack is white."
Mark: “I disagree. Jack could be black.”

Here is the same argument with obfuscation:

Lee: “Whilst the pigment particles embedded in some swans’ plumage will reflect the vast majority of electromagnetic radiation from ~700 nanometers to ~400 nanometers, the plumage and structures in others’ feathers will absorb a high proportion of the wavelengths perceivable as white light. Jack is a swan. Therefore, Jack is white.”

Mark: “Yeah, whatever. Sounds like you know your onions.”


Yeah, whatever. Do you have a point?


That’s exactly what a Nazi would say.


Ad hominem logical fallacies, obfuscation fallacies, strawman fallacies . . .

Time for this topic to declare intellectual bankruptcy. A fitting end for a Trump topic.


Nonsense! We’re not here for logic, we’re just fighting for the moral highground! (mainly because logic or information are often considered “biased and racist” or “an instrument of the patriarchy”).


Whereas Covfefists consider logic and information to be merely fake news. So much simpler, no $5 words! :rainbow:


The tax brake for companies is just wiggled down to employees that now get a higher wage and somehow land in a higher tax bracket and pay more taxes and many times end up earning less.


A mixed system with a very efficient and good basic public health care, complemented by an affordable private insurance would be the best. Limits on costs of prescription drugs and hospital room charges.