Canada's Trudeau set to resign any day as Finance Minister resigns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
IMG_3328.jpeg

IMG_3330.jpeg
 

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
Hit me with a source.

 
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746

I’ll check out the “Reason” article, they are considered credible. Give me a bit and I’ll read it on the bus ride home.

As for Forbes…

IMG_3331.jpeg
 

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
I’ll check out the “Reason” article, they are considered credible. Give me a bit and I’ll read it on the bus ride home.

As for Forbes…

View attachment 818049
So you're going to go with an ad hominem on Forbes because of "Least Biased" and "Mostly Factual" ratings?

When you read the news, are you reading to learn or are you only reading to confirm your own beliefs?
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
So you're going to go with an ad hominem on Forbes because of "Least Biased" and "Mostly Factual" ratings?

When you read the news, are you reading to learn or are you only reading to confirm your own beliefs?
I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is. Pointing out that a source isn’t as credible as it could be is not ad hominem. You’d likely have the same reaction if I posted something by Newsweek (or a left leaning counterpart).

I’ll post stuff from highly credible sources, you should do the same.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746

@IdahoBeav

The article you posted was pretty short, so I read it. There were definitely some small number of cases of people needlessly dying, which is not acceptable. With that in mind, and more recently…​

Canada Backtracks on Allowing Euthanasia for the Mentally Ill


“… But in late January, Canadian Minister of Health Mark Holland announced the move would be pushed back further, citing concerns that the country’s health system wasn’t “ready” for the MAID expansion…

… In 2016, the first year the law was enacted, 1,018 Canadians died with medical assistance, according to Health Canada, a federal institution responsible for standards of care. In 2021, that number jumped to 10,000, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada that year. Since the legislation passed, nearly 45,000 Canadians have died with medical assistance…

… For the first five years of the law’s life, only those with irremediable conditions and a “reasonably foreseeable” natural death were eligible: Upward of 60% of Canadians who died with medical assistance as of 2022 had cancer, and nearly 80% had received palliative care of some kind.”


In other words, most Canadians who chose MAID were terminally ill, and the Canadian government is rethinking some aspects of MAID.

Meanwhile…

Lack of Insurance to Blame for Almost 45,000 Deaths: Study

“… As many as 44,789 Americans of working age die each year because they lack health insurance, more than the number who die annually from kidney disease.”


And we aren’t going to change a damn thing, because a privileged few make too much money by taking advantage of for profit medical care.

Canadian healthcare isn’t without flaws, they rank 32; the US ranks 69 (of 167).
 
Last edited:

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is. Pointing out that a source isn’t as credible as it could be is not ad hominem.

I’ll post stuff from highly credible sources, you should do the same.

As in attacking the source instead of the argument?

FYI, your metric shows Forbes as being quite credible and showing little bias.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
As in attacking the source instead of the argument?

FYI, your metric shows Forbes as being quite credible and showing little bias.
They aren’t rated as high credibility. Would you accept something from The Guardian? How about the New York Post? It isn’t attacking a person (ad hominem literally means “to the person”) to expect sources be highly credible. Forbes is not a person, it is a publication.
 

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
They aren’t rated as high credibility. Would you accept something from The Guardian? How about the New York Post? It isn’t attacking a person (ad hominem literally means “to the person”) to expect sources be highly credible. Forbes is not a person, it is a publication.

It is very possible that I would accept something from the Guardian or NYP. Both of them have done many factual stories. I would investigate further, but they are certainly not automatically ignored due to reputation.

Sometimes it takes a biased source to break a story, like Breitbart and the Anthony Weiner scandal.

Ethos fallacy or genetic fallacy may be more fitting, but it most certainly is a fallacy of logic to reject an argument because it is being supported by a Forbes publication.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
It is very possible that I would accept something from the Guardian or NYP. Both of them have done many factual stories. I would investigate farther, but they are certainly not automatically ignored due to reputation.

Sometimes it takes a biased source to break a story, like Breitbart and the Anthony Weiner scandal.

Ethos fallacy or genetic fallacy may be more fitting, but it most certainly is a fallacy of logic to reject an argument because it is being supported by a Forbes publication.
Breitbart… seriously? How about the National Enquirer?

Let’s set a benchmark, and post sources that have high credibility ratings. That’s pretty common among the media literate, and will save both of us having to fact check every claim made by a source.

On topic:

 

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
Breitbart… seriously? How about the National Enquirer?

Let’s set a benchmark, and post sources that have high credibility ratings. That’s pretty common among the media literate, and will save both of us having to fact check every claim made by a source.

They released the story when others wouldn't.

Nonetheless, Forbes is considered credible by most, including the metric that you posted.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
They released the story when others wouldn't.

Nonetheless, Forbes is considered credible by most, including the metric that you posted.
“Mostly Factual” means you need to fact check their articles. Breitbart is even worse, and a hive of fascist white nationalism.

Canadian healthcare isn’t without flaws, they rank 32; the US ranks 69 (of 167). We’re just above Algeria.


 
Last edited:

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
922
“Mostly Factual” means you need to fact check their articles. Breitbart is even worse, and a hive of fascist white nationalism.

Canadian healthcare isn’t without flaws, they rank 32; the US ranks 69 (of 167). We’re just above Algeria.


Using the term "fascist white nationalism" is an extreme indicator of bias. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they use this term. Nonetheless, it doesn't automatically dismiss your argument.

A random online list that requires a paid subscription to further research its analysis is not going to convince me that the hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Iran are better than those in the US. Much of the "US healthcare sucks" narrative is driven by agenda and by veiling the obesity epidemic as a failure of privately funded healthcare.

Healthcare isn't a human right, but the US is the most medically advanced and innovative nation on earth, and you can receive immediate care in emergency and urgent care centers across the country. "Free access" to lesser healthcare does not outweigh quality of care.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Messages
1,746
Using the term "fascist white nationalism" is an extreme indicator of bias. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they use this term. Nonetheless, it doesn't automatically dismiss your argument.
I am 100% bias against bigotry, I won’t pretend otherwise.

A random online list that requires a paid subscription to further research its analysis is not going to convince me that the hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Iran are better than those in the US. Much of the "US healthcare sucks" narrative is driven by agenda and by veiling the obesity epidemic as a failure of privately funded healthcare.
IMG_3332.jpeg
IMG_3333.jpeg
Healthcare isn't a human right…
On this, we very strongly disagree. As it is a matter of opinion, there isn’t much use arguing about it.
… but the US is the most medically advanced and innovative nation on earth…
On this, we mostly agree, we are also one of the richest, and could afford healthcare for all if we were to tax the rich as we should.

Have you ever looked into compensation vs. productivity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top