tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post2444739853887920..comments2024-03-03T04:40:39.492-05:00Comments on Fire Megan McArdle: Oh, Phewbradhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06907349163323395529noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-88013373754851957352009-09-02T13:19:37.648-04:002009-09-02T13:19:37.648-04:00Also, how can health care be rationed, since it...Also, how can health care be rationed, since it's not a thing (like, say, flour, meat, gasoline), but, and I quote, 'a shifting collection of goods and services with amorphous boundaries'?bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-27501042583033486532009-09-02T13:13:12.504-04:002009-09-02T13:13:12.504-04:00And now she's going on about linguistics. Now ...And now she's going on about linguistics. Now I barely remember my philosophy, but by Saussure, I know my linguistics, hence the following comments:<br /><br /><br /><br />Actually, um, would anybody please explain to me what the flying fuck she's talking about? What's 'the former' and the 'latter' in No. 2? All I do understand is that she's talking about the various meanings of the word "rationing", especially the difference between the technical usage and the common usage. But why does she say that John Holbo argues that for rationing to occur, someone must be in control of 100% of the resource in question? As far as I can tell, he doesn't say anything of that sort. And where does her WWII example come in?bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-87883059561187656032009-09-02T11:30:41.858-04:002009-09-02T11:30:41.858-04:00Megan is accusing this Holbo fellow of having a si...Megan is accusing this Holbo fellow of having a simplistic view?!?! <br /><br />"John Holbo, who is, I believe, a professor of philosophy, seems to believe that you can develop a philosophical opinion on a policy issue without reference to particulars."<br /><br />Please, Megan. Without reference to particulars is the closest thing to style your writing exhibits. <br /><br />I've decided to use my morbid curiosity as to how this person is paid to write as a force for good. Every time Megan writes something headsmackingly stupid, I'm going to put a quarter in a jar. At the end of each month, I will donate the contents to charity. This post alone has raised almost five dollars already.clever pseudonymnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-51731270107547737072009-09-02T05:45:03.873-04:002009-09-02T05:45:03.873-04:00Hoooooooly living fuck:
There is no per-se right t...Hoooooooly living fuck:<br /><i>There is no per-se right to health care, since "health care" is not a thing</i><br />There is no per-se right to life/free speech/speedy trial, because none of those are things, but a shifting collection of arrangements, relationships and processes with amorphous boundaries.<br />That's all I can take on an empty stomach, be back later.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-77444137749217648652009-09-01T23:53:49.738-04:002009-09-01T23:53:49.738-04:00Ken, I am writing on that press release tomorrow. ...Ken, I am writing on that press release tomorrow. McArdle distracted me with all that gun lunacy.<br /><br />I still can't believe she finally admitted her data was imaginary. Naturally, that makes no difference to her present arguments.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-36958381404956766322009-09-01T23:21:25.204-04:002009-09-01T23:21:25.204-04:00"And contra the liberals who keep saying I am..."And contra the liberals who keep saying I am maintaining this belief in the face of <em>overwhelming evidence</em>..."<br /><br />Uh, that would be Susan, who noted that McMegan's claim was SWAG (<a href="http://agonyin8fits.blogspot.com/2009/08/mcardle-admits-her-anti-health-care.html" rel="nofollow">and not good SWAG at that</a>), or maybe <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2009/08/30/rationing-again-for-all-ponies-there-is-some-pony-such-that-you-wont-get-that-pony/" rel="nofollow">John Holbo</a> (whose understanding of logic, philosophy, and reasoning isn't "practical" enough for her libertarian sensibility, it seems) or <a href="http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/another-reason-why-my-doctor-tells-me-the-nation-shouldnt-read-megan-mcardle/" rel="nofollow">Thomas Levenson</a> or John Cole (who linked to Levenson) or here?<br /><br />I can't even claim to have called her an idiot; all I did was cite <a href="http://www.healthaffairs.org/press/julaug0912.htm" rel="nofollow">a press release from <em>Health Affairs</em> entitled "Europe Has Expanded Its Lead Over The United States In Pharmaceutical Research Productivity</a>" and left conclusions about her argument to the reader.Ken Houghtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440837287933536370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-32872347400970966482009-09-01T22:42:34.271-04:002009-09-01T22:42:34.271-04:00I can read very fast, and there's no actual co...I can read very fast, and there's no actual content in it to pause and consider, just lots of Megan framing her own dingleberries on her wall.bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06907349163323395529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2048715035467766557.post-81435653389175958512009-09-01T22:39:18.018-04:002009-09-01T22:39:18.018-04:00No way you read that! You're just ad libbing! ...No way you read that! You're just ad libbing! Not that there's any chance you're wrong, but still!NutellaonToasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09524357022370926931noreply@blogger.com