Orwellian politics

[JakeStarkey]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

 

[dblack]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

We're talking about the word games some people play with politics. That's the context. What does "deny access" really mean?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

We're talking about the word games some people play with politics. That's the context. What does "deny access" really mean?

If a woman has a right to get birth control from a pharmacy who services the public yet the pharmacy denies her "access" to the drug, then that is denied access. The states have the legal right to pass legislation that creates public laws to guarantee that right of access.

 

[bendog]

I thought of an example while at lunch (doing errands)

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

We're talking about the word games some people play with politics. That's the context. What does "deny access" really mean?

We're not talking Orwellian, and I realize you find the provision of a benefit to one group rather than another objectionable, and so do I, but in terms of language pushing alternative facts, I think you'd find clearer examples from the current house members who oppose taxing the more wealthy for universal "access" to HC, not to speak of the birthers.

 

[hadit]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

Let's put it this way. Can a woman who is not sold the morning after (not birth control) pill at one pharmacy go to another pharmacy and get it? If she can, then she is not "denied access to birth control". Words mean things. It's much like the complaints from artists that they would be "censored" if the government stopped paying them to produce bad art.

If you were to say, for example, that the woman was legally denied the morning after pill at a particular pharmacy, then you would be accurate in describing the situation. To say she is "denied access to birth control" is to use misleading, emotional language designed to create a false impression.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

Let's put it this way. Can a woman who is not sold the morning after (not birth control) pill at one pharmacy go to another pharmacy and get it? If she can, then she is not "denied access to birth control". Words mean things. It's much like the complaints from artists that they would be "censored" if the government stopped paying them to produce bad art.

If you were to say, for example, that the woman was legally denied the morning after pill at a particular pharmacy, then you would be accurate in describing the situation. To say she is "denied access to birth control" is to use misleading, emotional language designed to create a false impression.

No, if the PA laws prohibit it, as well they should.

Your type of argumentation is that used by those who want to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, and so forth.

 

[hadit]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

Let's put it this way. Can a woman who is not sold the morning after (not birth control) pill at one pharmacy go to another pharmacy and get it? If she can, then she is not "denied access to birth control". Words mean things. It's much like the complaints from artists that they would be "censored" if the government stopped paying them to produce bad art.

If you were to say, for example, that the woman was legally denied the morning after pill at a particular pharmacy, then you would be accurate in describing the situation. To say she is "denied access to birth control" is to use misleading, emotional language designed to create a false impression.

No, if the PA laws prohibit it, as well they should.

Your type of argumentation is that used by those who want to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, and so forth.

I''m not debating PA laws, I'm saying that using this language in this context is misleading.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

Let's put it this way. Can a woman who is not sold the morning after (not birth control) pill at one pharmacy go to another pharmacy and get it? If she can, then she is not "denied access to birth control". Words mean things. It's much like the complaints from artists that they would be "censored" if the government stopped paying them to produce bad art.

If you were to say, for example, that the woman was legally denied the morning after pill at a particular pharmacy, then you would be accurate in describing the situation. To say she is "denied access to birth control" is to use misleading, emotional language designed to create a false impression.

No, if the PA laws prohibit it, as well they should.

Your type of argumentation is that used by those who want to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, and so forth.

I''m not debating PA laws, I'm saying that using this language in this context is misleading.

No, it's not.

 

[dblack]

But that's not what we've been talking about. No one is talking about "denying women access to birth control AT THE MOMENT", are they? We've been talking about denying women access to birth control, period, which is what some are trying to insinuate this law does. In fact, it does no such thing, it merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of selling something. A woman may be inconvenienced, but is not in fact "being denied access to birth control". We can talk about the pros and cons of public accommodation laws, but it is a false premise to argue that this particular law denies women access to birth control. It does not.

It depends on what one means by "deny access". Which is the point of the thread. The term is used specifically because it isn't clearly defined, and those playing these games will avoid defining it to the bitter end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

 

[dblack]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

This isn't a PA debate. Troll on.

 

[hadit]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

In THAT pharmacy, with THAT pharmacist. She can still access birth control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

This isn't a PA debate. Troll on.

This is a PA and a CR debate, yes.

 

[dblack]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

This isn't a PA debate. Troll on.

This is a PA and a CR debate, yes.

No, it's not. It's a discussion about a deceptive tactic of persuasion. I suspect you're trying to derail it because "deceptive" is pretty much all you got. Tell us about how you earned your nickname, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you do that, dblack. The point of access in a pharmacy is customer and pharmacist.

This isn't a PA debate. Troll on.

This is a PA and a CR debate, yes.

No, it's not. It's a discussion about a deceptive tactic of persuasion. I suspect you're trying to derail it because "deceptive" is pretty much all you got. Tell us about how you earned your nickname, Fakey.

I suspect you keep moving the goal posts. Now you are saying it is "deceptive" only because you are getting your butt handed to you. Tough to be you, dblack.

 

[Redfish]

I thought of an example while at lunch (doing errands)

The false premise comes from Hadit and supported by dblack, who won't put their example into context.

We're talking about the word games some people play with politics. That's the context. What does "deny access" really mean?

We're not talking Orwellian, and I realize you find the provision of a benefit to one group rather than another objectionable, and so do I, but in terms of language pushing alternative facts, I think you'd find clearer examples from the current house members who oppose taxing the more wealthy for universal "access" to HC, not to speak of the birthers.

how much more do you want to tax high income people? They already pay most of the tax bill of the nation, while half of our citizens pay nothing into the federal coffers.

The problem is not lack of revenue, the problem is too much spending, the problem is pork (govt spending in order to get reelected), the problem is bribery (paying govt officials in exchange for favorable legislation), the problem is a congress that exempts itself from laws it passes on us.

 

[Dragonlady]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

 

[Redfish]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

"personal choice" in health care programs is a guide not a be all

 

[Dragonlady]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go home and get well.

Whether I work, or I don't, whether my employer has supplemental coverage or not, my basic health care is a given. No muss, no fuss, no pack drill.

THAT's freedom.