May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023Liked by Adrian Gaty
"Merited impossibility" is a useful term, combining as it does, elements of the several logical fallacies it so handily describes. We could envision a parlor game entitled "name that fallacy" in which every player describing a different fallacy answers the question correctly.
I mean.. ya got yer motte-and-bailey, yer ad hominem, yer appeal to emotion and, well, the list just goes on and on and on.
Regarding the departing physicians, if their employment was involuntarily terminated, so be it. On the other hand, if they departed by choice, it would seem that their interest in pediatric care may not have been purely medical, by which I mean that when one avenue of treatment proves impossible for whatever reason, a physician truly dedicated to patient welfare would ordinarily be expected to seek other treatments, not quit their practice.
DANG, I don't have time to read all of this now -- on my way to Austin tomorrow. Yippee.
I used to read Rod all the time (& got to know him personally several years ago.) So YES his "Law of Merited Impossibility" to speak on the negative end. But we also need a positive Law for when "Something Completely Unnecessary" is founded ahead of time. The very early 1980s parents now look like geniuses for starting a legally recognized Home School Movement. You can't 'homeschool' in places like Germany.
Quick note: my local metropolitan rag reports this morning: "Texas Children's beginning [...] phaseout CEO expects months of 'painful' changes"
This article makes its case poorly. We all understand that left-wing people lie constantly, and the lie that they tell here is that laws against mutilating children are laws "banning health care", just as laws preventing transgender indoctrination mean "don't say gay".
They lie about everything so that they can get angry based on belief in those lies. In some cases, it's movement leaders telling the lie and the masses believing it; in other cases, the people telling the lies and the people believing them are the same people.
Regardless, they wholly reject the premise that these laws do what they do. They substitute wildly different implications, then rail against them.
"Merited impossibility" is a useful term, combining as it does, elements of the several logical fallacies it so handily describes. We could envision a parlor game entitled "name that fallacy" in which every player describing a different fallacy answers the question correctly.
I mean.. ya got yer motte-and-bailey, yer ad hominem, yer appeal to emotion and, well, the list just goes on and on and on.
Regarding the departing physicians, if their employment was involuntarily terminated, so be it. On the other hand, if they departed by choice, it would seem that their interest in pediatric care may not have been purely medical, by which I mean that when one avenue of treatment proves impossible for whatever reason, a physician truly dedicated to patient welfare would ordinarily be expected to seek other treatments, not quit their practice.
DANG, I don't have time to read all of this now -- on my way to Austin tomorrow. Yippee.
I used to read Rod all the time (& got to know him personally several years ago.) So YES his "Law of Merited Impossibility" to speak on the negative end. But we also need a positive Law for when "Something Completely Unnecessary" is founded ahead of time. The very early 1980s parents now look like geniuses for starting a legally recognized Home School Movement. You can't 'homeschool' in places like Germany.
Quick note: my local metropolitan rag reports this morning: "Texas Children's beginning [...] phaseout CEO expects months of 'painful' changes"
This article makes its case poorly. We all understand that left-wing people lie constantly, and the lie that they tell here is that laws against mutilating children are laws "banning health care", just as laws preventing transgender indoctrination mean "don't say gay".
They lie about everything so that they can get angry based on belief in those lies. In some cases, it's movement leaders telling the lie and the masses believing it; in other cases, the people telling the lies and the people believing them are the same people.
Regardless, they wholly reject the premise that these laws do what they do. They substitute wildly different implications, then rail against them.
Excellent article at the Federalist Sir, thank you. ⚡️👍🏻