When engaging in a political debate on Facebook last night, someone was making the claim that they're fearful of Obamacare. He never stated why he felt this way, but attempted to defend his position by saying, "I've read the bill."
I've heard this a lot over the past year or two. When debating with someone about healthcare reform or about Constitutional rights, without giving any specifics, one party will declare, "Well, I've read the bill!" or "I've read the Constitution!" and that's the end of their argument.
What, do these people want a cookie? A gold star? What exactly? Do they truly feel that just by saying they read a particular document, it means they know everything pertaining to said document and no one else will be able to match their level of education regarding it? If this is the case, why do they suddenly end the debate when they're asked to point out specifics regarding the document which they claimed to read and know inside and out (around, through, etc.)?
Here's how such a debate typically goes I've found:
Beelzebub: "I hate Obamacare!"
Lois: "What do you hate about it?"
Beelzebub: "Hey, I've read the bill, okay?"
Lois: "Okay, so what do you hate about it?"
Beelzebub: "I don't have the time to go over all that with you. Have a nice day. Buh-bye now."
While I'm sure there is a minority of people who has read Obama's 906-page healthcare reform bill in its entirety, I'm guessing that percentage is well under 1% of the total population. Just because person has said they've read a bill doesn't make it so and even if they did, that doesn't mean they understand it all too well.
In high school English class, when being quizzed on a book written by Shakespeare, if a child answered most every question incorrectly and was talked to by the teacher in light of this, would the teacher have given said student an "A" if when the teacher asked what happened, the student replied with, "Look - I read the book, okay?" I don't think so. Did the teacher provide the class with a one-question test on the book, which simply asked, "Did you read the book? Check either 'Yes' or 'No.' If you answer 'No,' you will be given a 0% and if you answer 'Yes,' you will be given a 100%"? I highly doubt it.
I'm guessing that 9 out of 10 times when a person declares they read a particular bill, they either haven't or have but don't understand it very well and want to give off the illusion that they're overly-educated on the subject, so much so that the other individual(s) won't be able to understand where they're coming from since they haven't read said documents like they have. What they're really showcasing, however, is that they haven't a clue of what they're talking about and are doing everything in their power to avoid a debate, which would likely paint them as being anything but overly-educated.
I have to laugh when imagining this kind of behavior in other situations, such as the following:
Bernice: "What the hell is this?"
Joseph: "What does it look like? Hot pockets."
Bernice: "I gave you instructions on how to make Jambalaya."
Joseph: "I looked at the recipe, okay? Are you happy?"
Jan: "I'm not at all happy with you right now!"
Chip: "What? Why?"
Jan: "How in the world could you have forgotten your twin sons' birthday?"
Chip: "I don't know what you're complaining about! I saw the calendar, alright?"
Brandy: "So, are you ready to try out some of those positions from the Kama Sutra book?"
Mitt: "You know it, baby. Which position would you like to try?"
Brandy: "The very first one."
Mitt: "Oh yeah! Excellent choice! Give me a moment to get prepared." ::situates himself::
Brandy: "Why are you dressed like a pirate and attempting to do a handstand against the wall while yodeling?"
Mitt: "I read the book! Geez..."
http://www.leadertelegram.com/blogs/tom_giffey/article_c9f1fa54-d041-11e1-9d01-0019bb2963f4.html
I've heard this a lot over the past year or two. When debating with someone about healthcare reform or about Constitutional rights, without giving any specifics, one party will declare, "Well, I've read the bill!" or "I've read the Constitution!" and that's the end of their argument.
What, do these people want a cookie? A gold star? What exactly? Do they truly feel that just by saying they read a particular document, it means they know everything pertaining to said document and no one else will be able to match their level of education regarding it? If this is the case, why do they suddenly end the debate when they're asked to point out specifics regarding the document which they claimed to read and know inside and out (around, through, etc.)?
Here's how such a debate typically goes I've found:
Beelzebub: "I hate Obamacare!"
Lois: "What do you hate about it?"
Beelzebub: "Hey, I've read the bill, okay?"
Lois: "Okay, so what do you hate about it?"
Beelzebub: "I don't have the time to go over all that with you. Have a nice day. Buh-bye now."
While I'm sure there is a minority of people who has read Obama's 906-page healthcare reform bill in its entirety, I'm guessing that percentage is well under 1% of the total population. Just because person has said they've read a bill doesn't make it so and even if they did, that doesn't mean they understand it all too well.
In high school English class, when being quizzed on a book written by Shakespeare, if a child answered most every question incorrectly and was talked to by the teacher in light of this, would the teacher have given said student an "A" if when the teacher asked what happened, the student replied with, "Look - I read the book, okay?" I don't think so. Did the teacher provide the class with a one-question test on the book, which simply asked, "Did you read the book? Check either 'Yes' or 'No.' If you answer 'No,' you will be given a 0% and if you answer 'Yes,' you will be given a 100%"? I highly doubt it.
I'm guessing that 9 out of 10 times when a person declares they read a particular bill, they either haven't or have but don't understand it very well and want to give off the illusion that they're overly-educated on the subject, so much so that the other individual(s) won't be able to understand where they're coming from since they haven't read said documents like they have. What they're really showcasing, however, is that they haven't a clue of what they're talking about and are doing everything in their power to avoid a debate, which would likely paint them as being anything but overly-educated.
I have to laugh when imagining this kind of behavior in other situations, such as the following:
Bernice: "What the hell is this?"
Joseph: "What does it look like? Hot pockets."
Bernice: "I gave you instructions on how to make Jambalaya."
Joseph: "I looked at the recipe, okay? Are you happy?"
Jan: "I'm not at all happy with you right now!"
Chip: "What? Why?"
Jan: "How in the world could you have forgotten your twin sons' birthday?"
Chip: "I don't know what you're complaining about! I saw the calendar, alright?"
Brandy: "So, are you ready to try out some of those positions from the Kama Sutra book?"
Mitt: "You know it, baby. Which position would you like to try?"
Brandy: "The very first one."
Mitt: "Oh yeah! Excellent choice! Give me a moment to get prepared." ::situates himself::
Brandy: "Why are you dressed like a pirate and attempting to do a handstand against the wall while yodeling?"
Mitt: "I read the book! Geez..."
http://www.leadertelegram.com/blogs/tom_giffey/article_c9f1fa54-d041-11e1-9d01-0019bb2963f4.html
Comments
Post a Comment