The initial individual's response didn't understand the point, but seemed clear they had watched and understood the clip, yet didn't get where I was taking it. That's why I responded as I did, with a little more detail than how I responded to the next reply by another individual.
I figured as much, but instead of people having to drag the explanation out of you, you should explain it, and then you can question how/why they didn't understand how what was said in the clip correlated to the point you were making.
The second, main individual, based on where your quotes are coming from, just happens to be the one who was recently making demands of me to give them what they wanted if I wanted a response. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing, logically, since the entire thing revolved around the clip?
Is this still about the topic you started with your initial China comment after seeing the video? Or are you referring to something that began before you made that comment? If so, you'd have to point me to the relevant posts, because that doesn't sound familiar.
Proper etiquette would have them, at the very least, watch the clip first. Wouldn't they agree?
Do you think it's proper to give them an 11 minute video without a timestamp to search through just to find a few specific seconds?
If you had typed it out, it would take them a few seconds to read, and there would be no confusion about what you were referring to.
Is it "80% of our antibiotics come from China"?
Or "China is a top producer of *insert various medical related things*"?
The first is just one medicine. And the second is very vague, as top producer could mean they supply USA with 1% more than the second closest country.
And if someone guesses what you're referring to, chances are you'd reply with "Nope, that's not it. Watch the video again and you'll understand."
And you did. "Where did you get that from? He nor I am under that impression. Maybe you should watch the clip."
You could go on like that the whole time, until someone posts a script of every single word Tucker said that was related to healthcare, and ask you to point it out. And at that point you've wasted their time by an extraordinary amount given how fast this really should have taken.
It's really not too much to ask of people to explain their positions.
After pointing out they didn't watch or understand it, they simply replied with "then enlighten me", etc. After explaining it further, they then ask me to continue to explain, which I do, again.
Because you still haven't told anyone what specifically in that video that you based your comment on.
Everyone understands that you think USA will be in more trouble under Medicare For All if China cut off medical export. What they don't understand is why. And answering the question of "What specifically in that video are you basing this on?" is the first step in understanding this.
So for your next post, please specify the sentence/s from the clip that you based your argument on.
-That could be said about quite a few points made in posts in general, and while I don't entirely disagree, just because I take the time to explain it in my own words, still doesn't guarantee that someone else will fully understand it. If they have to ask anyway, which does happen, then you've spent a bunch of time initially explaining in detail for nothing, and will now have to try and explain it in another way, because refusing to would be unacceptable, correct?
-It was part of the prior conversation. Starts on pg 348 and beyond 351 where it leads to reposts, and ends at 354 I believe. There's more of what you were talking about in there that was coming from others, that's being pointed out to me to be an issue. I really don't care myself, as I just dealt with it at the time, but if you're going to point these things out, it should be done so, to at least everyone applicable. Nobodies perfect though, which is why I wasn't bothered earlier and didn't make a fuss.
-You left out my China is the best quote, which is only partially referring to the first quote you have. I was referring to more than just one specific thing. Someone else trying to argue with me about just one specific thing in this circumstance really doesn't work. If you look at what I was responding to initially, you'll see it's based on general China talk from the clip. Understanding where the anchor was coming from based on their talking points in the clip gives context into where I'm coming from.
-Guessing at how I would respond? That is really reaching, no? It's one thing if you're concerned about something I've said, but being concerned about how I could have or may converse in the future? I'm not going to try and change how people converse with me by guessing how they would likely react to me in the future or another timeline if it's not in a manner that would benefit me. They can say whatever they want to me as long as the mods don't have a problem with it, and if there's a problem, I would hope it applies equally to everyone.
-I only suggested they should watch the clip after numerous explanations. At first I pointed out that it didn't seem like they had watched the clip, but I didn't tell them they had to watch it initially and only ended up suggesting it later. I made an effort to start, and it didn't seem to be paying off. By getting them to watch it, it instantly was able to get us on track. I don't see the problem with that.
-Pg 358 I finalize my explanation since we're finally on the same page for the most part, which isn't questioned by them. I can only assume that means they are content as every other time my reply didn't suffice, they made sure to point that out. I didn't specify to begin with because I didn't see the need to, based on where I was going with what I initially said. If someone else expected something different, that's their problem, not mine. Next time I will make an attempt to be more clear, but pleasing the mob seems futile more often than not. Don't break my fingers Fat Tony!
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 22 February 2020