Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Are you planning on providing evidence that Hillary is unwell? If so, when?
    I think I am still about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    For me, now I am paying a bit more attention.. maybe there is something to her health concerns and those raising it are not conspiracy nuts.
    There is some stuff out there, that you were clearly unaware of, but which causes me to do a double take.

    However, I do feel that any discussion would have to start with at least a willingness to do a double take. You don't seem to be there, so.. that is that. I don't see a need to go further than the first rejected premise in the discussion. Before it was "stuff happened", now it is "that stuff should be looked at again".

    If there is some other health event in the future, that you also accept as having occurred, then maybe it will rise to needing a double take.


    For a health older person, this is the reason I find the number of falls troubling
    If it effects your assement let me know.
    http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...dultfalls.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Each year, millions of older people—those 65 and older—fall. In fact, more than one out of four older people falls each year, but less than half tell their doctor.1 Falling once doubles your chances of falling again.2

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Falls Are Serious and Costly
    .......
    One out of five falls causes a serious injury such as broken bones or a head injury.3,4
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    What Conditions Make You More Likely to Fall?
    .....
    Difficulties with walking and balance
    To serve man.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is some stuff out there, that you were clearly unaware of, but which causes me to do a double take.

    However, I do feel that any discussion would have to start with at least a willingness to do a double take. You don't seem to be there, so.. that is that.
    I'll get there when you provide evidence that Hillary is unwell. Since you haven't done that yet, I'm not there yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For a health older person, this is the reason I find the number of falls troubling
    If it effects your assement let me know.
    It doesn't. I'm aware that older people are more likely to fall and be injured if they do fall. If I thought that that was the basis for declaring a person too unhealthy for office, I would have to hold that both Trump and Clinton are too unhealthy as were some Presidents of the past (like Reagan) as well as a significant number of current office holders throughout the country.

    Maybe it would help if we determine generally what kind of health concern is disqualifying. I would say that the health concern must either:
    1. Significantly hamper one's ability to lead effectively - alzheimers would be a prime example of that.
    2. Would likely result in the person not being able to complete a term of office - although even I knew for a fact that Clinton would not last for the entirety of her first term, I would still vote for her since Kaine would fill in and he's also preferable to Trump IMO.

    So the possibility that someone might fall down and hurt themselves really is not something that makes me think that they shouldn't be elected to office. Even if the next President broke his/her arm or leg in a fall, it probably wouldn't really effect decision-making so I don't consider this issue that significant.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I thought that that was the basis for declaring a person too unhealthy for office,
    I don't know if that is where this line of inquiry leads. I don't think we could possibly know that until we explore the questions.
    But you seem unnecessarily hostile to the idea at all, as though we must know the conclusion in order to ask the questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It doesn't. ..... So the possibility that someone might fall down and hurt themselves really is not something that makes me think that they shouldn't be elected to office.
    Indeed, and not something that has been forwarded. sooo.. I take this as general hostility to the entire line of questioning.
    If you decide to open up for the discussion then let me know. It is enough to know that for you there is no question as to any irregularity in the health events of Hillary.
    Maybe another health event would be what it takes to raise an eyebrow.
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't know if that is where this line of inquiry leads. I don't think we could possibly know that until we explore the questions.
    But you seem unnecessarily hostile to the idea at all, as though we must know the conclusion in order to ask the questions.
    I was under the impression that we are having a debate. That means that I take one side of the issue and you take the other side. If we are just going to explore questions and discuss without taking sides, then we should be in a Shooting the Breeze forum. So I'm not hostile but I am somewhat adversarial because, again, we are taking two separate sides in a debate - it's a competition of sorts.

    But I will say that my debate position is not significantly different than what I personally think. That's not to say that I'm 100% positive but I don't see much reason to think that what I believe has happened is incorrect.

    The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe, there's more than meets the eye is not enough to concern me.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Indeed, and not something that has been forwarded. sooo.. I take this as general hostility to the entire line of questioning.
    If you decide to open up for the discussion then let me know. It is enough to know that for you there is no question as to any irregularity in the health events of
    Hillary.
    No serious question anyway. I think I have a pretty good handle on what happened recently and I've seen no credible evidence that any prior events that you forwarded shows a health issue that should effect her ability to lead.

    Just spit-balling that maybe there's something else going on that I'm not aware is not enough to concern me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe another health event would be what it takes to raise an eyebrow.
    Or some evidence that she is unwell would do the trick also.

    And I may be wrong, and please feel free to correct me on this, but I don't think you are going to present any evidence that she is unwell. You seemed to have lowered the bar from "She is unwell" to "Maybe there's something fishy going on regarding her health claims". And that's not really a problem. We can draw the line there instead of where it was.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Or some evidence that she is unwell would do the trick also.
    If we are to take all that has occurred to her so far as nothing to even blink at, then why would we think she is unwell?
    If you hold an elderly person who has fallen and thus (per my quoted source previous) has doubled their chances of falling again, as equal to one who has not fallen, then why think you will be more reasonable with any other assertion?
    Surely such a person would simply be surprised by any new event, yet also see it as nothing to blink at.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You seemed to have lowered the bar from "She is unwell"
    Not at all. The bar is not moved. I want to know if she is unwell or not. There is a path to that question with some assumptions that one must share to engage in it. You don't share any of those assumptions.
    Certainly I would wish to change that, but I can't even get a rise of concern which I think to be self evident.

    For example, evidence #8 certainly hasn't caused you to see her generally unsteady nature. That piece reminds me very much of a grandmother. Yet. nothing interesting according to you.
    If it's not even interesting, then how would you recognize if it were evidence of some greater concern? Again, you don't even recognize her elevated risk of falling compared to anyone else her age that hasn't fallen.

    So your calls for evidence are met with the skepticism that anything will be viewed very reasonably.

    Just out of curiosity, how many more times would she need to fall before you would raise an eyebrow to the event? Just to get to the point of saying "Hey, maybe she is more prone to falling then every other elderly person who hasn't fallen"?
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If we are to take all that has occurred to her so far as nothing to even blink at, then why would we think she is unwell?
    I didn't say anything about blinking. I'm saying that what has been presented, whether one can blink at it or not, does not qualify as evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you hold an elderly person who has fallen and thus (per my quoted source previous) has doubled their chances of falling again, as equal to one who has not fallen, then why think you will be more reasonable with any other assertion?
    1. I never claimed that the chances are equal so your premise is false.

    2. A person having fallen once and therefore doubling one's chances of falling in the future is not an condition that would disqualify one for office as being unwell. That's not to say that I should not perhaps have more concern for her well-being than someone who never fell but regardless it does not constitute evidence that she is unwell. Heck, I'll even blink at it. Oh dear, Hillary might fall. (blink blink) That does not change that you have not shown that any of the falls are evidence of her being unwell.

    3. Attempting to discredit my arguments based on my personal aspects (like my supposed belief that the chances are equal) is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy. Please do not do this in the future. Attack the argument, not the debater.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Surely such a person would simply be surprised by any new event, yet also see it as nothing to blink at.
    I "blinked" when Hillary fell last Sunday. And then I heard an explanation that made sense and now I'm not blinking about it anymore.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. The bar is not moved. I want to know if she is unwell or not.

    There is a path to that question with some assumptions that one must share to engage in it. You don't share any of those assumptions.
    Certainly I would wish to change that, but I can't even get a rise of concern which I think to be self evident.

    For example, evidence #8 certainly hasn't caused you to see her generally unsteady nature. That piece reminds me very much of a grandmother. Yet. nothing interesting according to you.
    I didn't say it wasn't interesting. I'm saying that you have not shown that it, or any of the events you listed, constitute evidence that she is unwell. If you feel that that video shows that she is unwell and therefore counts as evidence, then make an argument to that effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If it's not even interesting, then how would you recognize if it were evidence of some greater concern? Again, you don't even recognize her elevated risk of falling compared to anyone else her age that hasn't fallen.
    Ad hominem attack. False Premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So your calls for evidence are met with the skepticism that anything will be viewed very reasonably.
    If you want to use that a reason/excuse for not presenting any evidence, that's up to you. But it still doesn't change the fact that you've presented no evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just out of curiosity, how many more times would she need to fall before you would raise an eyebrow to the event? Just to get to the point of saying "Hey, maybe she is more prone to falling then every other elderly person who hasn't fallen"?
    Considering that you have used things I've said or not said to wage personal attacks and ad hom arguments against me, I feel that giving you any personal information would just give you ammo for more of the same. So I decline to answer that question.

    And besides that, what I think doesn't really matter. There is a medical answer to how many falls in a period of time indicate that there is a real problem. So regardless of what I felt is or is not too many falls, I would based my argument on factual criteria regarding frequency of falls, not what causes me to blink.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    1. I never claimed that the chances are equal so your premise is false.
    I was not pointing to you denying the increase chance existed, I was pointing to the below

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN POST 42
    I'm aware that older people are more likely to fall and be injured if they do fall. If I thought that that was the basis for declaring a person too unhealthy for office, I would have to hold that both Trump and Clinton are too unhealthy as were some Presidents of the past (like Reagan) as well as a significant number of current office holders throughout the country.
    Here you equate one who has an increased chance of fallen with those who do not. Not in chances to fall but in health.
    That is an unreasonable conclusion on a very basic aspect. So my second point is not an attack on your person to disqualify your argument (an adhom).
    My attack is on your ability to recognize a relevant distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    3. Attempting to discredit my arguments based on my personal aspects (like my supposed belief that the chances are equal) is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy. Please do not do this in the future. Attack the argument, not the debater.
    Support or retract, and be sure to include the above explanation in your response.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Ad hominem attack. False Premise.
    Support or retract


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Considering that you have used things I've said or not said to wage personal attacks and ad hom arguments against me, I feel that giving you any personal information would just give you ammo for more of the same. So I decline to answer that question.
    Well, considering my argument so far has been that the volume of her health events (repeated falls) merit a second look, and you reject that premise..
    I think it fair to ask what is the level of proof that would at least for you create that merit.
    Of course you don't have to engage.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    There is a medical answer to how many falls in a period of time indicate that there is a real problem. So regardless of what I felt is or is not too many falls, I would based my argument on factual criteria regarding frequency of falls, not what causes me to blink.
    I'm going to have to challenge you to support this assertion.
    Is it specific or general?
    How many falls does it take to indicate that Parkinson or epilepsy is at play for example?
    Or is there some more general "concern" or suspicion, like "O we better do some tests, you just fell X number of times"


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you want to use that a reason/excuse for not presenting any evidence, that's up to you. But it still doesn't change the fact that you've presented no evidence.
    Shared premise is all that is needed.
    To serve man.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here you equate one who has an increased chance of fallen with those who do not. Not in chances to fall but in health.
    Okay. Let me correct my statement

    1. I never claimed that the a person who has fallen is equal in health to a person who hasn't fallen so your premise is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is an unreasonable conclusion on a very basic aspect. So my second point is not an attack on your person to disqualify your argument (an adhom).
    My attack is on your ability to recognize a relevant distinction.
    Which is a personal comment. And using my supposed inability (which is a personal aspect of myself) to discount my arguments is an ad hom fallacy. My arguments stand or fail on the merits of the content to my arguments. It is a logical fallacy to factor in anything about me as a person, including my supposed PERSONAL inability to recognize this or that. And that logical fallacy is what is known as an ad hom fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support or retract, and be sure to include the above explanation in your response.
    You are questioning any response I may have based on what you perceive as my personal characteristics. Here is your comment.

    "If you hold an elderly person who has fallen and thus (per my quoted source previous) has doubled their chances of falling again, as equal to one who has not fallen, then why think you will be more reasonable with any other assertion?"

    Again, whatever response I may give stands or falls on its own merits. Using any personal aspect of myself to go against my arguments or response to your arguments is an ad hom fallacy.

    If you find my personal aspects too troublesome for a debate, then you should consider not debating with me. But if you choose to debate, then you leave this stuff out of the exchange. It's completely, utterly irrelevant to the strength or weakness of my arguments.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, considering my argument so far has been that the volume of her health events (repeated falls) merit a second look, and you reject that premise..
    I think it fair to ask what is the level of proof that would at least for you create that merit..
    The level of proof that she is unwell that will get my attention is the level of proof that would qualify as evidence.

    Have I not made it abundantly clear that I'm asking for evidence? I've asked multiple times if you have evidence. And your responses fall far below that bar as you are talking about something that one might blink at or think that it might require another look. Something that might make me blink is below the bar of evidence. Something that might make me reconsider prior assumptions is below the bar of evidence.

    Am I incorrect in thinking that setting the bar at "worth a blink" or "worth a second look" is moving the goal post from "evidence that she's unwell"?

    Now, I'm aware that we can have miscommunications and maybe you have presented something as evidence I failed to recognize it for what it is.

    So I ask, in your next post, that you provide evidence (and already-submitted evidence is fine) and say clearly "this is evidence that she is unwell" when you present it. Will you do it? Yes or no.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm going to have to challenge you to support this assertion.
    Is it specific or general?
    How many falls does it take to indicate that Parkinson or epilepsy is at play for example?
    Or is there some more general "concern" or suspicion, like "O we better do some tests, you just fell X number of times"
    Your questions do not successfully challenge my assertion. Questions are not arguments and therefore do not qualify as challenging statements. If you are going to challenge my assertion, you will need to present an argument showing that my assertion is incorrect.
    Last edited by mican333; September 19th, 2016 at 08:37 AM.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Okay. Let me correct my statement

    1. I never claimed that the a person who has fallen is equal in health to a person who hasn't fallen so your premise is false.
    Then I do not understand your statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Which is a personal comment. And using my supposed inability (which is a personal aspect of myself) to discount my arguments is an ad hom fallacy.
    Exactly what argument of yours do you think I am attacking?
    Because I have not. You would say that I have yet to offer an argument, yes?
    Then what argument in response have you given that needs rebuttal?

    I have done 2 things.
    1) Established some agreed facts.
    2) Asked if these facts by their very existence and nature bring about a need for further examination.
    You have said no.
    So without that shared assumption, I simply ask.. why go further?
    I don't find your lack of interest or curiosity very reasonable. So where is the common ground to have a discussion? If repeated falls, resulting in broken arms, concussions etc don't constitute reasonable evidence to ask more probing questions because they do not in themselves justify a second look, then the question is fair as to what kind of evidence just that low level burden would take. For certainly you would hold a higher burden on a greater health claim. Yes?

    I want to work from common ground, but there is non that I see.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Have I not made it abundantly clear that I'm asking for evidence?
    The first point in my argument, is that the evidence so far provided on it's face deserves a closer look.
    I have offered evidence to support that. (namely the events listed, which before hand you didn't even recognize as having occurred).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your questions do not successfully challenge my assertion.
    They were not challenges to your assertion. The challenge was for you to support your assertion. The questions were just that, questions.
    You should know that, you have twice now confused questions as argumentation. Your assertion actually hits on the very first step in any discussion on this topic.
    I have asked you what would be enough for the second proposition, you have claimed there is a medical standard to be reached..I am simply asking you to provide it.. you know so I know where to start in a discussion with you.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Am I incorrect in thinking that setting the bar at "worth a blink" or "worth a second look" is moving the goal post from "evidence that she's unwell"?
    I would say so. Because if the evidence provided so far doesn't even merit a second look, then how could it be evidence that she is unwell?
    I think I asked that question several times.

    Do you have a problem with the second point having a lower bar than the total argument?
    I mean really, What is the point in a greater discussion if it isn't even worth further investigation to begin with?
    To serve man.

  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have done 2 things.
    1) Established some agreed facts.
    2) Asked if these facts by their very existence and nature bring about a need for further examination.
    You have said no.
    Correct. Now if you think that I should have a different answer to that question, you should explain why I should say yes instead of no. So far, as far as I can tell, the reason you provided is so we can find common ground and continue having the debate. But I don't see why I should concede a point that I sincerely disagree with just to make it easier for you to make your argument.

    If there's something in that evidence that indeed shows that the common assumptions regarding Hillary's health are incorrect and the issue should be re-opened, then provide evidence that that something exists. Otherwise I will maintain that I see no reason to reexamine my current assumptions.

    I don't challenge what you said regarding that one who falls has a greater risk of falling in the future. But I don't see how that warrants further examination. It doesn't give me any information that surprises me or causes me to reassess any prior assumptions (I never held the belief that someone fell is just as healthy as someone who doesn't).

    So what specifically in there warrants further investigation.

    Beyond the falling down thing, you seem to be saying "trust me. It's there". So what in there is evidence? Show me.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't find your lack of interest or curiosity very reasonable. So where is the common ground to have a discussion? If repeated falls, resulting in broken arms, concussions etc don't constitute reasonable evidence to ask more probing questions because they do not in themselves justify a second look, then the question is fair as to what kind of evidence just that low level burden would take.
    These falls have taken place years apart and from what I can see that they all have individual, unrelated explanations. So I see no reason to think that something else is up.

    That might be subjective on my part but then likewise the position that these things do warrant further investigation is also subjective.

    Maybe you should consider that this "further investigation" tact for your argument will not work. If I subjectively agree that there is something worth investigating, then I will concede this issue. If not, then you need to provide some kind of objective standard, such as information from valid links, to make your case.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I want to work from common ground, but there is non that I see.
    In other words, you want me to concede certain premises that you hold. I won't do that because:
    1. I sincerely do not share those premises nor have you provided evidence that the premises are correct.
    2. As a debater, I have no requirement to concede a premise just because you hold it.

    Nor would the premise that maybe something fishy is going on is not evidence that she is unwell. Considering that she may be unwell due to distrust of the official answers regarding her health is spit-balling, not evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have asked you what would be enough for the second proposition, you have claimed there is a medical standard to be reached..I am simply asking you to provide it.. you know so I know where to start in a discussion with you.
    But I'm not interested in discussing where the standard is. I'm just telling you that I would use a medical standard or some kind of support to determine where the frequency of falls is unusual. I will concern myself with learning what that standard is when it becomes necessary to support my argument to provide it.

    And please keep in mind that you asked me where I would set the bar out of "curiosity". You made a request to satisfy your curiosity (you claimed that anyway) and were not challenging any of my arguments when you asked where I'd set the bar. So I have no need to support my answer for my answer is not part of my argument - I was just responding to your request.

    If you want to reject my answer, then reject it. But I'm not going to give you a different answer in its place. Instead you'll just have to settle for not receiving an answer that you liked.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say so. Because if the evidence provided so far doesn't even merit a second look, then how could it be evidence that she is unwell?
    Do you have a problem with the second point having a lower bar than the total argument?
    I mean really, What is the point in a greater discussion if it isn't even worth further investigation to begin with?
    This isn't a discussion - it's a debate. You can approach your side of the issue however you want and trying to start off with getting me to think "maybe something is fishy" is just one way to do it. And while I don't trust Clinton 100% and don't think it's above her to lie about her health if she is less healthy than she lets on, I see nothing that you've presented that shows that she's too unhealthy or that she might have a condition that I'm not aware of and should look into.

    That's what I think. And even if I didn't think that, I could still reject for the sake of not giving up ground in a debate (but while allowable I'm not for debating like that).

    So there you go. I don't agree that we particularly need to take a harder look nor am I going to accept it without evidence that it is so. If you want to use that as the basis of your argument, then you need to support the position that the concerns are worthy of a second look. Again, I have no obligation to just agree with a point of yours.

    The best I can offer is the concede particular point for the sake of argument. If you want to take me up on it, then I will concede, again, for the sake of argument, that the fact that Clinton fell last weeks means that we should reexamine assumptions on her health. Will that suffice?
    Last edited by mican333; September 20th, 2016 at 08:05 AM.

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Correct. Now if you think that I should have a different answer to that question, you should explain why I should say yes instead of no.
    Well, I have no desire to make that case at this time. My reasons for that are irrelevant to any debate.
    You can consider any "case" you feel I have made to be withdrawn.

    If some other health event occurs then I may change my mind, but if none does then any case that could be made would be, as far as I am concerned, false or not very good.
    To serve man.

  12. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  13. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I have no desire to make that case at this time. My reasons for that are irrelevant to any debate.
    You can consider any "case" you feel I have made to be withdrawn.

    If some other health event occurs then I may change my mind, but if none does then any case that could be made would be, as far as I am concerned, false or not very good.
    Okay. So it seems that currently the notion that she is unwell is unsupported here and the debate is resolved (unless a new event happens in the future or new information appears).

    So I will assume that we are done here, at least for the time being.

    Have a good one. Until next time...

  14. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  15. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    But obviously if she has a health problem that's severe, she can't be President so "able to be President" is a valid bar to set.

    And outside of the conspiracy circles, I see no real evidence that she is sick in the latter way.
    She's had 3 blood clots already, at least one in her brain. She suffers from deep vein thrombosis. At 68, those are extremely serious medical issues.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    She's had 3 blood clots already, at least one in her brain. She suffers from deep vein thrombosis. At 68, those are extremely serious medical issues.
    "Extremely serious medical issues"? Is that your own medical diagnosis or do you have support for this from a valid medical source?

    I'm not saying those things are nothing at all - clots can be deadly. But with my limited medical knowledge, I know clotting issues can be treated with blood thinners (which she is on) and therefore does not necessarily hamper one's ability to be President. The same maybe goes for thrombosis.

    So again, I haven't seen supported evidence that she's too unwell for office.

  17. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    "Extremely serious medical issues"? Is that your own medical diagnosis or do you have support for this from a valid medical source?
    My sister is a board-certified ER physician, who is also a liberal democrat. Her opinion was that Clinton likely has serious health risks due to these factors.

    I'm not saying those things are nothing at all - clots can be deadly. But with my limited medical knowledge, I know clotting issues can be treated with blood thinners (which she is on) and therefore does not necessarily hamper one's ability to be President. The same maybe goes for thrombosis.
    I'm not a medical professional, but my understanding is that while an individual clot might not be a problem, having 3 (including a brain clot) puts you at a pretty serious risk of stroke, and being on permanent blood thinners isn't great for a 68 year old white woman.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  18. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  19. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    My sister is a board-certified ER physician, who is also a liberal democrat. Her opinion was that Clinton likely has serious health risks due to these factors.
    But how does this show that she is too unhealthy for office? A "risk" doesn't mean that one is currently unhealthy but that there's a chance that she could suffer some significant health event in the future. And then one must figure out what the odds of something happening is and what the likely outcome would be if a typical event did occur. And since Hillary is assumedly being treated for whatever conditions she may have (such as taking blood thinners to alleviate the risk of clot problem), it's not unreasonable to think that the risk is very small.

    I'm not saying I know this but just saying there's a "risk" doesn't mean that she is too unhealthy for office.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm not a medical professional, but my understanding is that while an individual clot might not be a problem, having 3 (including a brain clot) puts you at a pretty serious risk of stroke, and being on permanent blood thinners isn't great for a 68 year old white woman.
    And I'm not saying that these things aren't nothing at all. But I don't see how your guesstimates based on limited medical knowledge equate support that she is too unhealthy for office. And I'm not saying that I know better.

    But I will say that any actual medical professionals that I've heard from, like Hillary's doctors, seem to think that she is healthy enough for office. You and I spit-balling based on our limited medical knowledge doesn't really give one reason to think that her doctors are wrong or are lying.
    Last edited by mican333; September 23rd, 2016 at 08:50 AM.

  20. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But how does this show that she is too unhealthy for office? A "risk" doesn't mean that one is currently unhealthy
    That's absurd. If someone has a 99% chance of dying in the next 3 days, you'd give them a clean bill of health?

    [/quote]but that there's a chance that she could suffer some significant health event in the future. And then one must figure out what the odds of something happening is and what the likely outcome would be if a typical event did occur. And since Hillary is assumedly being treated for whatever conditions she may have (such as taking blood thinners to alleviate the risk of clot problem), it's not unreasonable to think that the risk is very small.[/quote]

    The risk of a 68 year old dying of stroke after having 3 clots, including a brain clot, is not "very small". Going on blood thinners is not a risk-free course of treatment for a 68-year old.

    I'm not saying I know this but just saying there's a "risk" doesn't mean that she is too unhealthy for office.
    I agree. There are certainly acceptable health risks for presidential candidates. Significant risks of stroke or bleeding out (due to blood thinners) are not insignificant risks.

    And I'm not saying that these things aren't nothing at all. But I don't see how your guesstimates based on limited medical knowledge equate support that she is too unhealthy for office. And I'm not saying that I know better.
    Really? Because it sure seems like you don't think there's any problem at all. You sure seem to be portraying the risks of stroke or bleeding out as being extremely minimal.

    But I will say that any actual medical professionals that I've heard from, like Hillary's doctors, seem to think that she is healthy enough for office. You and I spit-balling based on our limited medical knowledge doesn't really give one reason to think that her doctors are wrong or are lying.
    Any politician will be able to find a medical professional that will give them the thumbs-up.

    And I'll say that the medical professional I talked to had significant concerns about Clinton's health. So your vague impressions about the medical community's consensus on the issue isn't a particularly relevant data point.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  21. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    That's absurd. If someone has a 99% chance of dying in the next 3 days, you'd give them a clean bill of health?
    Of course not. If you can show that Clinton has a 99% chance of dying in the next 3 days, I will concede that she is indeed too unhealthy for office.

    Not only is "99% in 3 days", by any sane standard, an indication of someone who has severe health problems, it's also (and this is important) incredibly specific. If you want to support a not quite as extreme, but just as specific, example of Hillary's odds of having an incapacitating health event (like 50% within four years), I will also say that you've made your case.

    But when your "evidence" is both vague and based on anecdotal evidence, it's not valid support.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    The risk of a 68 year old dying of stroke after having 3 clots, including a brain clot, is not "very small". Going on blood thinners is not a risk-free course of treatment for a 68-year old.
    That claim is vague (what exactly qualifies as "not very small"?) and unsupported.

    Seriously, what are the odds of this causing real problems within four years? Can you support that it's greater than, say, .1%? If so, please do.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I agree. There are certainly acceptable health risks for presidential candidates. Significant risks of stroke or bleeding out (due to blood thinners) are not insignificant risks.
    Support or retract that Hillary has a significant risk of stroke and please define what a "significant risk" is.

    And from my knowledge of blood thinners (and I have personal knowledge) the odds of her bleeding out is not at all significant. For example, one would not bleed out from the kind of cut that would require a few stitches.

    So unless you spell out, and support, what kind of additional risk it "too much" and show that this applies to Hillary, you aren't really saying anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Really? Because it sure seems like you don't think there's any problem at all. You sure seem to be portraying the risks of stroke or bleeding out as being extremely minimal.
    Saying that you have not supported your argument is not the same as saying that the exact opposite of your argument is true. So no, I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Any politician will be able to find a medical professional that will give them the thumbs-up.
    That's true. But that does not mean that any particular medical professional who has been quoted is lying. If you are going to say that someone is lying, you will need to provide evidence that this is so.



    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    And I'll say that the medical professional I talked to had significant concerns about Clinton's health. So your vague impressions about the medical community's consensus on the issue isn't a particularly relevant data point.
    My impressions are not vague. I've read direct quotes from them and likewise read articles about her health in mainstream news sources (which do mention the health issues that you have brought up but aren't nearly as alarmist about their implications).

    Your source, on the other hand, is incredibly vague. You have apparently talked to some people who you think know what the are talking about. It does not rise above anecdotal evidence which not valid support on ODN.
    Last edited by mican333; September 23rd, 2016 at 04:05 PM.

  22. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    Looking for some data point on blood thinners and thrombotic events (like Hillary had). Not easy to find, but then I really am not the best searcher.
    This is as close as I have found so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In a relative survival analysis, our cohort of LA positives showed a persistently worse survival in comparison with an age-, sex-, and study-inclusion-year–matched Austrian reference population. The cumulative relative survival was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.5-98.8) after 5 years and 87.7% (95% CI, 76.3-95.6) after 10 years. We conclude that occurrence of a thrombotic event is associated with higher mortality in patients with LA.
    http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/125/22/3477

    Not an argument, just a data point. Clearly it isn't 99% of death in next 3 days (we all understand it is an example), but it is significant. 76% survive after 10 years.. or for 10 years.. or however it should be understood.. honestly don't know.
    I know they listed her specific medication before, so maybe that would be a better search.

    Other link
    http://www.lifeextension.com/protoco...d-clot/Page-01
    To serve man.

  23. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Is hillary Clinton not physically well?

    I vaguely remember the Democrats making somewhat of a big deal over Reagan's health due to his age. So, I do not think health issues are outside the realm of normal political discourse.

    I will say that if Republicans are playing this card, then they are going down a rabbit hole of idiocy. With all the substantive issues about Hillary which could be addressed this should be left as one of those subliminal issues. Not specifically addressed by the Trump campaign. Allowed to kind of float around without specificity. In the back of the minds of some voters, maybe it will sway them at the box. In all honesty, if health was a key issue, the Democrats would have nominated John Edwards or Anthony Weiner. Younger politicians full of, er, spunk....
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  24. Likes Sigfried liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by : So the Clinton scandal is real.
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: November 8th, 2016, 08:47 AM
  2. Hillary Clinton vs. Democrat Party
    By princefigs in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 5th, 2008, 06:07 AM
  3. Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton: Paul Wins?
    By market state in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2007, 06:07 AM
  4. "hillary clinton 4 prez"
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Politics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: August 26th, 2006, 09:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •