Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
When you are discussing new policies, you're comparing the policies themselves, and not the implementation of it. I don't know why this is straining your intellectual resources so much.
I'd have thought we were comparing the likely consequences of the policies when they are implemented. I don't really know what an a priori "good policy" is, separate from an implementation. The two seem directly connected. I get the idea of good vague concepts being bad when the specifics are implemented, but I don't think that is what you are talking about. If we consider Obamacare with all the thousands of pages of specifics specified, don't I call that policy - those pages all written down - good if it results in good things like better health outcomes when implimented?
Let's test this. I thought it was entirely standard speak to just speak about the policy like "Obamacare is bad because too many people lost their insurance" or whatever where the distinction between the "policy" and the "implementation of the policy" is just one we are not worried about. But let us see how you respond if I ask the question with different phrasing.
What is your view on t
he implementation of the policy of preventing women from being ordained in the catholic church?