|
On November 25 2018 03:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 03:49 iamthedave wrote:On November 25 2018 03:41 Jockmcplop wrote:I know the debate about health and costing in the US is very old, but its still absolutely shocking to me when I read stories like this one: https://truthout.org/articles/parents-deliver-ashes-of-diabetic-children-to-price-gouging-insulin-manufacturer/Alec Smith died 3 days before his payday because he had to ration his insulin, which cost him $1300 every 3 months. This is an INSANE price for something that so many people rely on to live. In the UK, insulin is free on the NHS, the people of our country get to live and the people of the USA have to die. For what reward? So that the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies can be slightly richer than they already are. What a totally fucking immoral system. People from literally any other point in time or location on Earth would agree with me surely. Location on earth, maybe, but point in time? Things were an awful lot worse if you wind the clock back a century or two. At one point most people believed that it was the genuine prerogative and right of the lord to good health, and the peasants had to rely on the will of god alone. You're probably right. Show nested quote +On November 25 2018 03:49 iamthedave wrote:
At least now most people are pissed off about it. And people being pissed off is at least the catalyst for change in a lot of cases. It strikes me as a straight up improvement that the ACA - flawed though it is - enjoys bipartisan support, which means that over time the government is likely to iteratively improve on it.
Maybe a bit of finger crossing going on there. GH, how well/bad does the ACA actually function? It sounds okay in practice, but I'm well aware that things usually sound an awful lot better than they function in the real world. You'd be shocked at the state of online discussion around this. The most common thing I've seen on twitter and reddit about this subject is "They put the hard work into making insulin, why should they be told to lower their prices?" and "The free market makes everyone's lives better so if these people need to die so be it" (not in those words exactly).
Oh no I'm aware of the other side of the argument, but I thought it was commonly known that the majority of US citizens are in support of an improvement to the healthcare system? That was the entire reason Trump's plan to repeal and replace the ACA petered out, because they realised it had too much support with their base once people started earnestly talking about what it meant to get rid of it.
So maybe 'most' was the wrong word, but by 'most' I meant 64% ish, I think that's the result I saw on the last poll I checked on the subject. Which is technically 'most', just not by a huge majority. I will stand corrected if polling on the topic has shifted more towards the negative of course.
I think it was telling that everyone fucking hated that Schkreli guy when really all he was doing was standard douchebag drug industry shenanigans. People know about it now, and the majority have decided that level of naked capitalism is too much naked capitalism.
|
I'm mostly past Bernie (to his left) but at least he's actually trying. Hopefully this time he gets enough Democrats to stop backing Saudi Arabia's ethnic cleansing campaign, then maybe, just maybe, we can move on to Israel's.
Rand Paul is mostly a grandstander but he's out front on Israel from Conservatives.
WASHINGTON – A Senate panel approved a bill on Tuesday endorsing a decade-long aid package to Israel brokered by the Obama administration.
The US-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 authorizes a memorandum of understanding negotiated in 2016 between the two governments which will provide Israel with $38 billion in military aid between 2019 and 2028.
A bipartisan majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the legislation, allowing it to proceed to the full Senate floor. The bill also authorized the president to establish a US-Israeli counter-drone program
The Israel advocacy group also pointedly celebrated the committee’s rejection of an amendment, proposed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, which called for phasing out aid to the Jewish state.
www.jpost.com
Looks most likely to be setting up another filibuster that will end in a bipartisan vote supporting Israels ethnic cleansing (if not genocide) of the Palestinian people.
I think we are going to need more communists if we're heading into another global war against fascism
|
Do you agree that peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible? If so, which side do you want to win out and why?
|
There was also the US lobbing tear gas at families on the border, the same tear gas many countries (including the US) won't even allow to be used in war, but is used frequently on domestic groups
+ Show Spoiler +The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention banned not only the use of chemical weapons in war but also the production and stockpiling of weapons for 193 signatories, she said.
Israel has signed but not ratified the convention. www.washingtonpost.comHey look, there's Israel again. Hopefully we don't start taking ques from their "border enforcement" where they shoot kids and doctors.
But I wanted to highlight another catastrophic failure of our "justice" system. It seems appropriate on the heels of Alabama police giving their 3rd version of what happened when they killed a "good guy with a gun" and then celebrated it and smeared him as a criminal. Meanwhile the person who the police were called to arrest is out on the streets armed and dangerous. And while they immediately spread the face of the victim of their racism and stupidity we're nearly a week later and have absolutely no information on the actual shooter.
I mention that because it turns out that even the scientists involved in criminology suck.
In a new study, 74 out of 108 crime laboratories implicated an innocent person in a hypothetical bank robbery.
Researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology gave the same DNA mixture to about 105 American crime laboratories and three Canadian labs and asked them to compare it with DNA from three suspects from a mock bank robbery.
The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.
When he was 18, he was told that his DNA matched DNA from a home invasion and kidnapping of a woman and her two daughters. He was advised that a jury would most likely believe the DNA, not him. Facing a life sentence at trial, he pleaded guilty to reduced charges in 2003.
Mr. Jackson spent nearly four years in a Nevada prison, until the crime lab realized it had accidentally switched his sample with another suspect’s tube. The lab apologized, and he was released from prison.
One shocking result from the new N.I.S.T. study is that labs analyzing the same evidence calculated vastly different statistics. Among the 108 crime labs in the study, the match statistics varied over 100 trillion-fold. That’s like the difference between soda change and the United States’ gross domestic product. These statistics are important because they are used by juries to consider whether a DNA match is just coincidence.
I first learned about the results of this study in 2014, at a talk by one of its authors. It was clear that crime labs were making mistakes, and I expected the results to be published quickly. Peer-reviewed publication is important, because most judges won’t let you cite someone’s PowerPoint slide in your testimony.
But years went by before the study was published, preventing lawyers from using the findings in court, and academics from citing the results in journal articles. If some of us had not complained publicly, it may not ever have been published.
www.nytimes.com
|
On November 27 2018 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Do you agree that peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible? If so, which side do you want to win out and why?
Yes. Humanity. Because I care about people.
|
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction.
|
On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction.
Are they? Pretty sure Palestinians wouldn't care much about Israelis if the West just put them in someone else's country and stopped sponsoring their genocide of Palestinians.
Hell, it'd be more peaceful than Chicago if Israel just stopped the settlements, open air prison, and Palestinians had reliable access to clean drinking water, let alone a full assortment of human and constitutional rights.
But you're right that humanity can't win so long as we're actively destroying it and those who show signs of it growing within.
|
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term.
|
On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term.
How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"?
Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution.
|
On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution.
Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity.
Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories.
I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500.
|
On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction.
This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide.
|
On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500.
So Israel is the one killing unarmed civilians by the hundreds while invading Palestine and building on top of them and your interpretation is that Palestinians are unable to coexist peacefully?
|
On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500.
I don't understand how anyone can side with the fundamentalist nutjobs running the Gaza strip.
|
On November 27 2018 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500. So Israel is the one killing unarmed civilians by the hundreds while invading Palestine and building on top of them and your interpretation is that Palestinians are unable to coexist peacefully?
Just for clarification. You think if Israel, tomorrow, stoped controlling access and completely left the Gaza strip in all forms, then there would be no hostilities towards Israel and peace would follow?
|
On November 27 2018 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500. So Israel is the one killing unarmed civilians by the hundreds while invading Palestine and building on top of them and your interpretation is that Palestinians are unable to coexist peacefully?
You're spending a wee bit too much of your post begging the question.
|
On November 27 2018 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500. I don't understand how anyone can side with the fundamentalist nutjobs running the Gaza strip.
I'm pretty sure most people side with the people that want to live their life in relative peace and freedom, not the nutjobs of either group. It's just I'm advocating peace (or at least not arming a genocidal regime), while others seem to be advocating occupation and genocide.
I contest that you can't slaughter Palestinians until only "peaceful" ones are left, danglars and xDaunt (to a lesser degree) seem to be implying (danglars pretty explicitly) it's the only option.
On November 27 2018 12:22 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 12:02 Danglars wrote:On November 27 2018 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2018 11:33 Danglars wrote:
Three months ago, the terrorist regime in the Gaza strip rained 170 rockets into Israel. Humanity wins if and when Israel decides to invade and occupy Gaza. The region is in a stupid game of high-tech pong. It might last for several more years, but it can't last in the long term. How many Israelis died from those rockets? How many unarmed Palestinian civilians did Israel kill "in return"? Also it's absurd to suggest genocide is a humane solution. Israelis clearly need to push more of their citizens in the paths of the hundred rockets to regain the moral high ground in the conflict. Then they might proudly return fire like good little members of humanity. Maybe the best outcome is the cessation of hostilities from the Gazan side, the ouster of Hamas, and the accession of a regime more disposed to coexist peacefully (which also does mean giving up on pushing the Jews into the sea). Lacking that, the best result from the side of humanity is Israel's administration of that land. The Gazan government have shown themselves to be too eager to sacrifice civilians for gains in public relations. The only absurd thing is siding with them in ongoing hostilities. Israel is currently content to give them marginal propaganda victories. I wonder what the real number of rockets is that will provoke a real response, and a big push from Israel's citizens to compel that response. It might be over 500. So Israel is the one killing unarmed civilians by the hundreds while invading Palestine and building on top of them and your interpretation is that Palestinians are unable to coexist peacefully? Just for clarification. You think if Israel, tomorrow, stoped controlling access and completely left the Gaza strip in all forms, then there would be no hostilities towards Israel and peace would follow?
If Israel was resettled in Europe or the US I can assure you any hostility (if any remained) of Israelis from Palestinians would be practically irrelevant.
|
On November 27 2018 12:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction. This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide.
I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point.
|
On November 27 2018 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:05 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction. This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide. I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point.
Fucking YIKES!
I thought I was nihilistic sometimes.
|
On November 27 2018 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2018 12:05 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction. This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide. I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point. Fucking YIKES! I thought I was nihilistic sometimes.
The world can be a pretty shitty and unforgiving place. Hobbes laid it out pretty well. Once this is understood, it becomes much easier to figure out who and what should be supported and why dismembering the liberal western world order is a catastrophically stupid idea.
|
On November 27 2018 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 12:05 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
Humanity isn't going to win out when two sides are bent on mutual destruction. This sounds pretty close to rationalization for genocide. I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point.
I think the last seventy years of the middle east and the current forecast for the region points to no real convergence of global values in the future centuries.
What chance is there for peace besides Israeli unilateral withdrawal/dissolution and a new Islamic caliphate in the region, or a bloody war that puts 1948, 1967, and 1973 to shame and destroys the will to fight for a hundred years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
