|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On November 12 2009 14:23 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 14:15 motbob wrote:On November 12 2009 14:10 Undisputed- wrote:On November 12 2009 12:44 Mystlord wrote:On November 12 2009 11:28 Undisputed- wrote:On November 12 2009 10:11 motbob wrote:On November 12 2009 10:05 Undisputed- wrote:On November 12 2009 09:33 L wrote:There are hundreds of factors The biggest one might be your health care system. Think about it. Health care is the least of our worries. Our president destroyed the dollar and hasn't stopped campaigning for himself or other democrats since he has taken office. LOL you think Obama's the one to blame for the current weak money supply? First of all, he doesn't have any control over monetary policy. Second of all, if you think it's his fault the deficit is so high, let me educate you: + Show Spoiler + Bush was terrible, Obama is terrible. Bush went on a spending spree and Obama is continuing it. I think its funny when people hate bush and love obama when obama = bush for all intensive purposes. So much for that change. ??? Don't equate TARP and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They're two completely different bills that had two completely separate goals. Obama hasn't done any other big "spending sprees", so please elaborate on why you think that TARP and the stimulus is the same. They both spent a lot of money and both support big government. That is how they are the same. Republicans nowadays are a shadow of what the party used to be. The presidential election was pretty terrible for conservatives if McCain is the best they can come up with. 2012 can't come soon enough. If the recent NY election is an indicator of the direction the Republican party is trying to go, it's going to be tough for you guys in '12. New York is and always will be blue, it's sad because I live there. Virginia my friend is a better indicator. edit: Don't forget New Jersey either 
New Jersey? If Corzine won I would have murdered everyone in New Jersey. Like seriously =_=.
On November 12 2009 14:50 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 14:16 jalstar wrote:On November 12 2009 11:39 TanGeng wrote:On November 12 2009 09:33 L wrote:There are hundreds of factors The biggest one might be your health care system. Think about it. ----- second of all.... if I only had a choice between a pure socialistic health care system and the health care system of the US as it is going right now, I would choose a socialist one. It would be a tough decision, but the future of the US health care system looks really really bleak. I think this is a good idea, scrap the system for a government one and then slowly re-introduce free-market incentives, sort of like the voucher idea for education that never got off the ground. A few pages back you said that government shouldn't handle health care or education. I disagree, because poor health care and poor education is better than none at all. The difference between liberals and the rest of us is that liberals seek to drive the free market out of health care and education, while everyone else realizes that no government program will reach market levels of effectiveness. Sounds civil enough. I'll take the bait. 1 - I would argue that once government has total control of a market place, there is no repeatable mechanism in our current political system to get them out - not that the US health care industry currently bears any resemblance to a free market. The US government is only digging its claws in further. 2 - Unfortunately, compared to an individual mandate, socialism is the lesser of two evils. Individual mandates!! Seriously, if US went from total socialism to individual mandates, that would be the definition of neoliberalism privatization that koreasilver was railing on and on about. We're ending up in the same hellish place - yet this is something to cheer about? 3 - Voucher system is what Europe has for its school systems at the primary and secondary level. Their primary and secondary public systems are on average far better than in the US. Schools systems are generally least effective where the teacher's union is strongest and most effective where the parents are most influential. Competition is my highest priority in elementary and secondary schools. I would compromise just for this much because good elementary and secondary schools are about 10x more important than universities. 4 - I am against public funding for college and universities. If you walk around many campuses in the US today, most of those students shouldn't be there. They would be better served honing their work ethic, testing out their entrepreneurial talent, or developing some trade skill. There is also a glut of well educated individuals majoring in studies that have no applications. Talking to my contacts in Europe, they have that problem except people are much much more highly educated.
1 - Since when? Post WWI and WWII eras were great examples of how we pulled out. And I would caution you to doubt the power of lobbyists.
2 - Well I'd say socialism is the way to go in terms of health care because health care doesn't conform to the normal standards of free market capitalism at all, but that's another debate.
3 - I wouldn't say that. Take a look at Japan, which has a relatively strong teachers union, but they're pretty much at the top of the world in terms of education. However, I would note some key differences such as the ratio of public to private schools as well as government funding and focus on education. It's just been a lack of focus on the curriculum and regulation that has caused our education system to be so messed up.
4 - I am definitely not against public funding for universities. Yes, I recognize the need for private universities, and they are essential, but the problems that you state in our public universities stem from a poor primary and secondary education.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
1. I talked about WWII. I can discuss. I'm not sure what you mean by doubting the power of lobbyists. Lobbyists control government policy and therefore a corporate lobby would logically use the regulatory power of government against competitors - right? Why would lobbies retreat government regulatory scope?
2. ... ok... I agree it's another debate.
3. In Japan, middle schools operate on a magnet school system style. Then after that, all Japanese high schools cost money to attend. In both those stages there's far more competition over public and private funds than in the US. Beyond that there is cultural difference in work ethic.
4. Europe doesn't have the secondary school problems of US, but they have an extreme glut of college educated individuals and most of them are woefully underemployed. I don't see the benefit of this excess education. It's not like the universities are teaching these students civics. Their educations isn't all that applicable in wider society.
|
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem?
|
On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem?
show us empirical evidence that the current system in the US is free market based~~!!!!
|
On November 12 2009 02:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 23:51 Not_A_Notion wrote:Edit, ooh took the bait, so I will repost On November 11 2009 22:40 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
Interesting. It has been quite some time since I have seen someone declare so openly and with such clarity that they are quite simply a deeply unpleasant human being. Ha Ha, Such Philosophical Harshness is refreshing. I would suggest, Arb, that you pay heed to the edited version of his post and actually look up what Nietzschean philosophy entails (Nietzche is my favorite philosopher because of his non-dogmatism and the sheer insight of his views). Such a philosophy is basically undercuts "You should". The point is that normative statements are vacuous, often borne of the psychological make up of the individual who makes such declarations, you are in essence arguing over nothing these past however many pages. Nietzsche' philosophy is not out and out egoist because he despises pity, it is rather a call to replace "You should" with "I will" (as in "I will it so"). I think 2 quotes sum up his philosophy for me (of course there is no 1 single interpretation of Nietzsche that would be patently missing the point). "The noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not (or hardly) out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power" Beyond Good and Evil. "The way? This is now my way. Where is your? Thus answered I those that asked me "the way". For the way, it does not exist" Thus Spake Zarathustra. Oh, I am quite familiar with Neitzschean philosophy, I just think it has very little weight. Raimond Gaita once told me that he thought the most appropriate response to a true utilitarian was "a kind of urbane condescension". I think a similar response is appropriate for anyone who endorses the kind of "ethic" under discussion here, to be honest.
That is indeed your prerogative, and it wasn't until a later edit that he mentions Nietzsche specifically. Though can't that approach be applied to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you?
Just to clarify what I was trying to say was that such strength motivated arguments aren't necessarily as unpleasant as they appear, I am sure you have seen lOvOlUNiMEDiA's post that suggests that Social democracy may well be the strongest and therefore best, of course its a suggestion not an outright declaration, I don't want to put words in his mouth.
I am keeping my own personal views on healthcare and indeed all politics to myself.
+ Show Spoiler +Indeed Nietzsche himself often condones a rejection of politics, a point of view well argued here
|
Just wanted to dip into this thread to try and stop people justifying absolute selfishness with Nietzsche's philosophy.
A lot of people read Beyond Good and Evil, and think they have understood Nietzche, and that he says there is no right and wrong, and socialist ideas have been utterly bankrupted. This really fails to pick up on his subtlety. Fortunately, in Daybreak he states things a bit more clearly
"It goes without saying that I do not deny - unless I am a fool - that many actions called immoral ought to be avoided and resisted, or that many called moral ought to be done and encouraged - but I think that the one should be encouraged and the other avoided for other reasons than hitherto. We have to learn to think differently - in order at last, perhaps very late on, to attain even more: to feel differently." Nietzsche, Daybreak, p. 103.
As someone said earlier, Nietzsche was reacting to his time. He was searching for a new morality. He was not justifying absolute selfishness. Sort it out guys 
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 12 2009 21:12 Not_A_Notion wrote:
That is indeed your prerogative, and it wasn't until a later edit that he mentions Nietzsche specifically. Though can't that approach be applied to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you?
It could but only in relatively few cases would it be remotely justified.
Just to clarify what I was trying to say was that such strength motivated arguments aren't necessarily as unpleasant as they appear, I am sure you have seen lOvOlUNiMEDiA's post that suggests that Social democracy may well be the strongest and therefore best, of course its a suggestion not an outright declaration, I don't want to put words in his mouth.
Whatever the merits of your claim generally it certainly does not hold in this case. I think lOvOlUNiMEDiA's post which sparked this pseudo-philosophical discussion makes that fairly clear. One is going to struggle to argue that an ethic which endorses "So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!" is "not as unpleasant as it appears".
My original response to him was addressed in the straightforward language of everyday moral discourse for a reason, to stress that his views (assuming they are honestly held, which is an interesting question in itself) put him radically outside the boundaries of anything which resembles moral understanding.
The point I had in mind was originally made by Bernard Williams when he said (I think in his paper on ethical consistency) that our concept of an admirable moral agent could not be very far from that of a decent human being. I hope you now see why I responded in the way I did and the relevance of that point to lOvOlUNiMEDiA.
|
On November 12 2009 22:29 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 21:12 Not_A_Notion wrote:
That is indeed your prerogative, and it wasn't until a later edit that he mentions Nietzsche specifically. Though can't that approach be applied to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you? It could but only in relatively few cases would it be remotely justified. Show nested quote +Just to clarify what I was trying to say was that such strength motivated arguments aren't necessarily as unpleasant as they appear, I am sure you have seen lOvOlUNiMEDiA's post that suggests that Social democracy may well be the strongest and therefore best, of course its a suggestion not an outright declaration, I don't want to put words in his mouth. Whatever the merits of your claim generally it certainly does not hold in this case. I think lOvOlUNiMEDiA's post which sparked this pseudo-philosophical discussion makes that fairly clear. One is going to struggle to argue that an ethic which endorses "So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!" is "not as unpleasant as it appears". My original response to him was addressed in the straightforward language of everyday moral discourse for a reason, to stress that his views (assuming they are honestly held, which is an interesting question in itself) put him radically outside the boundaries of anything which resembles moral understanding. The point I had in mind was originally made by Bernard Williams when he said (I think in his paper on ethical consistency) that our concept of an admirable moral agent could not be very far from that of a decent human being. I hope you now see why I responded in the way I did and the relevance of that point to lOvOlUNiMEDiA.
Well sure fair enough as the man says.
He doesn't need me to argue his corner, I don't know how I put myself in that role anyway,(probably why I suck at chess and um BW) think I had a knee jerk "if it's something to do with Nietzsche it can't be all bad.
Though I stand by my reference to one of his posts above as evidence of the contingent possibility(Please pay attention to that very important qualification) of power-ethic prescriptions agreeing with some more traditional ethical prescriptions.
I'll be quiet now.
EDIT 2- Emphasis added also the word "some" is added to clarify.
EDIT 3- Well I've broken my word on this.
|
Though I stand by my reference to one of his posts above as evidence of the contingent possibility of power-ethic prescriptions agreeing with more traditional ethical prescriptions.
If anything, they're contradictory. You say that Nietzsche was searching for a "new morality" and then you say that he agreed with traditional ethical prescriptions. Even if we accept this as disagreement on fundamentals and agreement on particulars, all that should mean would be that Nietzsche discovered a new way of thinking about morality while leaving traditional morality itself intact. In other words, he is irrelevant to any debate outside the confines of moral philosophy.
This thread at least suggests the contrary.
Anyhow, wouldn't Nietzsche have held his disciples in contempt? After all, they're treating his doctrines as truth.
|
On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem?
Socialized health care is bad for America for a number of reasons from lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives. Socialized health care is un-American and unconstitutional. If you don't have insurance it is nobody's fault but your own, get your priorities straight.
I believe Americans aren't so weak that they need the government to cling to. Why should the American taxpayer or anyone for that matter pay for you involuntarily?
Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one.
|
Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one.
I must correct you there. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our version of the Bill of Rights):
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
|
On November 12 2009 23:55 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem? Socialized health care is bad for America for a number of reasons from lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives. Socialized health care is un-American and unconstitutional. If you don't have insurance it is nobody's fault but your own, get your priorities straight. I believe Americans aren't so weak that they need the government to cling to. Why should the American taxpayer or anyone for that matter pay for you involuntarily? Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one.
while I feel people need to take more responsibility these days you have obviously never experienced or even been around hard times at all in your life. In Michigan you cant get a job with health insurance atm because no one will hire you full time especially if you are older. My father is 62 and his company he worked for for 27 years went bankrupt about 6 years ago. He found a new job worked there for 5 years and then was laid off about a year ago. Hes 62. Hell be working forever. Someone his age isnt going to get hired very easily so what is he supposed to do? We have insurance from unemployment for the time being thankfully, if not wed be in debt and fucked. Luckily my parents own our house so we dont have to worry about mortgage payments or anything. My neighbor is an amazing guy who sold pot and got caught and went to prison for 2.5 years (I think he had some priors when he was in his early 20's) he cant get a job anywhere. His wife had a child at 16 and consequently has no education. She cant get a good paying job anywhere either. What the fuck do you expect these people to do? You think McDonalds is goign to give them health insurance let alone enough hours to pay for their mortgage? They probably cant even afford an apartment.
You honestly have no idea what its like to live in Michigan especially if you worked in Manufacturing or the Auto industry here.
|
Well so much for keeping quiet. Just want to clear up what I meant.
If anything, they're contradictory. You say that Nietzsche was searching for a "new morality" and then you say that he agreed with traditional ethical prescriptions. Even if we accept this as disagreement on fundamentals and agreement on particulars, all that should mean would be that Nietzsche discovered a new way of thinking about morality while leaving traditional morality itself intact.
If I may put my point into a more structured form.
Proposition: Strength based ethical systems are not necessarily unpleasant ( I was referring to necessity in the strongest possible way)
1. It is possible (though not necessary)(Hence the use of contingently) for strength based ethical systems to suggest some courses of action that are consistent with more traditional ethics IN SOME CASES. (This is due to the ambiguity of the concept of Strength as a holistic scientific concept, until it is understood fully the possible predictions of such systems are ambiguous)
2. Prescriptions from traditional ethical models are, for the most part, pleasant.
Hence it is possible (though only contingently) for strength based ethical models to give prescriptions that are agreeable to us.
Analogously it is possible for such models to make ABSOLUTELY horrific prescriptions.
In other words, he is irrelevant to any debate outside the confines of moral philosophy.
Yes, imho, other people here who disagree are of course free to do so. Note I refer to "strength based ethical systems" not "Nietzschean ethics" to reflect that these models are based on interpretations of his work, apologies for the ambiguity. You will see in my posts that I don't use Nietzschean philosophy to argue for/against particular health care systems.
This thread at least suggests the contrary.
Well others are entitled to their opinions.
Anyhow, wouldn't Nietzsche have held his disciples in contempt? After all, they're treating his doctrines as truth.
Yes, well that is my reading, hence my previous post explicitly saying I don't consider myself a "Nietzschean". lOvOlUNiMEDiA's interpretation is different to mine.
I hope this clarifies where I am coming from.
To be honest I regret saying anything now, I have muddied the water substantially.
|
On November 13 2009 00:08 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 23:55 Undisputed- wrote:On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem? Socialized health care is bad for America for a number of reasons from lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives. Socialized health care is un-American and unconstitutional. If you don't have insurance it is nobody's fault but your own, get your priorities straight. I believe Americans aren't so weak that they need the government to cling to. Why should the American taxpayer or anyone for that matter pay for you involuntarily? Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one. while I feel people need to take more responsibility these days you have obviously never experienced or even been around hard times at all in your life. In Michigan you cant get a job with health insurance atm because no one will hire you full time especially if you are older. My father is 62 and his company he worked for for 27 years went bankrupt about 6 years ago. He found a new job worked there for 5 years and then was laid off about a year ago. Hes 62. Hell be working forever. Someone his age isnt going to get hired very easily so what is he supposed to do? We have insurance from unemployment for the time being thankfully, if not wed be in debt and fucked. Luckily my parents own our house so we dont have to worry about mortgage payments or anything. My neighbor is an amazing guy who sold pot and got caught and went to prison for 2.5 years (I think he had some priors when he was in his early 20's) he cant get a job anywhere. His wife had a child at 16 and consequently has no education. She cant get a good paying job anywhere either. What the fuck do you expect these people to do? You think McDonalds is goign to give them health insurance let alone enough hours to pay for their mortgage? They probably cant even afford an apartment. You honestly have no idea what its like to live in Michigan especially if you worked in Manufacturing or the Auto industry here.
There are a lot of people who can afford health insurance but would rather spend their money on something else. Under the current system they could qualify for medicaid.
|
Let me put my point in a different way, friends:
What reason could we have to, together, discuss the "right" or "true" morality?
And yet, while the impetus for coming together in communication is present in my opponents --- otherwise they would have said nothing -- the great inertia behind their spirit forces them to push me away with the forked tongued remark that I am indecent.
But my position is that somewhere amongst their disdain for my posts they see themselves -- they see their own desire to be strong -- even if presently they cannot divorce that notion from the intoxicating pull of pity.
And so I pity the pitiers because "they know not what they do." And I feel the temptation to berate myself for not "saving" them with my abundance of force.
But my projects have my loyalty. And I will not bend before their boots -- before their fundamental instinct: revenge.
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA, you probably don´t have many friends. You probably don´t have a lot of love in your life, and you´ve pushed yourself away from society, away from normal, happy, loving people.
Your own self-pity for your social isolation leads to your heartless, hatefull ideas about ´weak´ people. You want to justify your antisocial lack of compassion. It´s not going to work. A society of solely soulless, chillingly rational people like yourself will not work. It will consume itself and leave behind a trail of destruction and pain.
Go ahead and live your self-justified life, but don´t try to tell us we are blind for not following you.
|
you philosophy guys are too much lol holy shit
|
Let me put my point in a different way, friends: Why? Because your premises were shown to be unsatisfactory?
What reason could we have to, together, discuss the "right" or "true" morality? I bolded the answer to your question.
|
On November 12 2009 23:55 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem? Socialized health care is bad for America for a number of reasons from lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives. Socialized health care is un-American and unconstitutional. If you don't have insurance it is nobody's fault but your own, get your priorities straight.I believe Americans aren't so weak that they need the government to cling to. Why should the American taxpayer or anyone for that matter pay for you involuntarily? Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one.
Stop throwing around bullshit phrases. Obviously "the American way" isn't working very well. Also, I can't believe you are trying to use religion in your argument at all. Religion is one of the leading promoters of ignorance and intolerance throughout history, and has absolutely no place in governing society. Oh, and if you think it's always the person's fault for not having something, then you are a spoiled, rich asshole that is completely clueless about actually having difficulties throughout life and you shouldn't have a place discussing how our government should be run either.
|
On November 13 2009 01:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 23:55 Undisputed- wrote:On November 12 2009 20:54 RoyW wrote:
It's almost as if the extensive post demonstrating that socialised healthcare, as it exists in other western nations, is not only vastly more economically sound that the free market implementation that exists in the US but produces better results and service on average than thge US, was completely ignored.
Aside from idealistic theory, can you produce some empirical evidence that shows that free-market for profit healthcare provides cheaper service while keeping the opportunity for all the populice to have obtainable access to health services.
Also, it has been shown that free-market healthcare lowers the rates at which people will attempt early diagnoses. Generally speaking, the later the diagnosis, the more expensive it is to treat a health problem. Whether this cost is handled by the government or insurance companies(which will be passed onto customers - see massive premium rise over past decade), is there any demonstration of how the free market would tackle this problem? Socialized health care is bad for America for a number of reasons from lack of choices, to poor quality, to waiting lines, to increase in government control over our lives. Socialized health care is un-American and unconstitutional. If you don't have insurance it is nobody's fault but your own, get your priorities straight.I believe Americans aren't so weak that they need the government to cling to. Why should the American taxpayer or anyone for that matter pay for you involuntarily? Socialized medicine might be ok for Euros and the Canadians. Their Constitutions don't guarantee freedom "under God". They have spent most of the last century preparing themselves for a master, and they are well suited for one. Stop throwing around bullshit phrases. Obviously "the American way" isn't working very well. Also, I can't believe you are trying to use religion in your argument at all. Religion is one of the leading promoters of ignorance and intolerance throughout history, and has absolutely no place in governing society. Oh, and if you think it's always the person's fault for not having something, then you are a spoiled, rich asshole that is completely clueless about actually having difficulties throughout life and you shouldn't have a place discussing how our government should be run either.
I don't believe in religion, I put under god in quotes because for me I'll take that as humans have rights and freedoms they are inherently born with.
Explain how the American way "isn't working well" and how an alternative would work better.
I'm a spoiled, rich asshole because I have a job and pay for my own healthcare. K w/e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2009/0610-leonhardt/0610-web-leonhardt.gif)
