|
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 19 2012 04:34 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 03:59 Defacer wrote:
Even a robot like Romney, who seems to be as amoral and opportunistic a political sociopath as they come, is still subject to the morality of voters and society at large.
Romney would never run on a 'Let's kill poor people by denying emergency care' ticket, because he'd fucking lose.
It's in a politician's self interest to allow voters to be therr conscience, even if they don't have one.
I think a great solution would be to allow private charities and organizations allow to be hospitals, rather than deny them to take care of people who really need help. But that wouldn't work out, because Mr. Big Government Defacer would disapprove of having the government lose control.
It would seem you have a rather tenuous understanding of the hospital system in the United States, as it is an easily arguable position to suggest that it is precisely the lack of government involvement in healthcare that is the issue.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hospital
"A private hospital is a hospital owned by a profit company or a non-profit organisation and privately funded through payment for medical services by patients themselves, by insurers, or by foreign embassies. This practice is very common in the United States, France and Australia. In the United Kingdom, private hospitals are distinguished from the far more prevalent National Health Service institutions."
The current system is failing and costing us billions. Thanks Mr. Smarty Pants.
|
On June 19 2012 04:44 farvacola wrote:It would seem you have a rather tenuous understanding of the hospital system in the United States, as it is an easily arguable position to suggest that it is precisely the lack of government involvement in healthcare that is the issue. From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hospital"A private hospital is a hospital owned by a profit company or a non-profit organisation and privately funded through payment for medical services by patients themselves, by insurers, or by foreign embassies. This practice is very common in the United States, France and Australia. In the United Kingdom, private hospitals are distinguished from the far more prevalent National Health Service institutions." The current system is failing and costing us billions. Thanks Mr. Smarty Pants.
You are pretty damn thick. Obviously we already have private hospitals that are for profit.
I want to see more hospitals that are privately owned and operated by charities and organizations that have no interest in making money. These kind of people exist, but your stupidity would just rather see a hospital where doctors are followed by lawyers and government nannies that prevent people from getting the medical attention they need.
Also to actually say that more government involvement proves that you are completely inane of reason and sense.
I also really hope you do not vote or participate in the general public, you would physically stress me in the real world with your ignorance.
|
On June 19 2012 04:34 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 03:59 Defacer wrote:
Even a robot like Romney, who seems to be as amoral and opportunistic a political sociopath as they come, is still subject to the morality of voters and society at large.
Romney would never run on a 'Let's kill poor people by denying emergency care' ticket, because he'd fucking lose.
It's in a politician's self interest to allow voters to be therr conscience, even if they don't have one.
I think a great solution would be to allow private charities and organizations allow to be hospitals, rather than deny them to take care of people who really need help. But that wouldn't work out, because Mr. Big Government Defacer would disapprove of having the government lose control.
What-the-hell kind of tangent is that?
We were arguing about whether morality can/should shape policy. Ultimately, I would contend it does whether you like it or not.
You could try to argue, but it's like arguing how much better the world would be if it turned clockwise.
For the record, I wish there were more private/specialized healthcare options in Canada. I do like that most health care in Canada is socialized, because it keeps the overall cost of standard procedures, diagnostics and prescriptions down. But I think if a Canadian had the money to consult with a 1-in-a-million specialist or take a risk with an innovative but unproven procedure, they should be able to.
|
On June 19 2012 05:13 Defacer wrote:
What-the-hell kind of tangent is that?
We were arguing about whether morality can/should shape policy. Ultimately, I would contend it does whether you like it or not.
You could try to argue, but it's like arguing how much better the world would be if it turned clockwise.
For the record, I wish there were more private/specialized healthcare options in Canada. I do like that most health care in Canada is socialized, because it keeps the overall cost of standard procedures, diagnostics and prescriptions down. But I think if a Canadian had the money to consult with a 1-in-a-million specialist or take a risk with an innovative but unproven procedure, they should be able to.
Well the world doesn't turn, it rotates.
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 19 2012 05:13 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 04:44 farvacola wrote:It would seem you have a rather tenuous understanding of the hospital system in the United States, as it is an easily arguable position to suggest that it is precisely the lack of government involvement in healthcare that is the issue. From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_hospital"A private hospital is a hospital owned by a profit company or a non-profit organisation and privately funded through payment for medical services by patients themselves, by insurers, or by foreign embassies. This practice is very common in the United States, France and Australia. In the United Kingdom, private hospitals are distinguished from the far more prevalent National Health Service institutions." The current system is failing and costing us billions. Thanks Mr. Smarty Pants. You are pretty damn thick. Obviously we already have private hospitals that are for profit. I want to see more hospitals that are privately owned and operated by charities and organizations that have no interest in making money. These kind of people exist, but your stupidity would just rather see a hospital where doctors are followed by lawyers and government nannies that prevent people from getting the medical attention they need. Also to actually say that more government involvement proves that you are completely inane of reason and sense. I also really hope you do not vote or participate in the general public, you would physically stress me in the real world with your ignorance.
The truth can be stressful, especially when one starts arguing about something he obviously knows nothing about. You also can't seem to form cogent sentences, so I'll concede in this case, it's difficult to argue with fragmentary thoughts.
|
On June 19 2012 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually Romney said, early during the GOP nomination race, of self deportation which was stupid and he knew it. Then he actually mentioned National ID Cards which nobody seemed to notice, not even Ron Paul.
What exactly do these National ID cards do if Romney is dodgy on whether or not he will renew Obama's executive order issued work permits? Right now Romney is arguing for a long term solution as opposed to a short term solution, but many undocumented youths undoubtedly find the order to be an enormous and necessary relief. I'd say Obama's move has forced any further indecision on Romney's part to further alienate the Latino vote: what Romney suggests is to wait for a long term solution, which implies that each day he waits is another day undocumented youths drive without a license, go to school without financial aid, compromise their education due to not having financial aid, and get arrested/deported by ICE agents.
Oh god, Ron Paul. I still can't decide if he's naive about the issue or downright evil. His policy is, for the people here, let the Catholic church handle their health care if they show up in the hospital (worked great during the 1920's and 30's), and deport them if found. I can't take him seriously, especially on this issue. There is no justice in sending people back to an uncertain life in a country they haven't called home in over half a decade simply for not being in their mother's uterus when they were taken to the US. Even Romney acknowledges this as a problem (he supports long term reform, whenever that will come along) for all his flip floppiness.
|
On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued) People who argue this have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are (or, more likely, are conveniently ignoring rationality in favor of their beliefs). There is no right to not be offended (whether by gay marriage or anything else), and damaging the environment infringes upon the rights of others who share that environment. Simply put, you have a right to do anything you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (e.g. it does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others). Since gay marriage does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others, the government cannot legitimately ban it; inversely, since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it.
This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...
|
On June 19 2012 05:26 DocTheMedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 03:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually Romney said, early during the GOP nomination race, of self deportation which was stupid and he knew it. Then he actually mentioned National ID Cards which nobody seemed to notice, not even Ron Paul. What exactly do these National ID cards do if Romney is dodgy on whether or not he will renew Obama's executive order issued work permits? Right now Romney is arguing for a long term solution as opposed to a short term solution, but many undocumented youths undoubtedly find the order to be an enormous and necessary relief. I'd say Obama's move has forced any further indecision on Romney's part to further alienate the Latino vote: what Romney suggests is to wait for a long term solution, which implies that each day he waits is another day undocumented youths drive without a license, go to school without financial aid, compromise their education due to not having financial aid, and get arrested/deported by ICE agents. Oh god, Ron Paul. I still can't decide if he's naive about the issue or downright evil. His policy is, for the people here, let the Catholic church handle their health care if they show up in the hospital (worked great during the 1920's and 30's), and deport them if found. I can't take him seriously, especially on this issue.
I wonder how long Romney can delay addressing this issue, and whether or not Latinos will remember his lack of decisiveness in November.
I really think Romney is missing an opportunity here to show some leadership and gain traction with independents and moderates. I don't see too much risk with supporting a temporary solution.
|
On June 19 2012 05:31 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:42 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2012 15:21 Froadac wrote:On June 17 2012 14:40 smarty pants wrote:On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him. Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives. Generally that is the argument used. Banning gay marriage protects the rights of those that don't like it, environmental regulations intrude upon everyone's right to do whatever they want to the environment, but do not DIRECTLY intrude on the rights of individuals. (I don't agree, this is how it is generally argued) People who argue this have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are (or, more likely, are conveniently ignoring rationality in favor of their beliefs). There is no right to not be offended (whether by gay marriage or anything else), and damaging the environment infringes upon the rights of others who share that environment. Simply put, you have a right to do anything you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (e.g. it does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others). Since gay marriage does not impose a real harm or negative externality on others, the government cannot legitimately ban it; inversely, since damage to the environment does impose negative externalities, the government must regulate it. This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...
Oh please, by all means begin. I could use some BluePanther outrage right now.
|
On June 19 2012 05:24 farvacola wrote:
The truth can be stressful, especially when one starts arguing about something he obviously knows nothing about. You also can't seem to form cogent sentences, so I'll concede in this case, it's difficult to argue with fragmentary thoughts.
Sounds like you just gave up and a made a personal attack.
My personal attacks are behind reason.
Leave.
edit: Oh by the way, nice begging the question fallacy.
|
On June 19 2012 05:17 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 05:13 Defacer wrote:
What-the-hell kind of tangent is that?
We were arguing about whether morality can/should shape policy. Ultimately, I would contend it does whether you like it or not.
You could try to argue, but it's like arguing how much better the world would be if it turned clockwise.
Well the world doesn't turn, it rotates.
LOL!!!! Oh my god I haven't seen a post this funny in weeks. With the name and everything....
It's a shame that he probably doesn't have a long life here. I see potential comedic gold in the future.
|
On June 19 2012 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 05:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 19 2012 05:13 Defacer wrote:
What-the-hell kind of tangent is that?
We were arguing about whether morality can/should shape policy. Ultimately, I would contend it does whether you like it or not.
You could try to argue, but it's like arguing how much better the world would be if it turned clockwise.
Well the world doesn't turn, it rotates. LOL!!!! Oh my god I haven't seen a post this funny in weeks. With the name and everything.... It's a shame that he probably doesn't have a long life here. I see potential comedic gold in the future.
It's like arguing with a fifth grader. It amuses me the way my little cousins used to amuse me when they went through their "I-know-how-the-world-REALLY-works" phase in high school.
|
On June 19 2012 01:16 Saryph wrote:
Wouldn't not doing a morally correct action be considered immoral? It seems like it could be all about wording.
"freeing the slaves" would be considered morally correct, but would be costly to the economy (of the past) and the feasibility of all of those people hundreds of years ago suddenly being free had to have been difficult for the system.
But it would be immoral to not end slavery.
(this is just an example, obviously slavery is horrible etc etc)
I might not have been totally clear -- I meant that the government can't always do positive moral actions. Not that the government should never do positive moral actions. If nothing else, it comes down to limited resources. If each action "costs" a certain amount, then there is only so much that the government can do. It will have to say "no" to some things which may be good, but are too costly (and therefore would take away resources from other potential endeavors which may create more net good).
Slavery, in the US context, is an example of an immoral action which was done by the government. It was right to cease that action.
|
On June 19 2012 06:01 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 01:16 Saryph wrote:
Wouldn't not doing a morally correct action be considered immoral? It seems like it could be all about wording.
"freeing the slaves" would be considered morally correct, but would be costly to the economy (of the past) and the feasibility of all of those people hundreds of years ago suddenly being free had to have been difficult for the system.
But it would be immoral to not end slavery.
(this is just an example, obviously slavery is horrible etc etc) I might not have been totally clear -- I meant that the government can't always do positive moral actions. Not that the government should never do positive moral actions. If nothing else, it comes down to limited resources. If each action "costs" a certain amount, then there is only so much that the government can do. It will have to say "no" to some things which may be good, but are too costly (and therefore would take away resources from other potential endeavors which may create more net good). Slavery, in the US context, is an example of an immoral action which was done by the government. It was right to cease that action.
The problem is that the cost is a future event, and thus no one can predict with certainty what the cost (consequences) of an action may be. Slavery was regarded by many as immoral, but the argument was that slavery was a necessary evil. Many whites at the time feared the freed slaves, unrestrained by their masters, would regress from civility, take vengeance for their enslavement, and spark racial war; they feared the collapse of the lucrative slave market and their entire economy; they feared rampant mixing of blood that would infuse African uncivilized savagery into the white race. To risk all this, for a group of people they consider different: at best, separate but equal. These are repulsive justifications, yet half a century later, the movie "The Birth of a Nation," which portrayed these ideas as historic fact, was wildly popular and accepted in the country.
Arguments in favor of stricter immigration enforcement because it is a necessary price to pay to save the economy, to prevent further immigration, etc., are also susceptible to repeating this trend in history. We may not know the role providing legal pathways for the undocumented will play in our economy and society, in future immigration, etc., and we may not know for a century later. What we do know is that maintaining the current (until about a few days ago) immigration policy and relegating the issue of immigration for those whom the Dream Act targets as non-issue is immoral and demands immediate action.
|
On June 19 2012 07:32 DocTheMedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 06:01 Signet wrote:On June 19 2012 01:16 Saryph wrote:
Wouldn't not doing a morally correct action be considered immoral? It seems like it could be all about wording.
"freeing the slaves" would be considered morally correct, but would be costly to the economy (of the past) and the feasibility of all of those people hundreds of years ago suddenly being free had to have been difficult for the system.
But it would be immoral to not end slavery.
(this is just an example, obviously slavery is horrible etc etc) I might not have been totally clear -- I meant that the government can't always do positive moral actions. Not that the government should never do positive moral actions. If nothing else, it comes down to limited resources. If each action "costs" a certain amount, then there is only so much that the government can do. It will have to say "no" to some things which may be good, but are too costly (and therefore would take away resources from other potential endeavors which may create more net good). Slavery, in the US context, is an example of an immoral action which was done by the government. It was right to cease that action. The problem is that the cost is a future event, and thus no one can predict with certainty what the cost (consequences) of an action may be. Slavery was regarded by many as immoral, but the argument was that slavery was a necessary evil. Many whites at the time feared the freed slaves, unrestrained by their masters, would regress from civility, take vengeance for their enslavement, and spark racial war; they feared the collapse of the lucrative slave market and their entire economy; they feared rampant mixing of blood that would infuse African uncivilized savagery into the white race. To risk all this, for a group of people they consider different: at best, separate but equal. These are repulsive justifications, yet half a century later, the movie "The Birth of a Nation," which portrayed these ideas as historic fact, was wildly popular and accepted in the country. Arguments in favor of stricter immigration enforcement because it is a necessary price to pay to save the economy, to prevent further immigration, etc., are also susceptible to repeating this trend in history. We may not know the role providing legal pathways for the undocumented will play in our economy and society, in future immigration, etc., and we may not know for a century later. What we do know is that maintaining the current (until about a few days ago) immigration policy and relegating the issue of immigration for those whom the Dream Act targets as non-issue is immoral and demands immediate action.
This seems to be agreeing with what I said 
Before the late 1800s, it was (legally speaking) very easy for people to migrate to the United States. Things like the Chinese Exclusion Act, national quotas for immigrants, or deportations are examples of government actions that could be called immoral or at best morally questionable.
When I say "doing something moral" or "doing positive moral actions" I mean actively doing something that could be considered good. Say, providing free health care to poor people. That's a good thing, but it comes with costs you have to weigh it against.
On the other hand, ceasing to enforce slaveowners' "property rights" or ceasing to deport foreign-born children who peacefully live in our country isn't really providing people with anything. It's simply not doing something that isn't right.
|
On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way.
Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization?
|
On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization?
That's a kind of naive interpretation of the point of a government in my opinion, although the point of government is an interesting topic to discuss. In my opinion a government should exist to provide infrastructure, establish laws, and enforce laws. There are also issues like welfare, and public programs, but I don't necessarily think this should be the purpose of government to provide these services.
|
On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation
Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this.
I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however.
edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how.
|
On June 19 2012 09:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this. I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however. edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how.
Alright, fair enough. I think that a properly functioning government should allow outlets for individuals to create a better civilization. However, I do not think this should be the goal of a government.
And I don't know exactly why you think LIberalism is secretly utopian. Are you suggesting this because Liberals tend to favor heavier spending on public programs, and a utopian society can be created through public programs? I think it's a noble notion that Liberals are secretly striving to create a utopian civilization, and the republicans are foolishly hindering the progress of these liberal policies which will ultimately create a utopia, but do you really believe the world is that simple?
edit: and if you think Liberals are striving to create a Utopia, do you really think they would do so secretly?
|
On June 19 2012 09:27 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 09:17 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 09:15 Tewks44 wrote:On June 19 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 03:17 smarty pants wrote:On June 18 2012 15:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Shouldn't this be the goal of civilization? Civilization =/= government. Not to mention I would disagree either way. Isn't the point of government to make a better civilization? That's a kind of naive interpretation Do me the benefit of assuming my position is more complex than this. I think it is a question that is worth thinking about, however. edit: Liberalism is secretly utopian. consider how. Alright, fair enough. I think that a properly functioning government should allow outlets for individuals to create a better civilization. However, I do not think this should be the goal of a government. And I don't know exactly why you think LIberalism is secretly utopian. Are you suggesting this because Liberals tend to favor heavier spending on public programs, and a utopian society can be created through public programs? I think it's a noble notion that Liberals are secretly striving to create a utopian civilization, and the republicans are foolishly hindering the progress of these liberal policies which will ultimately create a utopia, but do you really believe the world is that simple? edit: and if you think Liberals are striving to create a Utopia, do you really think they would do so secretly?
It's not that we (conservatives/republicans) intend to block the creation of a utopia. Rather, we genuinely believe that the policies that liberals promote will lead to ruin, despite whatever good intentions that liberals have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
