If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
This is entirely incorrect.
Some parts of economics are very scientific in nature. Such as the law that inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon. This is actually not hard to demonstrate using some simple axioms and very basic mathematics. Intuitively it makes sense that the value of an item of type X decreases if the amount of items of type X increases.
Of course there are areas where human behavior comes into play and then it's not so easy. But keep in mind that all behavioral sciences are just abstractions on top of physics, chemistry and biology. Therefore there is nothing strange about economics other than that it is much harder.
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
I don't see how I have anything wrong when my post pretty much agrees with everything in your first paragraph. I never claimed economic theory is a natural science, all I was claiming is that it could be slightly more empirical then it is (when it comes to the neo-classical tradition).
What the debate is about is what freedom is. Different people have different conceptions of freedom, which leads to different political priorities and different conceptions of what inhibits or constricts freedom. Coming from my perspective (european social liberal(ish)), I see welfare and government provided healthcare as enabling freedom. I believe that when people have more freedom when they do not have to worry about basic social needs. This is an ideological difference between you and me, and one that we will not be able to resolve. I am fine with that.
However, what you need to be fine with is that if ideas about rights and freedoms are socially constructed, there is no such thing as a single truth, and the right thing (more or less) is the product from our respective democracies. You can try to convince me of your side of the argument, but you don't get to discredit it on the basis of all government intervention being illegal.
There needs to be an actual debate between both sides on why they feel that on a specific issue their approach is the best. I don't flat out reject all markets, I don't flat out accept all government interventions. This debate needs to be based not only on ideological arguments, which only leads to yes-no 'debates', but also on practical (empirical ones). My problem with libertarian ideology is that it only argues on ideological ones, refusing to accept that other viewpoints are legitimate or even reasonable.
For example, social security is supported by the vast majority of Americans, in the range of over 80%, (source). It is considered a right by most of them, and it was the outcome of a legitimate political debate. Who are the remaining 10% to enforce their will on the vast vast majority? At what point are you allowing the one guy that hates cars to block all infrastructure spending? There'll always be relative 'winners' and relative 'losers' in society, but it's the compromise that gets made by society as a whole that allows it to function in the first place.
Your world where groups are dependant on charity to survive is just as despicable to me as my world with government handouts is to you. Why does your worldview have to become practice when so so many people oppose it?
On January 06 2012 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:17 MethodSC wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
"Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust"
The most I learn about this guys, the most despicable he seems to me. The fact anybody can support someone like that just puzzles me.
So because the title of these articles include "isolationism" in them, they should instantly be perceived as such. I doubt you've even read these articles yourself. Listen to what the man says and you will see he's not an isolationist. Sure we can go into theoreticals about the holocaust, but the fact of the matter is none of that matters TODAY. The fact is you either vote for Ron Paul and he gets us out of the wars and tries diplomacy or you vote for anyone else and can expect a war with Iran. I'm not here to change anyones mind, that is the individuals job for themselves.
Also, if someone directly went against the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is that not despicable? Always remember NDAA and The Patriot Act.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. It's not the Bible, and it was written two hundred years ago when the context was absolutely different than now. When you guys realize that when your constitution was written electricity hadn't been invented and America was full of Indians, it would improve your political thought.
Now on topic.
You see, I gave you respected sources including the Washington Post and even one of you libertarians guys saying Ron Paul was isolationist. So I guess it's not that stupid and doesn't really disqualify me for discussion, as you said earlier. That's all I wanted to prove.
Now, if you are ready to vote for someone who say that America should have let the jews burn in Nazi's oven during the war because of his dumb non interventionist mantra, good for you. I'm sure you can find better arguments than saying that "none of this matters today". It perfectly does, by saying what kind of mad idealist he is.
I have an idea, I'll follow it to the most extreme and apply it in any circumstances, anytime, no matter what. That's the exact definition of an extremist: someone who focus on one theoretical thought with a manic constancy, and is ready to let millions of Jews burn if a Hitler is in power, to let poor people get gangrene and die if they break a leg, to let poor kids not get an education if their parents can't afford it for them, in order to follow his dumb surrealistic mad idea of fantasy "freedom".
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
This is entirely incorrect.
Some parts of economics are very scientific in nature. Such as the law that inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon. This is actually not hard to demonstrate using some simple axioms and very basic mathematics. Intuitively it makes sense that the value of an item of type X decreases if the amount of items of type X increases.
Of course there are areas where human behavior comes into play and then it's not so easy. But keep in mind that all behavioral sciences are just abstractions on top of physics, chemistry and biology. Therefore there is nothing strange about economics other than that it is much harder.
Funny that economists don't agree and that their predictions as just as reliable as reading the future in a coffee cup. Notice also that one of France most respected economist, Dominique Strauss Kahn is a socialist and was until recently the favorite to be the next left wing president of our country.
On Economics, people agree on the basics. Supply, demand, the micro and macro effect of government intervention etc.
But when it comes to implementation of economic policy, it is largely ideological. There is no economic answer to the question "What is the correct size of government?" It all depends on your context and ideology.
The safety net of unemployment benefits protects against severe recessions by acting as an automatic stabiliser. However, it does cause inefficiencies, as people will be willing to stay out of work longer, and you also need to levy taxes to pay for these benefits. So are they a good thing? Depends on your viewpoint.
Same with minimum wage. Prevents people from being exploited, but also raises unemployment by creating an artificial price floor.
Same with just about any government intervention it brings some benefits, and some negative side effects, but usually the decision to do it is not based on the economics.
On January 06 2012 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:17 MethodSC wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
"Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust"
The most I learn about this guys, the most despicable he seems to me. The fact anybody can support someone like that just puzzles me.
So because the title of these articles include "isolationism" in them, they should instantly be perceived as such. I doubt you've even read these articles yourself. Listen to what the man says and you will see he's not an isolationist. Sure we can go into theoreticals about the holocaust, but the fact of the matter is none of that matters TODAY. The fact is you either vote for Ron Paul and he gets us out of the wars and tries diplomacy or you vote for anyone else and can expect a war with Iran. I'm not here to change anyones mind, that is the individuals job for themselves.
Also, if someone directly went against the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is that not despicable? Always remember NDAA and The Patriot Act.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. It's not the Bible, and it was written two hundred years ago when the context was absolutely different than now. When you guys realize that when your constitution was written electricity hadn't been invented and America was full of Indians, it would improve your political thought.
Now on topic.
You see, I gave you respected sources including the Washington Post and even one of you libertarians guys saying Ron Paul was isolationist. So I guess it's not that stupid and doesn't really disqualify me for discussion, as you said earlier. That's all I wanted to prove.
Now, if you are ready to vote for someone who say that America should have let the jews burn in Nazi's oven during the war because of his dumb non interventionist mantra, good for you. I'm sure you can find better arguments than saying that "none of this matters today". It perfectly does, by saying what kind of mad idealist he is.
I have an idea, I'll follow it to the most extreme and apply it in any circumstances, anytime, no matter what. That's the exact definition of an extremist: someone who focus on one theoretical thought with a manic constancy, and is ready to let millions of Jews burn if a Hitler is in power, to let poor people get gangrene and die if they break a leg, to let poor kids not get an education if their parents can't afford it for them, in order to follow his dumb surrealistic mad idea of fantasy "freedom".
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
This is entirely incorrect.
Some parts of economics are very scientific in nature. Such as the law that inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon. This is actually not hard to demonstrate using some simple axioms and very basic mathematics. Intuitively it makes sense that the value of an item of type X decreases if the amount of items of type X increases.
Of course there are areas where human behavior comes into play and then it's not so easy. But keep in mind that all behavioral sciences are just abstractions on top of physics, chemistry and biology. Therefore there is nothing strange about economics other than that it is much harder.
Funny that economists don't agree and that their predictions as just as reliable as reading the future in a coffee cup. Notice also that one of France most respected economist, Dominique Strauss Kahn is a socialist and was until recently the favorite to be the next left wing president of our country.
Oh but he is probably not a real economist, then?
That's probably the main difference between me and you. You're trying to think politically whereas I'm thinking logically. What's wrong with wanting equal rights for all, the idea of letting people do as they please with their own bodies as long as it isn't hurting anyone else or wanting us to stop being the policemen of the world? You see I could dwell on the whole idea of what it is to be a libertarian and have those ideologies, but the fact of the matter is, he's running on the problems I just mentioned. He's running on trying to get us a balanced budget, because we all know the debt can't just keep going forever. He's running on giving more power to the people. He's running on due process. What's wrong with any of that? Absolutely nothing. Forget about theoreticals for a minute and think about the facts. What other candidate can compare to that? You'll probably say I'm just sticking to what I think is good about him, and that's fine, but most of what he wants to do will take it going through congress, which means basically everything "too extreme" won't even happen.
On January 06 2012 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:17 MethodSC wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
"Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust"
The most I learn about this guys, the most despicable he seems to me. The fact anybody can support someone like that just puzzles me.
So because the title of these articles include "isolationism" in them, they should instantly be perceived as such. I doubt you've even read these articles yourself. Listen to what the man says and you will see he's not an isolationist. Sure we can go into theoreticals about the holocaust, but the fact of the matter is none of that matters TODAY. The fact is you either vote for Ron Paul and he gets us out of the wars and tries diplomacy or you vote for anyone else and can expect a war with Iran. I'm not here to change anyones mind, that is the individuals job for themselves.
Also, if someone directly went against the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is that not despicable? Always remember NDAA and The Patriot Act.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. It's not the Bible, and it was written two hundred years ago when the context was absolutely different than now. When you guys realize that when your constitution was written electricity hadn't been invented and America was full of Indians, it would improve your political thought.
Now on topic.
You see, I gave you respected sources including the Washington Post and even one of you libertarians guys saying Ron Paul was isolationist. So I guess it's not that stupid and doesn't really disqualify me for discussion, as you said earlier. That's all I wanted to prove.
Now, if you are ready to vote for someone who say that America should have let the jews burn in Nazi's oven during the war because of his dumb non interventionist mantra, good for you. I'm sure you can find better arguments than saying that "none of this matters today". It perfectly does, by saying what kind of mad idealist he is.
I have an idea, I'll follow it to the most extreme and apply it in any circumstances, anytime, no matter what. That's the exact definition of an extremist: someone who focus on one theoretical thought with a manic constancy, and is ready to let millions of Jews burn if a Hitler is in power, to let poor people get gangrene and die if they break a leg, to let poor kids not get an education if their parents can't afford it for them, in order to follow his dumb surrealistic mad idea of fantasy "freedom".
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
This is entirely incorrect.
Some parts of economics are very scientific in nature. Such as the law that inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon. This is actually not hard to demonstrate using some simple axioms and very basic mathematics. Intuitively it makes sense that the value of an item of type X decreases if the amount of items of type X increases.
Of course there are areas where human behavior comes into play and then it's not so easy. But keep in mind that all behavioral sciences are just abstractions on top of physics, chemistry and biology. Therefore there is nothing strange about economics other than that it is much harder.
Funny that economists don't agree and that their predictions as just as reliable as reading the future in a coffee cup. Notice also that one of France most respected economist, Dominique Strauss Kahn is a socialist and was until recently the favorite to be the next left wing president of our country.
Oh but he is probably not a real economist, then?
Do you understand what a CONSTITUTION is?????????????????????????????
It is a contract between a populace creating a government and the government the populace creates. It dictates the liberties the POPULACE give up so that the government can exist and perform the duties the populace decides the government is the fulfill at the time of its inception. All items NOT written in the document are rights the populace retains. That means for example, that the Right to Bear Arms is retained, not because it is a part of the Constitution, but because there is NO EXPRESSED PORTION STATING THE GOVERNMENT CAN REMOVE THAT RIGHT.
A Constitution is mandate as to what the GOVERNMENT CAN DO, not what rights people have or what people can do, what the populace forming the government willingly gives up, while RETAINING everything else. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are simply things, which always belonged to the populace and do not need to be "stated" as they were not items explicitly stated the government could remove, however, the populace thought these things were SO important, they would just explicitly spell it out so there would be no doubt.
So, if you don't care about the Constitution and will completely ignore it, then that means the initial contract ALLOWING the government to exist no longer is in force, and therefore the GOVERNMENT has no right to function or exist in any matter at all, as each person has retained all rights and does not willingly give them to the government ie. the right to be taxed, put on trial, have "laws" over them, etc.
The natural order is not that government exists with rights and we people are bequeathed them, but rather PEOPLE exist with all rights and bequeath them to a government willingly chosen to represent them and use some of those rights.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. It's not the Bible, and it was written two hundred years ago when the context was absolutely different than now. When you guys realize that when your constitution was written electricity hadn't been invented and America was full of Indians, it would improve your political thought.
This statement is so fundamentally flawed and shows your complete lack of understanding it does not warrant a response.
On January 06 2012 06:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:59 MethodSC wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 04:17 MethodSC wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
"Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust"
The most I learn about this guys, the most despicable he seems to me. The fact anybody can support someone like that just puzzles me.
So because the title of these articles include "isolationism" in them, they should instantly be perceived as such. I doubt you've even read these articles yourself. Listen to what the man says and you will see he's not an isolationist. Sure we can go into theoreticals about the holocaust, but the fact of the matter is none of that matters TODAY. The fact is you either vote for Ron Paul and he gets us out of the wars and tries diplomacy or you vote for anyone else and can expect a war with Iran. I'm not here to change anyones mind, that is the individuals job for themselves.
Also, if someone directly went against the constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is that not despicable? Always remember NDAA and The Patriot Act.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. It's not the Bible, and it was written two hundred years ago when the context was absolutely different than now. When you guys realize that when your constitution was written electricity hadn't been invented and America was full of Indians, it would improve your political thought.
Now on topic.
You see, I gave you respected sources including the Washington Post and even one of you libertarians guys saying Ron Paul was isolationist. So I guess it's not that stupid and doesn't really disqualify me for discussion, as you said earlier. That's all I wanted to prove.
Now, if you are ready to vote for someone who say that America should have let the jews burn in Nazi's oven during the war because of his dumb non interventionist mantra, good for you. I'm sure you can find better arguments than saying that "none of this matters today". It perfectly does, by saying what kind of mad idealist he is.
I have an idea, I'll follow it to the most extreme and apply it in any circumstances, anytime, no matter what. That's the exact definition of an extremist: someone who focus on one theoretical thought with a manic constancy, and is ready to let millions of Jews burn if a Hitler is in power, to let poor people get gangrene and die if they break a leg, to let poor kids not get an education if their parents can't afford it for them, in order to follow his dumb surrealistic mad idea of fantasy "freedom".
On January 06 2012 06:16 ParasitJonte wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:58 scaban84 wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:40 Derez wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:23 Voros wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:19 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:17 Voros wrote:
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
It's untrue that the state provides an attorney for you if "you get into legal trouble."
If the state brings criminal charges against you, you may be appointed council if you wish--that's one of the many protections the government gives you against its own abuses.
Conflating that minimal protection against unjust prosecution and imprisonment with providing free (mediocre, expensive, society-crushing) healthcare to every man, woman, and child is absurd.
You are completely missing the point of the analogy, which was used to point out that a right to healthcare wouldn't violate the individual rights of the healthcare providers more than the right to counsel violates the individual rights of lawyers.
And, as has been pointed out time and again, you have no such natural right.
The right to bear arms does not mean that the government buys your guns for you.
The right to free speech does not mean that the government writes your essays for you.
The right to healthcare does not mean that the government buys your insurance for you.
Your arguments fails in that you don't understand the basic nature of rights.
There is no such thing as the 'basic nature of rights'. All rights are socially constructed and only hold true within a specific society, and they are not 'fixed'. As history shows, rights change and politics in its core is how we want them to change.
To put things in perspective: I have a right to healthcare (the actual care) in my country. My ancestors a 100 years ago did not have that right. Libertarians have since quite a while figured out that the general public does not actually want to get rid of medicare, or old age pensions, and have since started resorted to declaring them 'illegal' instead of using actual arguments to get rid of them.
Libertarian economic theory gets presented like scientific truth, yet there is no actual scientific consensus, but by pretending that there is you legitimize not having to deal with counter-arguments at all. Other ideologies do this to, but libertarians have made 'free markets' the de-facto answer no matter what the question was.
You have everything wrong. Economics is not a natural science the way that Biology and Chemistry are. In science you can create models that predict outcomes to a very precise certainty. Economics doesn't accomplish this. Economics is a study of the beliefs, goals, and aspirations of its players. Economics to an American is different than economics to a North Korean, their beliefs and motivations are completely different.
Libertarians recognize these beliefs and allow them to play themselves out. Libertarians believe that people desire freedom. The "rights" you describe don't actually create freedom, they inhibit it.
This is entirely incorrect.
Some parts of economics are very scientific in nature. Such as the law that inflation everywhere is a monetary phenomenon. This is actually not hard to demonstrate using some simple axioms and very basic mathematics. Intuitively it makes sense that the value of an item of type X decreases if the amount of items of type X increases.
Of course there are areas where human behavior comes into play and then it's not so easy. But keep in mind that all behavioral sciences are just abstractions on top of physics, chemistry and biology. Therefore there is nothing strange about economics other than that it is much harder.
Funny that economists don't agree and that their predictions as just as reliable as reading the future in a coffee cup. Notice also that one of France most respected economist, Dominique Strauss Kahn is a socialist and was until recently the favorite to be the next left wing president of our country.
Oh but he is probably not a real economist, then?
That's probably the main difference between me and you. You're trying to think politically whereas I'm thinking logically. What's wrong with wanting equal rights for all, the idea of letting people do as they please with their own bodies as long as it isn't hurting anyone else or wanting us to stop being the policemen of the world? You see I could dwell on the whole idea of what it is to be a libertarian and have those ideologies, but the fact of the matter is, he's running on the problems I just mentioned. He's running on trying to get us a balanced budget, because we all know the debt can't just keep going forever. He's running on giving more power to the people. He's running on due process. What's wrong with any of that? Absolutely nothing. Forget about theoreticals for a minute and think about the facts. What other candidate can compare to that? You'll probably say I'm just sticking to what I think is good about him, and that's fine, but most of what he wants to do will take it going through congress, which means basically everything "too extreme" won't even happen.
Well, yeah. I somehow prefer forging my ideas on reality rather than distorting reality until it fits to my idea. You call the later thinking logically, I call it being an idealist. We had enough example last century of what happens when idealists get into power.
"These people (the bolshevick) are not interested in reality. I don't like people who are not interested in reality." Pasternak, Docto Zhivago.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote: [quote] paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
I consider myself in favor of universal healthcare, but this "right to healthcare" business is nonsense. It can't be considered a right if it's a service. What you should be arguing is the government has an obligation to provide healthcare, but that should go along with an obligation to ensure housing, food, water, electricity, etc.
It's not a huge distinction, but it's significant. A right is different from an obligation.
So I would say the government has an obligation to serve its citizens, and part of that service includes healthcare. This would be the justification for universal healthcare (and the key point of debate). A right to healthcare would simply mean people have the right to choose to get any form of available healthcare or lack thereof.
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote: [quote] Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Can you please list the rights of the health care providers that would according to you be violated? I'm very curious to hear them. While we're at it, could you also list the rights of the lawyers that are being violated by the right to counsel?
In your second paragraph, you're guilty of exactly the same muddying of waters that I mentioned in the very post you just quoted. The argument I was replying to - your very own argument - was about the rights of HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS getting violated - not as taxpayers but as healthcare providers. My reply was NOT about the DIFFERENT ISSUE that is how the government funds its actions. Stop trying to bring up taxes as slavery when that's not what I was addressing.
I debunked your argument on page 172 when replying to someone else, therefore before you even made it, and you're complaining about coming back to something wrong? Why don't you stop spouting arguments that have already been rebutted then?
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote: [quote] Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Never realized public healthcare was slavery. Imagine: I've had one all my life
"Stop trying to rationalize": is that a joke? Do you realize that you are talking about a system that exists in most euro countries and that people there would defend to their death? Every time French right wing tries to cut social security, there are 500 000 people in the street. Ok you are against it, but saying it's not rational is pure ignorance.
Now I can say the same thing:
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly this Kiarip guy. Because I haven't heard anything very convincing by any Republican / libertarian.
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote: [quote]
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Can you please list the rights of the health care providers that would according to you be violated? I'm very curious to hear them. While we're at it, could you also list the rights of the lawyers that are being violated by the right to counsel?
The government either regulates against their product to avoid competition, or makes public health care mandatory, thus also driving them out of business.
Lawyer argument isn't applicable as people have already showed you.
In your second paragraph, you're guilty of exactly the same muddying of waters that I mentioned in the very post you just quoted.
No I'm not.
The argument I was replying to - your very own argument - was about the rights of HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS getting violated - not as taxpayers but as healthcare providers.
No, this isn't true. What I said was "saying someone has the right to something violates the rights of whoever produces that thing." And I stand by that statement.
Right now health care providers' rights aren't being violated directly, because they have the right to refuse work from the government. What's really happening is that the government is taking on an obligation to provide health-care for its citizens, there's a difference.
However it still has dire consequences for the market of health care as we can all see when looking at the prices of it.
My reply was NOT about the DIFFERENT ISSUE that is how the government funds its actions. Stop trying to bring up taxes as slavery when that's not what I was addressing.
Well how the government funds its actions is extremely important, because the government creates a very limited selection of goods/services.
I debunked your argument on page 172 when replying to someone else, therefore before you even made it, and you're complaining about coming back to something wrong? Why don't you stop spouting arguments that have already been rebutted then?
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:
On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote:
On January 05 2012 21:57 Derez wrote: [quote]
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote: [quote] If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote: [quote] Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Can you please list the rights of the health care providers that would according to you be violated? I'm very curious to hear them. While we're at it, could you also list the rights of the lawyers that are being violated by the right to counsel?
The government either regulates against their product to avoid competition, or makes public health care mandatory, thus also driving them out of business.
Lawyer argument isn't applicable as people have already showed you.
I thought you mentioned "rights" they had? Can you list them?
Who is "them"? How would the government drive anyone out of business? Nobody refuted the lawyers analogy, feel free to do so if you think you can. Does having public defenders drive out of business regular lawyers?
In your second paragraph, you're guilty of exactly the same muddying of waters that I mentioned in the very post you just quoted.
No I'm not.
Yes you are. There are two different arguments - that of the individual rights of health care providers being violated by a right to healthcare, and that of taxation amounting to slavery for the taxpayers. You are trying to muddle the two when they are distinct. I engaged you on the first argument, yet here you are bringing out the second one again.
The argument I was replying to - your very own argument - was about the rights of HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS getting violated - not as taxpayers but as healthcare providers.
No, this isn't true. What I said was "saying someone has the right to something violates the rights of whoever produces that thing." And I stand by that statement.
Right now health care providers' rights aren't being violated directly, because they have the right to refuse work from the government. What's really happening is that the government is taking on an obligation to provide health-care for its citizens, there's a difference.
However it still has dire consequences for the market of health care as we can all see when looking at the prices of it.
What you did was write the following sentence, which I quoted in my very first post in order to reply to it: "The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare." You keep trying to move away from this statement and argue a different issue, the one I just pointed out. It's ok, just admit you were wrong.
My reply was NOT about the DIFFERENT ISSUE that is how the government funds its actions. Stop trying to bring up taxes as slavery when that's not what I was addressing.
Well how the government funds its actions is extremely important, because the government creates a very limited selection of goods/services.
That is still not the issue I was addressing. There are a gazillion "extremely important" things in the world, but we're not discussing them. Stick to the issue I was addressing or admit you have nothing to add to what I said.
I debunked your argument on page 172 when replying to someone else, therefore before you even made it, and you're complaining about coming back to something wrong? Why don't you stop spouting arguments that have already been rebutted then?
You didn't you strawman'd your way around it.
Says the guy who keeps trying to move away from the point I was addressing :-)
On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:
On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote: [quote]
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
You have a really utopian view of the world don't you?
EPT
