How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Jar, I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.You said you were willing to help, but I guess cryptic bullshit is the best you're able to do. Too bad.

And I'm perfectly willing to be helped. Seriously, this isn't a trick. Like when you say: I don't understand what you're talking about. I've given you two examples, now, of how I parsed this statement that you made and each time you were convinced that I was purposefully misrepresenting you.I was simply relating the different ways I've tried to understand this statement of yours. You indicated that both attempts were failures. Well, that's fine! Perfect clarity often eludes people who are trying to communicate.So, could you explain what you mean? Specifically the concept I'm having trouble with is what you mean when you say that a child has no right not to hear what a parent, teacher, or paster says. I've made two efforts to explain what I took that phrase to mean, and you've indicated both times that my understanding was flawed.I don't have a third interpretation, so I'm currently at a loss. Could you elaborate as to what you mean by this claim?Edited by crashfrog, : spelling.

There's no need to repeat it; that's not helping me understand it. But, yes, this is the phrase specifically that I don't understand. Since it's not plain at all, I'm sure you could make it much plainer. For instance:What do you mean by "a right to NOT hear"? How do you envision that a child would take an action to "NOT hear" words spoken by a parent, a teacher, or a pastor? Please give examples for all three, and then explain how, legally, a child would have no right to take those actions if he or she desired.

Again - seriously not a trick. I'm not making any kind of "case." This isn't a debate we're having. This is a request from me for you to explain a phrase that didn't mean anything intelligible to me. I'm asking you what you mean by "a child does not have a right not to hear a parent, a teacher, or a pastor."I had hoped examples might be illustrative, but ok, your promise to help me understand doesn't extend as far as examples. Whatever. Well, ok, but what do you mean? What does it mean to have, or not have, a "right NOT to hear" someone else's speech?What does that mean?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Yes, I rather expect they are. Is there some reason to be US-centric, here? I'm not arguing about the Constitution and the First Amendment. I'm arguing a point about basic human rights. Neither the US constitution nor the First Amendment can abridge someone's innate human rights, because those rights are independent of, and therefore superior to, any law of any nation. I've never made any claim to the contrary. Sure, and I explained how it did so even though, ultimately, the court did not choose to remove custody from the racist parent. The only reason that you and Rahvin know that didn't happen is because I already told you it didn't happen. If that was somehow a refutation of my entire point, then why on Earth would I have offered it up as support?That makes no sense. As I explained, the court had the opportunity to reject the claim of unfitness due to racist association on the basis of a First Amendment claim to freedom of speech and association, and specifically chose not to. I'll repeat - they specifically did not reject the claim on the basis that you and Rahvin claim that they must. Thus, it's evidence against your position and evidence in favor of mine, which is that there is no controlling First Amendment right to indoctrinate your children in racism that supersedes their basic human right against unwanted indoctrination. I'm not at all engaged in the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop is when you speed on to the next item of evidence without addressing the refutation of the last, and then you wind up at a place where you've presented a dozen pieces of evidence that each have been refuted.That hasn't happened - I've gone back and forth with you and Rahvin about that single example, and defended it against your refutations. There's been no Gallop here because you and Rahvin have both adamantly refused to consider any piece of evidence but the one I've acknowledged as the weakest. The game here is cherry-picking, and it's the two of you who are engaged in it. What "rule of debate" says that a successful attack against a single piece of evidence means I forfeit the entire debate? That's not in Robert's Rules of Order, that's not in the rules of Parlimentary Debate, that's not in the rules of the IPDA, and it's certainly not how evidence is handled in a legal trial - disqualifying a single piece of evidence, for instance, isn't a basis to have the entire trial dismissed.So, no. Even if Rahvin was correct about the case - which I've demonstrated, he's not - that doesn't "disprove" my argument, because it would continue to rest on all the other evidence in its favor, which you and Rahvin have stated that you have no intention of reading.Not even attempting to grapple with your opponent's evidence? That is a debate forfeiture. Indeed. And it was found that, despite an assertion by the Unification Church that they had a First Amendment right to practice as they saw fit, they had in fact no right to brainwash people. That people, as a matter of a basic human right, have a right to be free of coercive thought control.I never stated that Molko vs. Unification Church had anything to do with children. Molko vs. Unification Church is a direct contradiction to your claim that there's no legal definition of "brainwashing" as a crime.Remember when you made that claim? It was in Message 297:

quote:

---

The courts are not, as you seem to believe, saying that a parent who "brainwashes" his child is committing a crime or is unfit per se.

---

Did you make that claim, or didn't you? Who put those words in your post if not you? If what you're saying here is that courts are likely to take a dim view of a parent's association with a racist organization, or a history of racist remarks, and conclude that exposure to same is not in the best interests of the child - that's the claim I've been making throughout. You're agreeing with me.If there were a universal, unabridged right of a parent to raise a racist child, courts would not be able to use that as a basis for terminating parental custody. Yet, as you admit, they do. Yes. Teaching, on the other hand, does not involve elements of coercion. Instruction is not a coercive process; it's a voluntary process. How can I be "moving the goalposts" when I'm just repeating things I said a dozen posts ago? I don't recall ever denying that vile parents frequently succeed in raising vile children. Where have I ever claimed that this doesn't occur? Please be specific. You're quite right, of course. Luckily, in this case we're talking about conduct that is both wrong and illegal - brainwashing.

There is no "hypothesis", as I've explained. A single counterexample - even if it were a counterexample, which it's not - wouldn't prove anything. It would give me one less piece of evidence, but my argument would still rest on the other half-dozen examples I gave. How would one example of a single court finding racism less harmful than abuse and alcoholism prove that there's a First Amendment right to brainwash your children, particularly when the court didn't rule on any issue having anything to do with the First Amendment?Neither you nor Rahvin seem to understand how arguments are supported by evidence. I'm not making an argument based on a logical syllogism, such that a single counterexample would prove the inverse. I'm describing a general legal trend based on a weight of evidence. Even were I to grant the other side the single "Prussian Blue" example, the weight of evidence is still on my side, four to one. And I can, of course, go off and find other examples where courts dissolved parental custody based on the parent's involvement with white supremacy groups, etc.It would be nice if the three of you could stop repeating the same refuted, wrong point about "disproving my hypothesis." I've not offered a hypothesis of any kind. I'm defending a position with a weight of evidence, which is why you forfeit if you don't address the entire weight of evidence. Whatever you decide to ignore remains evidence for my position. That's how debates work.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Or, to repeat myself:

quote:

---

You're like a Creationist arguing that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, asserting that because Archeoraptor liaoningensis was a hoax, all of paleontology must be. When other examples of feathered dinosaurs are presented, you assert that you "don't have the time" to look over the evidence.

---

Just as Archeoraptor liaoningensis doesn't disprove the existence of feathered dinosaurs, neither does the "Prussian Blue" case disprove that courts can and have dissolved parental custody based entirely on a parent's association with racist causes, racist ideology, white supremacy organizations, etc.

Thank you for getting directly to the center of it, Rahvin. You've simply misunderstood the terms of my position. I didn't claim that a coin toss will always come up heads, and I didn't claim that every single court, under every single circumstance, would find racist association and ideology worse than every other conceivable trait.I merely claimed that a parent could lose custody of their children on the basis of their racism, which I demonstrated. Not that they always would. If I had indeed made the universal claim, one counterexample would have proved me wrong.I made that mistake once, years ago. I don't make it any more.

The Winnipeg case was not a divorce proceeding, so I've already met this standard.

Certainly his suit is going to be thrown out because he's not demonstrated that he's somehow been prevented from not listening to them.Again it's this "right to not listen" that I don't understand. I mean it's basically impossible to get children to pay any attention to most adult authority figures; not listening is kind of the prerogative of children, isn't it? So I don't know what is meant by "not listen." (Although Jar said "not hear", and he seemed to think that was an important distinction.) Not obey? There's no law that a child has to obey their parents, and pastors or other religious figures can hardly order anybody about, adult or child.Again I'm utterly confused about what the action here is supposed to be, when Jar refers to children hearing people. It seems to me that hearing is a passive act which occurs automatically, assuming one is capable of it. If I speak at you, no volition on your part is necessary to hear me - just unobstructed, functioning ears. Whether or not you listen, obviously, is the volitional act that determines whether my speech has an effect on you. But children, like all human beings, certainly retain the right not to listen.

I'm aware, but we're not talking about the United States. I don't see that you've done anything but repeat other people's arguments. The Canada objection, for instance, was addressed two pages ago.

I don't equate "indoctrination" with teaching, I guess. Could you explain what you mean by the term?If you mean just the communication of values (for instance), I'd use a different word but I'd agree that it was neither coercive nor illegal. Communicating racist values could (and has been) be a justification for loss of custody in a custody-specific suit, but on its own it's not likely to result in CPS action, obviously. That's the "racist uncle" level of racism I've been talking about. Clearly CPS isn't going to have the time, ability, or authority to intervene.I wouldn't necessarily say that a parent has a "right" to communicate racist values to their child, but clearly they have the ability to do so. Not much is going to stop them. But they don't have the right to have a racist child - that is, if the child is determined to reject racist views, the parent has no legal right to compel them otherwise. Attempting to do so by coercive means would certainly violate the law, and certainly be a basis for loss of parental custody (as it was in Winnipeg.) I don't know why everybody thinks they have to rush on my account. Take all the time you need!

You wonder? Why not find out? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-by-judge-to-have-surgery.htmlThe answer is that, just like in the US, courts can order and force medical treatment on individuals who don't desire it if and when the court determines that they lack the capability to make an informed and rational decision.But absent that, it's a crime of assault in the UK to subject someone to unwanted medical procedures, just like it is in the US. Because people don't like injuries, illnesses, or invasive medical interventions even when they're free?In your experience, do insured people act more recklessly? If the money belongs to the company - and, contrary to Jar, I largely agree with you that it's the company's money we're talking about - then the company will decide what to do with it. Maybe they'll feel pressure from their employees, who feel like their compensation is being reduced if the company is no longer paying for health insurance. Maybe they'll feel like they have to increase wages to match, to meet the labor market pressure and avoid losing their valuable employees to other firms. Or maybe they'll keep it, and reap profits from the reduction in labor force costs.Very likely, some combination of both will occur. Market pressure from employees will result in increased monetary compensation to make up for the loss of benefits, and total labor costs for most companies will be reduced since they're no longer on the hook for expensive health benefits.I really don't see it as a conundrum, though. Do you think that companies won't be able to figure out what to do with a windfall generated by lower labor costs? I don't understand how more money in a company's pocket is an "unexpected problem." I think that's a "problem" most companies want to have. Yeah, they're probably going to go the way of ice delivery services and buggy whip manufacturers. That's the free market for you - nobody has a right to be in business forever. Well, right. Why is that a bad thing? If bus driving is such a valuable service then we'll have to pay people a wage that convinces them to do it. That'll be cheaper, in the long run, than paying bus drivers in health coverage. Moving away from benefits-based compensation will save money for everyone. Why? The US government already has plenty of practice administering health services; there are two completely separate Federal single-payer coverage providers already, and a majority of Americans are already on one of those two single-payer systems.Yes, that's right - a majority of Americans already get single-payer health care run by the government. So I don't think the changeover to a "Medicare for all" system would be as big a deal as you portray it. The government already meets the health care needs of the sickest and oldest, since there's no market for insuring people who need expensive care; the people we'd move into the pool - healthy, able-bodied working Americans - are the people who also have the least health care needs.

I don't see how that answers the question I asked you, but traditionally what you're talking about are called "laws." Also not what I asked. What I asked was, do insured people, in your view, act more recklessly? I'm asking you about a causative relationship between "owning insurance" and "reckless behavior." Isn't getting insurance actually a really prudent thing to do? Why do you say that? When corporations reduce labor costs - or, labor costs decline for some other reason - they keep the profits. Why would it work any other way? Especially in the profit-worshipping US? You're right! What a hugely market-distorting, government free-ride these health insurance companies have been getting! Surely they would have gone out of business ages ago in a free market, right? It's long past time we got rid of these lumbering dinosaurs.Congratulations on making an incredibly compelling free-market case for single-payer health coverage. Only because medicine is getting more expensive. That's happening in private markets, too. Obviously, single-payer has to come with mechanisms to control the growth of health service expenditures. For that matter - not going to single-payer, or going to whatever your free-market wet dream would be, also has to come with mechanisms to control the growth of health service expenditures. There's nothing slippery about this slope - moving to a full single-payer system for everyone is going to take concerted political action, with all the vested business interests lined up against it, and against your health. It's going to be a long struggle, I suspect, but lucky for you and me, it's largely inevitable.

Well, that's simply not true. The EPA can only go as far as it is legally empowered to do so. Its capacity to levy fines and take other actions were established by Federal law. No, completely wrong. Whatever powers a "new government agency" might or might not have would be determined by the law passed by Congress that creates it and the executive branch that administrates it. With all due respect Marc you didn't answer it at all; you answered a different question about uninsured people.But I didn't ask you about uninsured people, I asked you about insured people, and whether or not, in your mind, people with insurance were generally more reckless than those who lacked it.That's the question I want you to answer. Don't tell me about uninsured people - you've answered that other question twice, now, I don't need you to repeat it. Don't tell me about "comparable-in-every-way" people, that's not at all what I asked. Tell me about insured people and whether or not you think they're more reckless in general than those without insurance. Your answer should contain no statements about uninsured people being somehow more prudent. I didn't ask you who it should be "up to." I asked you if, generally, being insured is prudent. Is it? I never said that it was, or asked you if it was. Is there some reason you're having such extreme difficulty answering direct questions? I feel like you're here just to work some relentless-contrarian kick, not to actually discuss issues. Why are conservatives always afraid of discussion? So, you believe "free markets" should get a government-run do-over? Spoken like a true renter, I guess. That's just plain stupid. The lesson from human history is that, far from people putting health expenditures to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, people will spend nearly any amount of money for even the impression of medical effectiveness. The free market in medicine doesn't lower costs, it drives them up. The proof of this is that if you put a glass of plain water into the medical market, it suddenly costs hundreds of dollars and is called "homeopathy." Have you never heard the term "snake oil"? "Medicine show"? These are examples of how market logic is singularly perverted when it comes to health care. The free market drives up costs and inefficiencies. Only someone deeply ignorant of the history of medical fraud could assert the contrary. But ignorance of history seems to be your deal, around here.To control costs in health care, you need the opposite of a free market - you need monopsony power. That's why the individual market for health care services is so expensive compared to the collective market - that's why paying out of pocket means paying up to 50% more for the same services from the same providers. When health care buyers buy collectively, through health insurers or through Medicare, costs are driven down. That's always true. The larger the monopsony, the lower the prices it can command, which is why single-payer is the best solution to controlling health care costs.Free markets drive health care costs up, not down. That's always been true. Monopsony is what lowers health care prices, and has always done so. People are always willing to pay any price for health care services, even ones that don't work. Homeopathy is the proof of that. Free markets, by definition, cannot lower health care prices, they can only, and have only, ever raised them.