Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 99 (8820 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2018 2:31 PM
314 online now:
Aussie, Coyote, dwise1, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (7 members, 307 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 827,220 Year: 2,043/29,783 Month: 709/1,334 Week: 34/318 Day: 10/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 46 of 58 (827066)
01-16-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 8:54 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

You don't get to express opinions that are uncaring and self-centered and then expect people to ignore that your opinions possess those qualities.

But you don't say that my position is uncaring. You say that I, personally, am uncaring.

Well, yes, of course, because that's the position you advocated.

As you explain in the rule ("Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."), opinions expressed in debate are not necessarily personally held opinons of the debater.

First, this is a serious misinterpretation of rule 10. People have the right to expect that other participants are expressing their own views, not just trolling other views to see what reactions they'll get.

Second, you've admitted in the past to advocating views you don't hold. I don't think you should do this. And doing this and then taking offense when people think you actually hold those views is even worse.

You can have the debate while leaving the person out of it - and it's better that way.

You were the one who put yourself into the debate by expressing your opinions on things involving guns, healthcare, Nazi marches, etc. There's no room for getting personal in a debate about, say, carbon dating, but in a debate about, say, healthcare then callous indifference to human suffering can't be ignored.

I notice you don't deny that you're uncaring and self-centered,

There's no need to dignify those lies with a remark.

And you made no attempt to show they're wrong, either. You can't hide the words you've written.

It would only be a personal attack if it were untrue.

They're personal attacks.

They're not personal attacks, they're just the truth.

If you want people to say nicer things about the opinions you express here then express nicer opinions.

Oh, I see. Only nice opinions are worth exploring kindly here. Hmm. Maybe I will leave then. The debates lately seem to just be getting denigrated into irrelevant pedantry anyways.

So you expect people to say nice things about your opinions that it's fine to cast people into bankruptcy for medical problems not their fault? That "very fine people" marched for Nazis in Charlottesville? That we need more guns, even as the carnage mounts?

Basically your position is that you don't care whether people can afford decent healthcare as long as you've got yours. Don't I have that right?

No, not even close.

If you don't believe that, then why did you say the things you did earlier in this thread? Just click on the "New Cat's Eye Posts Only" link and read your posts in this thread.

Or am I retarded,

No, you're tribal. If I don't agree with you then I must be taking the exact opposite position

Have fun with the strawman. I'm not going to waste my time pulling it apart.

My understanding of your positions comes from your own words. You've admitted before to expressing opinions you don't hold (which is fine when preceded with, "Let me play devil's advocate here..." or some such, but you never said that) , so you're just going to have to accept the rather inevitable consequences of your own actions.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10342
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 58 (827070)
01-16-2018 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 8:54 AM


But you don't say that my position is uncaring. You say that I, personally, am uncaring.

This is of a piece with your claim that we cannot tell what emotions people are having because their true feelings are in their heads. If you are actually having some kind of internal conflict that never actually affects your opinion or your actions, why should anyone give a crap about that?

In short, why shouldn't we call you uncaring if your position is uncaring?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10502
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 48 of 58 (827072)
01-16-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
12-23-2017 3:39 PM


Left and Right Ideology
Percy writes:

Even if you feel the characterization unfair, the question still arises of why you so often seem to care so little for your fellow man, and often seem to make a special effort to indicate just how little you do care. We live in a society where the better off my neighbor is the better off I am. From your point of view maybe the neighbor forced to move because of health-related expenses is just replaced by another neighbor and maybe you just say, "So what!", but in the broad view every time it happens the quality and vitality of our society slips down a notch.

This exchange reminds me of a useful article that I read regarding political ideology.
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
From Scientific American....

quote:
According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. (...)In The Righteous Mind, Haidt identifies several areas of morality. Liberals, he says, tend to value two of them: caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them, fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in.

(...)He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs, and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.


I realized that NCE was conservative when I talked with him about unionism. Perhaps he feels outnumbered here, where many are more liberal. Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected. I tend to get feisty with conservatives but i have attempted to listen to their side of things so as to understand the political climate that we are in better.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 12-23-2017 3:39 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 01-16-2018 7:17 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2018 11:20 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 49 of 58 (827075)
01-16-2018 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
01-16-2018 5:07 PM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
I disagree with this from the Scientific American article:

quote:
Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them, fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in.

I'm not a liberal, but it seems obvious that liberals believe the same thing, that hard work should be rewarded.

About this next quote, I disagree that liberals don't share this emphasis with conservatives. In fact, the importance of these things is being stressed over and over again by liberals as Trump trashes them:

quote:
He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs, and religion is valuable.

The only point of disagreement between liberals and some conservatives that touches on an item in this list is separation of church and state. Some conservatives don't believe in it.

I realized that NCE was conservative when I talked with him about unionism.

If he's a conservative who is anti-Trump, I've never been part of a discussion with him where he's given any hint of that, and all his positions that I've discussed with him align perfectly with Trump's views.

Perhaps he feels outnumbered here,...

As a conservative he is certainly outnumbered here, but that's no reason to act out, which he does far less than Faith but still does. His biggest sin in my view is his admitted trolling where he sometimes advocates views he doesn't hold apparently just to draw a response while wasting people's time who think he's being sincere.

Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected.

Do we have any respect for the view that blacks should sit in the back of the bus and be banned from the white lunch counter? No, of course not. Then why should we have any respect for his equally repugnant views about guns, healthcare and Nazis?

I tend to get feisty with conservatives but i have attempted to listen to their side of things so as to understand the political climate that we are in better.

My goal too, but to me that doesn't involve compromising inviolable principles about the equality of all people and the right of people to be safe living their lives.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 01-16-2018 5:07 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 50 of 58 (827085)
01-17-2018 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
12-21-2017 11:48 AM


NoNoukes writes:

Perhaps that is why some of our more right leaning posters adopt a "hit and run" style where they post bombs and don't hang around for a rebuttal. NCE does not do that.

NCE has now done that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2017 11:48 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 51 of 58 (827087)
01-17-2018 8:12 AM


Medicaid and Morbidity
Today's New York Times ran the article Making Medicaid a Tool for Moral Education May Let Some Die making clear that making affordable insurance more difficult to obtain does result in more deaths. Some excerpts (links included, which contain useful information):

quote:
Apparently the plan to Make America Great Again will let some Americans die.
...
Millions of Americans stand at risk of losing their health care. Many — the most fragile, the least great — could die as a result.

Mr. Bevin might care to glance south over the border. In 2005, Tennessee removed 170,000 people — almost one in 10 Medicaid beneficiaries in the state, mainly working-age adults without children — from its Medicaid program to save money. They didn’t do well.
...
Delayed care can kill. Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women. One of eight American women will get it. Detecting it early is critical. Specifically, the five-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer is 98.5 percent when detected early, but only 25 percent when detected at a distant stage. Waiting for 60 days or longer to get treatment raises the risk of dying of breast cancer over five years by 85 percent.

Another study from Tennessee found that losing access to Medicaid led to delays in diagnosis, so more breast cancers were caught at a later stage. Women who lived in low-income ZIP codes were 3.3 percentage points more likely to receive a diagnosis of late-stage cancer than women living in high-income ZIP codes.
...
The problem with the latest twist in Republicans’ effort to pare the social safety net is that removing the poor’s health insurance may not just make their life more difficult.

It might kill them.

It is well known by now that health insurance saves lives. A review of recent research in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that the odds of dying for non-elderly adults are between 3 and 41 percent higher for the uninsured than for the insured.

Work by Katherine Baicker, now at the University of Chicago, with Benjamin Sommers and Arnold Epstein at Harvard found that Medicaid expansions in the past significantly reduced mortality. Their research, they concluded, “suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by Medicaid in order to prevent one death per year.”
...
As Lawrence H. Summers, once President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, noted about the Republican tax cut passed in December, thousands would die if the tax bill were to cut the health insurance of 13 million people, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated.

These would be mostly lower-income Americans. Maybe they would be people from Kentucky — the state with the most cancer deaths and the most preventable hospitalizations, 45th out of 50 in the incidence of diabetes and 47th in terms of heart disease.

Would their deaths cause America to be greater?


Bottom line: affordable health insurance saves lives.

--Percy


    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 58 (827101)
01-17-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
01-16-2018 5:07 PM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
Hey Phat, I'm willing to explain myself to you.

I realized that NCE was conservative when I talked with him about unionism.

I always test out as being politically center - between both left and right, and up and down. I do lean towards conservatism though, but more financially and less socially.

Perhaps he feels outnumbered here, where many are more liberal.

I'm not a fan of circlejerking - I avoid conservative sites and would rather argue with liberals because they are different from me. It easier to learn something. But when it ends up just being talking about me personally it gets lame.

Being outnumbered becomes a problem when my posts are spun and twisted into multiple directions by multiple people. The discussion degrades into explaining what I really meant and the actual points go unaddressed. Oppenents tend to be awefully uncharitable and assume that I must be posting the worst thing they can imagine. Then I'm defeneding myself against things I've never meant to say. People assume their interpretation of my words is what I really meant, then there's doubt that my explanation of what I actually meant are even honest. A little charity goes a long way.

All that can be avoided by addressing the position and forgetting the person. But people would rather get into a pissing match. And I'm done with that.

Further, the black and whiteness only problem shows where when I say that I'm not pro-Trump and the response is wondering where all my anti-Trump sentiment is. If I'm not one then I have to be the other - there is no grey area allolowed.

Or with the Charlotte protest - if I don't immediately jump into the circlejerk and start calling statue supporters Nazis, well then obviously that's because I think there's good people within the Nazis

Or with healthcare - if I don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare then that's because I don't care about people and am perfectly fine with people going bankrupt over medical bills Oh, it also somehow means that I think that all of my accomplishments were achieved by myself alone

It's all complete bullshit and a waste of my time to try to unpack that crap and explain how peoples' spin and misrepresentation are not apt.

I mean, I asked Stile what he meant when he said that only people who receive a message get to decide if it contains hate or not and then I'm being accused of denying that mens rea is a thing in a discussion about me saying this thing in this message that was a reply to that thing in that message - what a stupid waste of time to just ask one poster a question.

Then I get to deal with complete illogic on top of all that - hey, I like guns and Trump likes guns: therefore I must be a Trump supporter How stupid can we get?

So to reiterate - it's the black-n-white only tribalism stained with an uncharitable tendency to assume a person means the worst which acts as a foundation to spin and misrepresent my words into something that doesn't even resemble what I meant, which is then falsely ascribed to being something that I personally think and feel. If you want to explore a position you're unfamiliar with, then either deal with the hate or be called a troll. DO NOT try to understand something by discussing it - you'll only have to defend yourself against false accusations.

Yeah, no thanks.

Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected.

I don't care if my views are respected, but I'd rather not defend myself against disrespect to me personally. Y'all know very little about me personally - what you think you know from what I write is in your head.

The problem, here, is that everything is treated as either black or white. And the folks are extremely tribal.

For example, when I admit that I may not be emotionally committed to a position and the response to that is that I must be trolling then. There's a whole grey area between those two extremes - playing devil's advocate, being unsure of where you stand so you take an uncommmitted position to explore the posibilities, taking a position you don't agree with in pursuit of the spirit of a good debate, or just trying to learn about something you have little experience with.

If you're jerking in the circle then you're fine, but deviate from that by one step and everyone is going to pounce on you for being a piece of shit. There is no grey area and if you're not white then you're black - and deserve to be ridiculed and hated - even if it has to come from lies.

Don't worry about the points of the discussion, this is about what you personally think and feel and nothing can be said that doesn't relate directly to that. Stop towing the part line, or step out of the echo chamber, and face being called a jerk from various angles you've never stood near.

No thanks, I'll pass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 01-16-2018 5:07 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2018 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 01-17-2018 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13486
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 53 of 58 (827103)
01-17-2018 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2018 11:20 AM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
Just to point out one example.

quote:

I mean, I asked Stile what he meant when he said that only people who receive a message get to decide if it contains hate or not and then I'm being accused of denying that mens rea is a thing in a discussion about me saying this thing in this message that was a reply to that thing in that message - what a stupid waste of time to just ask one poster a question

That is not true at all. The conversation worked it’s way to mens rea not because you asked a question but because you insisted that we can’t know what is going on inside somebody else’s head. The fact that it is generally accepted that we can do that pretty well - in at least some cases - is rather relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2018 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 54 of 58 (827117)
01-17-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2018 11:20 AM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
Oh, this is going to be a fun one.

From your Message 1722 in the The Trump Presidency thread:

New Cat's Eye in Message 1722 of thread The Trump Presidency writes:

Goodbye understanding through discussion.

Gee, just like Faith, you say you're leaving, then you don't.

New Cat's Eye writes:

Hey Phat, I'm willing to explain myself to you.

Gee, just like Faith, you're crossing people off your list of who you'll talk to.

I always test out as being politically center - between both left and right, and up and down. I do lean towards conservatism though, but more financially and less socially.

Regardless how you "test out," you are not "politically center," not even close. You've never expressed a single centric let alone liberal attitude in all your time here. You are not being honest.

I'm not a fan of circlejerking - I avoid conservative sites and would rather argue with liberals because they are different from me. It easier to learn something. But when it ends up just being talking about me personally it gets lame.

What you're really not a fan of is having your inhumanity called for what it is. You'd prefer some kind of protective bubble for yourself where you're allowed to express your inhumanity but no one is allowed to comment on it.

Being outnumbered becomes a problem when my posts are spun and twisted into multiple directions by multiple people.

I've never found being outnumbered a problem, and I don't see why it should be a problem for you. I never had any trouble over at Evolution Fairy Tales, and I've never had any trouble when outnumbered here, either, for example, Trickle Down Economics - Does It Work? - you might remember it, you were a participant on the same side as me, and we were way outnumbered.

The discussion degrades into explaining what I really meant and the actual points go unaddressed.

On the contrary, I think you've already been very clear about what you really mean, you just don't like having your views characterized as uncaring, unsympathetic, uncompassionate, inhumane and even at times malevolent.

Opponents tend to be awfully uncharitable and assume that I must be posting the worst thing they can imagine.

We don't have to imagine the worst because you say it straight out.

Then I'm defending myself against things I've never meant to say.

If you didn't mean to say them then don't say them.

People assume their interpretation of my words is what I really meant, then there's doubt that my explanation of what I actually meant are even honest. A little charity goes a long way.

You don't leave much room for ambiguity. As I suggested earlier, maybe in another thread, click on the "New Cat's Eye Posts Only" link and read your own posts.

All that can be avoided by addressing the position and forgetting the person. But people would rather get into a pissing match. And I'm done with that.

You cannot separate the person from the attitude. What is one to think of a person who argues at length that those who march with Nazis chanting Nazi slogans have nothing in common with them but are just marching to save statues to racists? The natural conclusion is that he is a racist himself.

If I argued at length that the scientific method is the best way to understand our universe, people would naturally conclude I'm science minded and would say so, for example, "So science is your religion," the actual words to me from Fred Williams who runs Evolution Fairy Tale website. Well, if you're going to argue at length that those marching with Nazis could be very fine people then guess what people are going to conclude about you? It ain't gonna be that you're a very fine person yourself.

Further, the black and whiteness only problem shows where when I say that I'm not pro-Trump and the response is wondering where all my anti-Trump sentiment is. If I'm not one then I have to be the other - there is no grey area allowed.

Express an opinion on some significant topic where you hold a position substantially contrary to Trump's. Again, I don't think you're being honest. Who'd you vote for?

Or with the Charlotte protest - if I don't immediately jump into the circlejerk and start calling statue supporters Nazis, well then obviously that's because I think there's good people within the Nazis

You're misdescribing the discussion, so the RollEyes should be directed at yourself. Nobody was arguing that statue supporters are Nazis. Your argument was that marching statue supporters were joined by a Nazi or two and then the entire group was mistaken for Nazis. See for example your Message 1114, then read forward. As I said in Message 1134, "You *are* pretty much communicating the same message as Trump. If you don't want to look like him, don't join him."

You've been playing this "I believe all the same things Trump does but I don't support Trump" game for a long time. You can't support most of Trump's ideas without supporting Trump. If you think you can the only person you're fooling is yourself. I can understand people having a strong reluctance of aligning themselves with someone as repugnant as Trump, but if you go down the list of the five or six most important political issues of the day you'll see that on most of them you and Trump are like peas in a pod. If the shoe fits...

Or with healthcare - if I don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare then that's because I don't care about people and am perfectly fine with people going bankrupt over medical bills

You're using your dislike of government involvement as an excuse for inhumanity.

Oh, it also somehow means that I think that all of my accomplishments were achieved by myself alone

The conclusion was that you believe your success is solely due to your own qualities independent of your membership in a supportive community, and that conclusion did not emerge from the healthcare discussion but stems from your statements in other threads.

It's all complete bullshit and a waste of my time to try to unpack that crap and explain how peoples' spin and misrepresentation are not apt.

People are reflecting your own attitudes back to you, and it isn't pretty, is it.

I mean, I asked Stile what he meant when he said that only people who receive a message get to decide if it contains hate or not and then I'm being accused of denying that mens rea is a thing in a discussion about me saying this thing in this message that was a reply to that thing in that message - what a stupid waste of time to just ask one poster a question.

PaulK has already corrected you on this in Message 53.

Then I get to deal with complete illogic on top of all that - hey, I like guns and Trump likes guns: therefore I must be a Trump supporter How stupid can we get?

But it isn't just guns, is it. You seem to be having trouble facing the reality of who you really are and what your attitudes really say about you.

So to reiterate - it's the black-n-white only tribalism stained with an uncharitable tendency to assume a person means the worst which acts as a foundation to spin and misrepresent my words into something that doesn't even resemble what I meant, which is then falsely ascribed to being something that I personally think and feel. If you want to explore a position you're unfamiliar with, then either deal with the hate or be called a troll. DO NOT try to understand something by discussing it - you'll only have to defend yourself against false accusations.

I don't think anything said about you here has been false, and the only one trolling here is you, by your own admission on several occasions. For example, this is from Message 1 of the Learning How to Pray After Finding God, from the perspective of a born again Catholic thread that you started:

New Cat's Eye in Message 1 of the Learning How to Pray After Finding God, from the perspective of a born again Catholic thread writes:

[I like to] nerd out on evolution and cosmology while trolling people who I know are incredibly wrong. Know that not everything I've said has been a position that I wholeheartedly agreed with, and realize that when you're not sure what the answer is, you can test an answer by using it in an argument with other people on the internet.

You like to troll those you disagree with, and you admit that you argue positions you don't actually hold without letting anyone know that that's what you're doing, wasting the time of people who believe you sincere.

Yeah, no thanks.

That's basically what we're telling you, "No thanks" to your messages of hate and inhumanity.

Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected.

I don't care if my views are respected, but I'd rather not defend myself against disrespect to me personally. Y'all know very little about me personally - what you think you know from what I write is in your head.

You're telling us that what you write tells us nothing about you? If you believe that then, again, the only person you're fooling is yourself. Plus you were pretty revealing in your Learning How to Pray After Finding God, from the perspective of a born again Catholic thread. Or are you telling us that you were trolling us then, too.

The problem, here, is that everything is treated as either black or white. And the folks are extremely tribal.

We're treating the specifics of what you say, not treating everything as black or white. Give us something positive to go on. For example, tell us how you feel about immigration (not here, over in the Trump thread). No one believes you really care whether Trump used the term "shithole countries", and if you think you do then, once again, you're only fooling yourself that it's not a thinly disguised defense of Trump. Or for another example, what do you think of this from US border patrol routinely sabotages water left for migrants, report says:

quote:
United States border patrol agents routinely vandalise containers of water and other supplies left in the Arizona desert for migrants, condemning people to die of thirst in baking temperatures, according to two humanitarian groups.
...
The report also accused border patrol agents of vandalising food and blankets and harassing volunteers in the field.

Okay, not okay, or morally repugnant? Again, don't respond here, but over at The Trump Presidency.

For example, when I admit that I may not be emotionally committed to a position and the response to that is that I must be trolling then. There's a whole grey area between those two extremes - playing devil's advocate, being unsure of where you stand so you take an uncommmitted position to explore the posibilities, taking a position you don't agree with in pursuit of the spirit of a good debate, or just trying to learn about something you have little experience with.

You only tell people you're advocating a position you do not hold after the fact, not before. That's reprehensible. Shame on you.

If you're jerking in the circle then you're fine, but deviate from that by one step and everyone is going to pounce on you for being a piece of shit. There is no grey area and if you're not white then you're black - and deserve to be ridiculed and hated - even if it has to come from lies.

If there are any lies then they are coming from you. People have told you the truth about the lack of moral quality in the views you espouse. You can defend your views or not, but you cannot with any moral integrity call their characterization lies.

Don't worry about the points of the discussion, this is about what you personally think and feel and nothing can be said that doesn't relate directly to that. Stop towing the part line, or step out of the echo chamber, and face being called a jerk from various angles you've never stood near.

You cannot elevate the criticism of your views to the level of some moral injustice. This is a debate site. You've posted morally reprehensible views. They've been criticized. Stand tall, take that criticism, and forthrightly deal with it if what you say has any merit. Phat should serve as a shining role model for you, for he has endured far more scathing criticism at the hands of Jar than you have at the hands of anyone else here, and he has handled it with grace and aplomb.

I don't read every thread, so maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seemed as if you were gone for a month and then suddenly returned and splattered posts all over. I don't know what's going on in your life, but you've talked about some of your problems and I wish you well. I hope you're not an addict again. If you're bipolar I hope medication is working. But your problems in real life that you recently complained about should not cause you to come here and cause further problems. The topic started out as mandates and evolved into affordable healthcare insurance. To pick up where we left off, if you truly care about people and want affordable healthcare to be generally available but don't want the government involved, then give some indication you care instead of just saying, in effect, "Tough noogies, suffer."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2018 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13486
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 55 of 58 (827120)
01-17-2018 3:27 PM


Another reason why the mandate is necessary
Bankrupt (via Mano Singham)
A comfortably-off middle class couple had twins born prematurely.


By the time the boys hit 18 months old, we had exceeded the cap on our $2m insurance policy and incurred $450,000 of medical debt. We liquidated our retirement accounts, saving account, sold everything we owned to try and pay it off. When I realized our savings weren’t enough, we listed an estate sale and opened our doors to crowds of Craigslist shoppers telling them “everything is for sale”...

And all that wasn’t enough.


The Obamacare changes to lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions would have changed our story dramatically. The pre-existing conditions clause forced us to remain in the insurance pool, while the lifetime caps excluded us from coverage. We fell into a gap that very few people hit, but it financially destroyed our family and restricted the care we were able to get for our children.

Individuals - excepting the really rich - can’t cope with huge expenses like that. Spreading the cost is the only alternative to ruining those unfortunate enough to need major medical care for themselves of their children. That is the point of the mandate.

I guess you can say that the babies should just have been allowed to die, but how does that square with the Right’s views on abortion and euthanasia? Would the people who thought that Terri Schiavo’s corpse should be kept on life support indefinitely really go for that ?


    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7364
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 56 of 58 (827124)
01-17-2018 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2017 11:42 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

I just don't want the government in charge of my healthcare. But I'll pay taxes to support a national health care system. I don't want to be forced into something, tho. And I don't like the sound of single-anything. Options, not force.

Roads are publically funded, so do you feel like the government is telling you where to drive?

If we go with the systems found in Europe it will be your doctor who decides what your care is. It is true that agencies like the NHS in the UK do put out standards of care, but even in the US there are standards of care put out by medical associations that doctors are expected to follow. On top of that, the standards of care are put through rigorous scientific studies and are decided on by doctors, not government agents who have no knowledge of medicine.

You will see a doctor, not a government agent. If you don't want medical treatment, then you can deny it. In the UK and other countries you can pay more to get into shorter lines, and you can always pay more for procedures or drugs that are not the standard of care. The idea is to have a basic level of health care that is funded by tax dollars and administered by doctors.

What we have right now in the US is a health care system that is focused on profit instead of health care. When you have a product that people can literally not live without then free markets are not the way to go because demand will always outstrip supply. This is why we regulate utility prices because if we didn't then they could jack up your electricity bills as high as they wanted during the winter.

Free markets don't work for health care. There is no country I am aware of where free markets have produced an affordable health care market. The systems that do work have a regulated marketplace to control prices, funding based on income level, and low user fees at the point of care. If you aren't interested in affordable health care and are more concerned about paying twice as much for the same health care, then the US system is the way to go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2017 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7364
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 57 of 58 (827125)
01-17-2018 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 8:54 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

But you don't say that my position is uncaring. You say that I, personally, am uncaring.

Then what explanation is there for your position? It seems that you are against the idea of tax money paying for health care because it "forces someone to labor for you". At the same time, I expect that you have no problem with that same money going towards roads, public infrastructure, or defense. So why single out healthcare?

You seem to be against the very idea of taxes, which is a common refrain among some of the more extreme libertarians. Find me a 1st world nation that works without taxes and I will listen to your argument. The only one I am aware of is the principality of Monaco which survives on state sponsored gambling. Do you think it is a good idea to legalize gambling as the sole source of income for the US government?

Otherwise, one person's labor paying for another person's benefit is how modern human society works. It is how human culture has worked since we banded together into small hunter-gatherer tribes. Using tax money to pay for health care is no different than using that same money to build freeways, schools, or F-15's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 01-17-2018 6:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 58 of 58 (827126)
01-17-2018 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
01-17-2018 6:04 PM


Taq writes:

The only one I am aware of is the principality of Monaco which survives on state sponsored gambling. Do you think it is a good idea to legalize gambling as the sole source of income for the US government?

Fun facts: Many tennis players make Monaco their official country of residence because it has no income tax. Monaco has no defense budget because its defense is provided by France. Dubai is another tax haven with no income tax, but revenue is from a variety of sources, not gambling. The EU recently blacklisted 17 countries as tax havens, but not Monaco or Dubai, so go figure.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-17-2018 6:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018