|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Open letter to conservatives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But my over-all point was that there is no reason to not care what happens in Cali because you don't live there, and then care about your own state with social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, because, the argument for why Cali doesn't effect you/AE is the same argument as to why it happening in his own state won't effect him. I hope that made sense. Yes, I understand. I just don't agree. I am a part of my state and everything that happens here has an effect on me. Things can happen in California that have no effect on me.
Not at all. There is plenty of "country folk" in California and there are plenty of artsy liberals in Arkansas. You're picking the places in California that the media and TV show us, but that's not all of California at all. By a long shot. You get out into the northern part of California and you'll have no idea you're in what you conceptually think of as "California." If they're not at all different then the cultures of California and Arkansas are the same. I can't agree to that so we're approaching an impasse.
Certain issues like abortion, same-sex marriage - just like civil rights and the women's liberation movement - aren't just state issues and effect the nation as a whole. You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.
How does it happening legally in California not have an effect in Virginia, if you are claiming it effects in general all of humanity? Because they're different states with different cultures. If the people of Arkansas need to rely on a more traditional family structure then they'd be affected by gay marriage more than California where homosexuality has already become an accepted part of the culture.
Here again, it would be the breakdown of the entire American family, and not just the breakdown of Virginia families because of their unique culture. Again, you're assuming that when you should be showing that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In 1912 things were much different that they are 98 years later. Health insurance in industry is due to the fact that there were none, or not much of anything. There was no standard work week, no child labor laws, anyone could be worked all day every day for pennies on the dollar with no thought of the welfare of the laborers. I find it very dishonest for you to try and use 1912 instances and apply them to issues today, well dishonest or ignorant, but I doubt you are ignorant. Health care was a much smaller percentage of GDP then compared to now. 1 million people a year were not going bankrupt due to medical bills in 1912. I would say that we need required health insurance in industry now more than we did in 1912. Also, are you saying that taxes were just fine in 1912 but not now? Awfully strange of you to say. Social welfare was fine for 1912, but bad now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The repetition required around here to get your point across is tiring. Maybe you should take a look at how you get your point across, if you're running into this kind of misunderstanding too much.
Killing infants, and homosexual marriage does not concern, no matter how I say it and no matter what you think I am trying to say. You aren't concerned with the killing of infants? Even I who don't give a shit about anything care about the killing of infants.
like legalizing weed, and abolishing gun control, A pothead who is concerned with guns and abolishing gun control? ...only in Virginia I guess. That's awesome, what a great combination. If there's two things that are fun to do in Virginia is smoke weed and shoot shit without federal regulations. Actually there is a third thing to do in Virginia that's fun as hell - pack up and get the fuck out of Virginia.
I do not know how to better explain it to you. It seems like other people understand me, which led me to think that you are just pretending not to get it. What Hyro explained I understood, and CS is arguing for the fact that it does effect you. So neither of them "got" anything that I don't get. I'm not pretending. The debate I'm having with CS is the one I thought I'd have with you.
LOL. Where did I hear that before? Do you get your material like Carlos MenSTEALia? It's cute to watch non-comics refer to Carlos as a joke theif because you watched one youtube video and now you think you're "in the know." MenSTEALia...wow, did Rogan tell you to say that? Hackkkkkk
Abortion is murder and morally wrong, but I would not vote to take away someone else’s choice. Holy shittttt. You would not vote to take away someone's right to murder? Dude, you're the last person that should be smoking weed and playing with firearms! Please. Murder is illegal, no one has the right to do it. But abortion is not murder, that's why it's not about the right to "murder."
That is libertarianism No, that's insanity. Libertarianism says nothing about the freedom to comit murder. You've hijacked the word, like most so-called libertarians these days, to mean something totally different from what it originally stood for.
Being a Neo-Nazi is bad IMHO, but they have the same right to march peacefully down the street to demonstrate their beliefs just as, other crazy people, like the million mom march does, and me and the crazy NRA guys do as well. Yes, but no one is given the right to comit murder. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Are you saying that you are against any social program like SS or do you think SS was poorly implemented? No, some social programs are necessary, but social security is not one of them. Government programs such as these foster dependence upon an institution which views you as a number. You cannot choose not to pay them. At least with a private corporation, they don't have to get your business if they fuck up. It is in their best interest to keep you happy.
Then why do we pay more for health care per capita than people who live in countries with nationalized health care? Because the United States does not ration care. Other nations employing a socialized form of healthcare, by necessity, must ration care because for something like one's health, the demand will always be greater than the supply.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this most recent case I don't think there was a choice. If the banking system failed we would have seen the next Great Depression. AIG has nothing to do with banking, though the banking system itself had a lot to do with the current state of affairs. We did not need to bailout corporations at the expense of the already overburdened US taxpayer. The companies either survive or they don't. Not having AIG around won't make or break the United States, and it certainly won't send the economy in to an unrecoverable tailspin. What will, certainly, unequivocally, and without question, is the continued debt. Now Obama, within a year of taking office, has contributed more to that debt than even George Bush. We just cannot keep going down this road with a broken system.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that both sides of the aisle see no problem with encroaching into other people's lives as long as it isn't them. The majority of conservatives are pro-life. They want to get between you and your doctor, a very very private matter. Conservatives want to tell you what you can grow in your backyard, who you can marry, and how you die. It baffles me why someone would want to be aligned with conservatives in congress when they have such a long list of personal liberties that they either actively deny the populace or are trying to deny. "Promoting family values" means nothing more than denying people rights that make conservatives uncomfortable. You are absolutely right, which is why I'm a libertarian. I don't agree with how conservatives assert their will on the lives of free people, living in what is supposed to be a free society. The level of their imposition is disturbing, to say the least. I find it sad that conservatives complain that progressives want the government to control the lives of everyone, but then turn around and try to get legislature passed that controls everyone's personal lives. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I am a part of my state and everything that happens here has an effect on me. You would have to show me how two people of the same sex signing a piece of paper effects you.
If they're not at all different then the cultures of California and Arkansas are the same. I can't agree to that so we're approaching an impasse. Culturally different how? There are conservatives in Cali and liberals in Arkansas, people who don't agree with same-sex marriage/people who do in both states, religious people/non-religious people, people who live in the country/people who live in the city... Where are the cultural differences? You are not showing any.
Oni writes: Certain issues like abortion, same-sex marriage - just like civil rights and the women's liberation movement - aren't just state issues and effect the nation as a whole.
CS writes: You're assuming that which you're trying to prove. How are they different?
Because they're different states with different cultures. If the people of Arkansas need to rely on a more traditional family structure then they'd be affected by gay marriage more than California where homosexuality has already become an accepted part of the culture.
This is a characterization of Arkansas and Cali that is just not true. California voted against gay marriage which means they value traditional family values, just as much as Arkansas. You are describing small sub-cultures like in LA or the beach areas, this is NOT California as a whole. Likewise, there is plenty of gay sex in Arkansas and lots of non-traditional shit - just look at their news. The American culture is the same throughout the nation, every state has pockets of every different culture.
Oni writes: Here again, it would be the breakdown of the entire American family, and not just the breakdown of Virginia families because of their unique culture.
CS writes: Again, you're assuming that when you should be showing that. How are the families in Virgina different? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you are really Catholic, Life begins at conception. It’s a person immediately at any temporal point after conception, and is always murder.
The point was that it wasn't a fetus. Before week 9, it is an embryo and not a fetus. So an abortion before week 9 couldn't be murdering a fetus. It was a simple and unimportant point, but it was right. The "point" of conception really isn't a point though. The acrosome reaction is a two stage process that happens over time. As far as being murder, that depends on if we're having a moral or legal discussion... both of which are not the topic of this thread. Simply putting your foot down and declaring personhood after a point of conception doesn't help at all with the discussion of the legality of the situation, although as an unarguable moral declaration it seems to work fine. If you care to read, this thread laid out some interesting information:
Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jallen04 Junior Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 8 Joined:
|
Because the United States does not ration care. Other nations employing a socialized form of healthcare, by necessity, must ration care because for something like one's health, the demand will always be greater than the supply. Bull Shit. I happen to live in a country with socialized healthcare and have never experienced "rationed healthcare". Don't fall for that right wing crap that was spread around. Most of it was outright lies. Other than covering the costs, the Canadian gov't has essentially no say in treatments. The doctors decide. There isn''t a bureaucrat hanging over the doctors shoulder. There isn't any gov't red tape. I get sick, I go to the hospital, I get fixed, I go home. Oh, I do have to show my healthcare card and put a signature on a piece of paper. So I guess there is some red tape. The trade off our taxes are slightly higher north of the border. However, I think that is a fair trade off to know that my neighbour, whose daughter had severe heart and kidney problems from birth, didn't have to worry about how they were going to afford to keep her alive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, you can't turn the elderly away from shelters and hospitals on moral grounds. We will pay for their care anyway, so why not create an equitable program that we all pay into?
Yes, we do. We ration care based on wealth. Tens of thousands of people die each year of treatable diseases. They can not get access to health care because they can not afford health insurance. In countries with nationalized health care everyone has equal access to the same care regardless of financial standing.
You need to stop being reasonable and start disagreeing with me again. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Hyro,
Because the United States does not ration care. Other nations employing a socialized form of healthcare, by necessity, must ration care because for something like one's health, the demand will always be greater than the supply. I don't think that "rationing" is a reasonable way of phrasing it. Yes, a tax-funded healthcare system must make decisions about which specific interventions are cost-effective enough to justify their use and which are not, but this isn't the same thing as "rationing", which has a rather different implication. Here in the UK, one of the mantras of our National Health Service is "Free at the point of need". This means that when you need treatment, you get treatment. The most you will have to pay is a low flat-rate prescription charge (waived for those on benefits, pensioners, etc.). There is no ration or quota. You get treated as often or as extensively as the doctors deem necessary. Some treatments are not offered though - many drugs, for example, are very expensive but only offer marginal benefits. There is no good argument for making taxpayers fund those treatments. No tax-funded system can pay for everything , nor should it. I just want to run you through the relevant portion of the article you linked to and have my say on how I think the arguments pan out in a UK NHS setting. quote: The National Institute of Clinical Excellence sets guidelines for what the NHS can and cannot afford to pay for. There will also be local variance, based on the decisions made by individual hospitals. Mostly, the decisions are made based on balancing cost versus effectiveness. In most cases, this is straightforward. The tough calls come when an expensive yet marginal treatment is considered. Of course, just as in the USA, if you really want the treatment and you have the cash, you can always go private. Private medical insurance is available. quote: I couldn't put a figure on that, but it is only reasonable that the public is not asked to fund dubious treatments. The NHS focuses on what is known to work, but research is still done. If hospitals want to fund an experimental treatment, they are usually free to do so. And again, if you really want that experimental treatment, you are free to go private. quote: Yes! Of course. To each according to their need. In practice of course, the elderly use up far more of the NHS budget than the young. quote: Yes! Of course! You're not going to get an expensive intervention if it was not going to significantly improve or prolong your life, but that would apply whether you were young or old. quote: WTF?! NO! Sweet Jebus no! There would a rioting if an administration were even to attempt it. No. Unthinkable to the point of absurdity. quote: Where on Earth is this stuff coming from? Yes, you would. Obviously. quote: Yes. Although there are one or two rumblings of discontent on this one if I'm honest. At present though, you would get help. What you would not get is yet another liver transplant, after you pissed away your last one due to alcohol abuse. Doctors do have their limits. quote: Well fair enough, but you could say that about any government action. That is why I envy you guys your splendid constitution. In practice, no political party would dare endanger the NHS these days. After the neglect shown to healthcare during the Eighties and early Nineties, the safety of the NHS became a very big issue, deciding how many people vote. Labour swept into power under Blair largely on the back of promises to patch up the NHS. There now exists a new consensus on the NHS and even the Conservatives would not seek to diminish it. In short, I find about half of those arguments quite easily answerable. The other half are just batshit crazy. Despite the misgivings of many Americans over publicly funded medicine, most people over here are very loyal to the NHS. It's not surprising; everybody knows at least a dozen or so people who've had their lives saved by it. None of them had to sell their houses for the privilege. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4250 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
well shit, can you get down to any more semantics than that. you sound like Oni now. you both know what I am saying, but wanna debate how I am saying which is fine by me, im just sick of saying the same shit over and over again.
fuck abortion is homocide to me. like you had no clue what I meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
For the record, I concur With Granny on iour[/i] health system here in the Netherlands, it works basically the same.
Also: [qsoute]What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services?[/quote] What the fuck?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4250 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
A pothead who is concerned with guns and abolishing gun control? ...only in Virginia I guess. That's awesome, what a great combination. If there's two things that are fun to do in Virginia is smoke weed and shoot shit without federal regulations. Actually there is a third thing to do in Virginia that's fun as hell I am no longer a pothead, thank you. That was years ago. But would like to legally do it one day in the future.
What Hyro explained I understood, and CS is arguing for the fact that it does effect you. So neither of them "got" anything that I don't get. So you are just being a bitch about it, and they are not. I called it right the 1st time, thanks for at least admitting that you like to be mean to me.
It's cute to watch non-comics refer to Carlos as a joke theif because you watched one youtube video and now you think you're "in the know." MenSTEALia...wow, did Rogan tell you to say that? Hackkkkkk
Non-comics!?!, what is required to be a comic? Is there a degree or school required for it, or are comics just people who refer to themselves as comics? Anyone can or cannot be a comic. Don’t be mad I called you out on some shit I have heard before from other people. Its okay that your material is not unique, nor created by yourself. Don't worry, it's ok, you can still be unoriginal and funny at the same time. BTW I don’t think I am in the know about a bunch of losers like comics. (that is probably you).
Holy shittttt. You would not vote to take away someone's right to murder? Dude, you're the last person that should be smoking weed and playing with firearms! Please. Murder is illegal, no one has the right to do it. But abortion is not murder, that's why it's not about the right to "murder." No, that's insanity. Libertarianism says nothing about the freedom to comit murder. You've hijacked the word, like most so-called libertarians these days, to mean something totally different from what it originally stood for. Yes, but no one is given the right to comit murder.
If you know what I meant then all of this is strawman. If you didn’t know what I meant then okay. I meant homicide. I looked murder up for you and CS the semantics assholes. I was wrong to say murder, but you are still taking what I said out of context, which is fine, because I see your game, I see what you have and don’t have to offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I am Oni now, and then, and later too. I think you meant this for CS. You're just full of confusions, dude.
No dude, you just need to be specific and clear when you explain something. This is a debate forum, so yes, we'll debate you on what you said. If you're going to get snippy about it then maybe you should save your comments and posts for youtube. Your initial comments, as a conservative, made it seem like you held a different set of opinions for what happens in Virginia as opposed to Cali. Conservatives tend to do that. But on the two subjects you happened to give as examples (same-sex marriage and abortion) it didn't seem like you should have held two different opinions. I commented on this and all you had to do was clarify it. You're on a debate forum, it's what happens here.
I still don't have a clue what you mean. You sound retarded to me. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You get treated as often or as extensively as the doctors deem necessary. Some treatments are not offered though - many drugs, for example, are very expensive but only offer marginal benefits. There is no good argument for making taxpayers fund those treatments. This is similar to the private health insurance system in the US. Health insurance companies will not pay for expensive treatments that do not offer better results than the standard of care. The added problem, however, is that many of these decisions are based on profit instead of the well being of the patient. What an insurance company will or will not pay for is often based on greed, not sound medical judgement. This is the system that conservatives continue to support, a system of health care rationing based on corporate profit and not patient care. A government run system is at least accountable to an elected government and not stock holders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hey I didn't mean that in a bad way. You can smoke it legally...in California.
I'm sorry if I was mean to you, I promise to be gentle from now on. I'm not being a bitch, I think they are as confused to what you mean as I am. Hyro agreed with me, Dr. A has asked you a few questions pertaining to it also, and CS and you actually disagree. But this has all become clear due to my bitchyness I guess.
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? Ok, I'll help you out. What I meant is, you used the term Carlos MenSTEALia, suggesting that Carlos steals material, right? You got that because of Rogan's video, the one he shot at the Laugh Factory in LA, right? So now the label of "theif" has stuck to Carlos. You used it as though you knew what it refered to and why they called him that. You also used it as a non-comic would, WE don't use that term. Carlos, to comics who know comedy, is NOT a theif - sans a few personal issues certain comics have with each other. And mind you, I say this not liking him personally either. The joke Rogan chose to nail Mencia on was not Carlos's joke, that's well known, but it wasn't Artie Fletchers either, the comic Rogan claimed wrote it. There were tons of comics at that time doing that bit, not verbatum, but very similar. This is not considered stealing in the comedy world, it's considered doing "hack" material. The only comic that has ever stolen material out-right, verbatum was Denis Leary.
- True, all you need is an alcohol dependancy and to be very self-absorbed. Oh, and some jokes... but sometimes not even that.
I haven't done any material. Believe me, save your hate for when you actually hear it or see it.
Like MenSTEALia?
No argument there.
You might want to look up homicide too.
...and you are wrong to say homicide also.
Yes, it's all a plot to destroy you. Damn, the jig is up guys. AE has discovered that we are all out to get him through the use of semantical arguments. Clever, very clever of you, AE. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024