We WILL find out how it works
Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
Vermont decided to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.
The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.
For details: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/vermont-m...
The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.
For details: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/vermont-m...
I believe the WHO has been politicized and their findings suspect. Their studies are lacking some metrics and even if they weren't I wouldn't really care. Freedom comes with risk and a price. I will take my own risks and freedom. I don’t really care what other nations are doing. I would rather live free for a shorter period than to live under the collective thumb agenda for longer.
However, there is reason the right is skeptical. These may be somewhat dated, but I have no reason to believe things are any different.
http://www.cato.org/publications/briefin...
http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/04/method...
http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/04/...
http://wichitaliberty.org/health-care/wo...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB12...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
Claim: "They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance."
But it's an empty claim. Nothing to back it up. Just political screeching.
I looked at a couple of others and they appear to be little but political diatribes trying to discredit WHO with vague claims rather than offering any real evidence.
As it usually is with those who don't really have a point.
Show us another specific standard than WHO uses and why that should be adopted instead. Meanwhile universal health care sure looks like it's working in lots of places and it's much less expensive.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the...
There, have I made a point?
I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
Like your heading... We will see.
I think we are done now.
Thank you.
That's from: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2013102...
Let's go for something TODAY...: "
December 6, 2013 by J-Wire Staff
Read on for article
The development of ground breaking communications systems for the next generation of computers is the goal of research collaboration between the University of Sydney and Technion – Israel Institute of Technology…with financial backing from the NSW Government.
The project was launched yesterday by the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, Jillian Skinner MP, and the Technion’s Chairman of the Board of Governors, Lawrence Jackier at an official event at the University of Sydney."
http://www.jwire.com.au/news/technion-an...
Stem Cell research in the Philippines.
Research on pot in Israel.
Holey crap Bat Man, some of the most advanced research in the world has been illegal in America for political and religious reasons.
Do you really want to claim that America is the most advanced in the world? All because people make money at it?
In fact patent pharmaceuticals in America have kicked prescription prices to among the highest in the world. Others around the world can more easily get them because they are government subsidized, so even when we are best in developing something many Americans just won't be participating because of the right wing politics.
Great shades of Castro!!!
How's 'bout the World Health Organization?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Healt...
Figures don't like, but liars do like to figure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSdYY243...
BTW, the narrator of the film was from a guy who left Cuba with Batista. Batista was a thug and a criminal and the people of Cuba welcomed Castro.
Because of the politics Castro wasn't given any support from America. He HAD to go to Russia for help. It was very bad decisions by Eisenhower and Kennedy that put Cuba as an enemy on our doorstep.
And what the hell did Patrick Henry and the rest of those extremists mean when they were willing to die for their freedom?
Of course Castro wasn't given any support from America; he's a God-damned *communist*.
The people of Cuba welcomed Castro so much that he has to keep them there by threat and force, while many risk their lives to escape.
However, had America stepped up in the beginning things could have been different.
But their health care is still on par with ours.
And no, their health care isn't on a par with ours.
According to WHO and pretty much anything else I've seen they are on par. You haven't shown anything different except a propaganda blast from a Batista era sibling.
Except by your claim you haven't discredited WHPO on any way.
The citizens of Vermont will be in for a rude awakening, when the additional federal funds for the Medicaid expansion get turned off. These funds are sunset provisions, and if my memory serves me, will expire after 3 years. This was the main reason that my state refused to take this 'bribe' to set up a state exchange...the Florida taxpayers would be handed the bill, when the federal funds ended.
Talk about "bait and switch"?! Let alone "caveat emptor"! Sucker bait!
I agree that lots of money like that goes down a rathole, and some of it is your money and MINE, too, but I don't support an ACA as a way to deal with it.
I don't support ANY legislation that isn't focused on a specific issue and has "riders" on it that suck everything and the kitchen sink in, just to get the attachments made into law.
Thanks for that insight.
The beginning years that have federal funding will fall on every American taxpayer.
And there is always the possibility that the federal funding can be extended by Congress....
Under ObamaCare, even a 60 year old flaming homosexual has to have maternity benefits, as well as birth control coverage. Insanity....
You just revealed just how little you know about what you are promoting.
You are about to get exactly what you deserve...but, sadly, you are taking so many of us down with you.
On second thought, I don't trust you to get the facts, so here is what you didn't know:
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 1302, “Essential Health Benefits Requirements,” page 45, signed into law on Mar. 23, 2010, available at www.thomas.gov, states:
"(b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits, except that such benefits shall include at least the following general categories and the items and services covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care."
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view....
Read it, and weep....
You can be replaced by a bumper sticker...and make more sense.
Talk to the hand.
I don't disagree AT ALL that more PREVENTIVE CARE will help lower costs in the long run, but I have serous doubts about what the real savings will look like over the next 1, 2, 5, or 10 years.
We shall see.
My IRA was opened in June of 2004, rode through the Crash of '08 and as of a few days ago the balance stood at a bit over two percent HIGHER than the day I opened it.
Our combined IRA totals were down ZERO POINT THREE NINE percent after nine years and six months AND withdrawing cash AND paying fees a bit in excess of $530,000 over that period.
Go tout some other fiction to the unwashed masses....
Try "Economics In One Lesson" ... the whole message is in the first ten pages or so; the rest is examples.
Ciao!
"The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay’s, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit. Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit."
Sounds like looting to me, albeit compartmentalization of what is already mandated on a national scale. It will likely serve an excellent purpose in that the results of the "experiment" will be obvious, as they will be contained within the state of Vermont. Whether politicians will acknowledge this remains to be seen. No doubt any success with be shouted from the mountaintops. Failures....who knows?
I wonder if the collapse of The Old Man Of The Mountain was a "sign".
Rights, as correctly stated, are "inalienable" and are not granted by anyone or anything.
One cannot extrapolate from those rights the requisite means to achieve them. That is up to the individual. What the DofI stated was that everyone has a right to their life and liberty and it cannot be taken away capriciously. That you have a right to pursue your happiness, but are not guaranteed that you will achieve it.
After that, then, the DofI goes on to state all the ways that King George and England in general had in fact been taking those rights away.
It's good for society to be healthy just as it is good to have clean water and waste carried away.
It doesn't need to be a "right" for it to make sense that everyone has health care.
For example: It's way better to treat infectious conditions than to let them infect others.
It's better to treat diabetes early than to chop parts of people off because of complications. It's way less expensive and those folks can remain in the work pool.
It's better to get folks mental health care before they shoot up schools.
It's better that a family is able to keep their home and remain productive rather than be marginalized over medical bills.
"It's better to get folks mental health care before they shoot up schools. "
It's better still to raise them properly so they don't turn into homicidal maniacs. Oh, wait, we've rejected all the traditional values and practices of America as superficial and unimportant, the values and practices that raised the Greatest Generation.
You on the left keep changing things, experimentally, then instead of rejecting your changes as the failures they are, insist upon *more* changes in order to make society fit your idealized model.
Man has the right to life; he's born with life, and one cannot deprive a man of his life without violating his right to life. But you are under no obligation to keep him alive.
Man has the right to liberty, and you cannot deprive him of his liberty without violating his right to liberty. You cannot load him with obligations simply because he's alive or has abilities society would like to exploit, without violating his right to liberty.
Man has the right to pursue happiness, but he has no right TO happiness. No one is under any obligation to help him achieve happiness, or to hand happiness to him. To thus oblige them would violate *their* rights to liberty.
My concern about this system is that it is mandatory. "All hospitals will be non-profit" is state control of (in some cases) private property. Part of it is paid for by Federal money, meaning that Vermont's experiment is being subsidized by people who do not live in Vermont. Yes, there are relativistic questions but these do not change the basic premise.
I believe that many of the problems with America's health care "system" could be resolved if malpractice suits were strictly limited to demonstrable cases of injury (as opposed to results the patient "didn't like"). Although it would be government control, I would like to see restrictions on public advertisement for prescription medications as well (e.g. those commercials that don't even tell you what the drug is for). At least one major pharmaceutical company presently spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research. Guess who's paying for that?
Insurance rates will go down.
And if the medical part of the expense goes away... how does the doctor get paid?
Military doctors get paid the same way every other soldier gets paid... tax dollars.
What varies is what humans are greedy *for*.
Answer the question, Dr. Potter. How do the doctors get paid?
The same way a doctor gets paid in Canada or one of our military doctors gets paid.
Are you afraid to admit that MY MONEY will be taken to pay for YOUR OPERATION?
Now explain to me how it will be cheaper. What will cause doctors to charge less, just because the money is being taken from the pockets of millions instead of the pockets of the patients?
What will cause the medical part of the expense to go away? What you meant was that the *patient* will no longer have to bear the whole burden of the cost, because it will be loaded onto the backs of his fellow citizens.
"backs of his fellow citizens"
Yup, like clean water and other infrastructure we have agreed to as a society.
For doctors who make mistakes there should be a reliable method to take them out of practice and if egregious enough (operating while drunk for example) jail time is appropriate.
For "pain and suffering" how else can companies be held accountable?
Tort reform is often touted as the solution. Although I disagree with much of it the documentary "Hot Coffee" has some interesting points. And for the record, anyone who is dumb enough to spill hot coffee in her lap shouldn't win a lawsuit for doing so. McDonalds didn't do anything wrong. When I buy hot coffee I expect it to be hot.
" Kate Sullivan: Well, for someone who has nothing nice to say about lawyers, you certainly have plenty of them around.
Lawrence Garfield: They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fk up everything. "
- "Other People's Money"
Suppose a patient was in desperate need of an operation, and the doctor, who had been out with his wife celebrating their anniversary, was the only doctor available with the training and experience for the operation? Should he sit in a jail cell? Or let the patient die? If he lets the patient die, does he *then* sit in a jail cell?
Must be nice to live in a world where you can make stuff up instead of doing research or seeing facts.
I think a doctor who is drunk and operating should be put in jail.
Same for any driver.
Same for anyone who is in a position where people will be hurt if they screw up.
And yes, I do certainly believe that if someone is behind the wheel driving and blows positive that they should be immediately be put in jail for 24 hours and their car impounded. At the end of 24 hours they get out and get their car.
Second time 48 hours.
Third time a month.
And so the trend continues.
Due process is very simple. Behind the wheel and blow. Over the limit it's an immediate time out.
At the end of which he agreed that "abortion is NOT a 'black or white' issue"...
You certainly see things in black and white, even if there might be shades of gray.
Lucky you.
Maybe.
For a first offense a 24 hour time out would be the wake-up call. For those more committed to bad behavior it escalates. If that's black and white so be it.
In abortion I am also black and white as far as the right wing is concerned. I don't think anyone should decide but the woman herself. What she decides is no never mind to me, only that she decide.
But, like me and the Mormon, I might be able to describe some circumstance where it WOULD be a "good idea" for someone whom you would define as "impaired" to actually DRIVE somewhere for SOME reason that you might agree is good.
But black and white? I predicted your response. I love to be right, as most folks do, so thanks for that.
Do away with medical schools.
If there are no doctors, there's nobody to charge these unacceptably high fees.
Do away with pharmaceutical companies. If there are no medicines, there will be no unacceptably high fees.
How is it "looting" to charge what people are willing to pay?
How is it "looting" for the cost of insurance to skyrocket because insurance is expected to cover more and more non-catastrophic treatment?
When a hospital charges $5k for an operation if you pay cash, but $12k if you use insurance, that is an indicator that it's health *insurance* that's driving up the cost of health *care*.
I see employees at work wasting all kinds of supplies. Not simply using too much or using it sloppily, but simply losing tools after one or two uses. Why should they be frugal with supplies, when somebody else with deep pockets, Walmart, is footing the bill? The same is true with health insurance. Because someone else is paying for it, people are going to the doctor for everything and popping pills for everything.
Hiraghm, can you show us how that works in countries that already have universal health care?
In America do military dependents who are eligible for health care use it more often that the rest of America?
EVERYONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTH CARE.
The only requirement is that you are able to pay for what you BUY.
BTW, you didn't prove your alleged "point" that folks will use more health care if it's available.
Yeah, Japan... how long has their depression been going on now? Since the late '90s?
Have you checked the tax rates in those countries you cited? They're going bankrupt.
The way countries with socialist, government controlled healthcare (can't be confused with *universal*) is the way they deal with it in Canada... months long lines for even basic treatment. Poor quality healthcare when you do get it. Travel to the United States for specialized, expensive treatments if you need them and can afford them.
I'm not going to do your research for you.
Okay, you win. Health care costs and health insurance prices are NOT going through the roof. They're not high at all, because nobody is availing themselves of health care or health insurance.
What procedures does a typical policy cover? Mammograms? Prostate exams? Tranquilizers? Birth control pills? What?
The idea of *insurance* is to cover emergency, catastrophic circumstances. You have a car accident, you have insurance. You need an oil change, you pay for it. Sure, regular maintenance might prevent blowing a tire and having an accident, but should insurance pay for your Goodyear radials or the 75 cents 7/11 charges to air them up? Should insurance pay to have the dents you got in your Prius 18 months before getting the policy knocked out?
Should it pay for the garage to house your Prius so that it doesn't get hail damage.... just in case?
Examples would be anecdotal; surely you want data rather than examples? Japan's depression? When WAS the last time you picked up a newspaper, or turned to anything but the human interest pages?
Thus they move into more expensive situations.
It's less expensive to treat things early.
Japan isn't bankrupt as you are trying to suggest. And their health care is better than ours.
???????? That's not the point, as Hiraghm points out in his reply... AVAILABILITY of a product or service does not create excessive demand... getting it "free" (ie, not having to pay directly for it or having someone else pay for it instead of you) DOES create excessive demand and market distortions.
But liberal "true believers" will not or can not understand that.
http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/linked-in...
Claimed, now prove it. In the Army do folks use it more? In other countries that have universal health care do folks use it more?
Prove it.
Look for a simple example, at any and all public assistance programs where the recipient need do NOTHING but "sign up" to receive the benefits... and then, after some time, everyone starts to notice that more and more people sign up for it, it becomes more and more expensive to support, and when more funding is brought to the "free service," more and more people sign up or demand to be eligible.
Got your Obamaphone? Anyone ever turn that "free offer" down?
Or crop insurance, flood insurance subsidies that put the paybacks on the backs of everyone in the country, NOT just the home owner?
Nope, can't see that... Even your hygienist's free toothbrush and roll of floss isn't "free," but it IS, pretty much rolled into the fee YOU pay the dentist's office and not anyone else. Do you ever refuse the "free toothbrush"?
Didn't think so. I take them, too, give them to my wife and buy my own toothbrushes at Costco.
through those three branches we should have our property rights protected first and foremost-not be stolen from.
you are the first person EVER to call me silly
Our "capitalistic" system is constrained nae, just about obliterated, by the crony capitalism that keeps the 1% settled firmly in control.
At least welfare dollars are in circulation. I have no problem with property earned. Property gained through financial fiat and other schemes like corporate welfare are crushing America.
There is no cronyism without govt. There is less cronyism with less govt
I and others have made this point multiple times in multiple ways.
Your solution is more govt. And to "balance " whet you see as the big guy against the little guy you advocate for certain private groups having a cronyism relationship. It doesn't fix anything. The poor only stay poor or get poorer the cronies only v become more powerful. And those politicians become more powerful. It is inefficient, people suffer, the overall economy suffers and the nation weakens as a result. I have posted statistics that show this, usually from govt websites. You usually do not respond to those posts . And continue making the same arguments that have been refuted. I always have good points
"think" is the one thing you don't do.
And thanks for ruining it for me by being first to call khalling "silly". sheesh.
Pretty sure that means I've made my point.
If you can't deal with the issues Hiraghm attacks the person.
Thanks for such a clear demonstration.
If you thought, you wouldn't make the absurd assertions you make.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution give us any rights. Not one.
God gave us rights. The Constitution protects them.
How do you know you weren't hallucinating?
As for enforcing them... free will, baby. If He enforces them, how are we to have the choice to surrender them? Or defend them.
Rights cannot come from other men, unless you stipulate that there are some men who are superior to other men as rulers by some criterion (please specify this criterion).
Rights are a convenient fiction we use to establish the relationships between men. Rights don't exist; there is only power and action. And therefore, objectivism goes in the same toilet as socialism.
"Morality" is therefore defined by what pleases me to define it, and consists of doing that which I have the power to do. There is no right or wrong beyond that which benefits me and that which does not benefit me, and the effect this has on others is irrelevant.The only limitations on my will are those other people more powerful than myself.
Still wanna play like there's no God?
You can be as "moral" as you want (or don't) in America.
We don't use "morality" to define us. We use social contracts. Individual "morality" is irrelevant.
No one is saying how moral one can or cannot be. In a Godless world, "rights" exist only so far as one has the power to exercise them. I have the "right" to nuke England off the map, if I have the ability and desire to do so.
As there is no God to provide an objective standard of morality, therefore it is moral for me to nuke England off the map, should I desire to do so.
Group morality is just another expression of slavery.
Without God to provide an objective standard of morality, the only standard of morality is that which one has the power to do, and which gives one pleasure to do. The only limitation on said power is to encounter someone with greater power.
For example, under this postulate (in spite of your attempts at mischaracterization), it is both one's "right" and perfectly moral for one to walk down the street raping women at random, until one encounters either a woman or a man more powerful than oneself with the desire to stop one from doing it. Then it remains moral, but one loses the right to do it.
Because without God to provide an objective standard of morality.... "moral" is just a matter of opinion. Even Ayn Rand's definition. (although I tend to favor Heinlein's definition).
I am tired and finished trying to explain the obvious to the willfully obtuse.
G'night, troll.
Like I said before... "Morality" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's activities. Social contracts and laws are what governs that. There ain't no "morality" in a 15 mph speed limit in a school zone. It's simply a fact that things are much safer for the kids when drivers slow down. As a society we've agreed to do that.
If you wanna see what religion does to governments go to one of those Muslum countries.
Simple: The United States government won't establish any religion.
Oh, and don't forget Ayn Rand was an atheist.
When Americans speak of religion, despite the propaganda the media and this administration puts out, we are usually speaking of Christianity.
Fred Speckmann
But America is still a melting pot where all religions are allowed from Christian Scientists to Scientology.
The one thing most have in common is a god who can't finance his own work so he begs from those who are expected to give it to him for a promise of eternal bliss and 70 virgins or whatever.
Most religions conger images of cannibalism and L. Ron Hubbard auditing a tomatoes.
It seems that your grammar is starting to fail you or at least the typos are increasing to a point where little of what you write is making sense. Please re-read your post above and make corrections to clarify your meaning.
As to your claims that include Scientology as a religion, I suggest that you study their beliefs a little more and understand that they are not believers in any form of God as believers in God understand it.
Your reference to 70 virgins and throwing it together with the beliefs of the many different religions is another example of your ignorance on the subject. You and I are continuing this debate as if either one of us is expected to be convinced. I'm sure that I don't expect to convince you of the existence of a God and frankly I'm not engaging in this back and forth to convince you of anything other than the concept of I'm more than happy for you to exist in your ignorance and can only hope that you allow me the same privilege.
Sadly it seems to be a problem for atheist to allow the existence of religious beliefs among others when we have no objections to your personal beliefs. The question comes down to a simple couple of facts. I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that god doesn't exist. Therefore the word faith is a part of religious beliefs. Atheist need to learn the meaning of freedom, freedom for me and for you without demeaning or prohibiting such beliefs by either one of us.
Fred Speckmann
I can't prove there isn't a pink whale somewhere either.
But, if you make the claim that something "is" then it's up to you to prove it.
Fred
red has an objective definition. the label "red" is arbitrary, but we do have to agree on the label. THat's language. but just because someone is color blind, does not mean "red" does not exist. As we gain more knowledge, we can more exactly define what red means. ie. it's wave length, heat temp related to a black body...but all of this is based on an objective reality. verifiable. not subjective beliefs. I want to point out that in common language the word "faith" can be confused with "confidence." This is not what Rand meant when discussing "Faith."
Fred
You are saying that words mean anything you want them to mean. Which yeah sure, that's true. But no one is going to understand what you are saying. That's exactly what you are doing in your previous argument. redefining words to whatever makes your point valid.
Fred
Believing is when you know something but can't prove it, and knowledge comes from believing what you believe to be true.
Just Wow, but what the hey, so many agree with you, and consensus = truth, right?
LOL
They call themselves a religion. For more details check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology...
Awwww shucks Fred, let's go straight to the source: "Scientology is a truly unique contemporary religion—the only new major religion to emerge in the twentieth century."
That's from their own website: http://www.whatisscientology.org/?utm_so...
Clue: I'm not atheist. Slippery little attempt to paint me, but such would be an error.
Another clue: I'm not going to tell you what I am. If you join me on my path because I am on it it may not be the right path for you. If you refuse the path because I am on it you may be refusing what is right for you.
And another clue: I haven't stated anything false about any assorted religions or actions I've cited. All are true, just not phrased as those who practice them are accustomed to.
So, eaten any gods lately?
Smith
ROFL... Simple though. You don't get to define me.
We are a pluralistic nation, a "salad bowl" of different beliefs and backgrounds, not a "mixing pot" where individual aspects disappear into the amalgam.
Many Christians behave as if there is no other lord but Jesus, despite the contrary religious beliefs of billions of other people (including atheists like myself.)
So when you make statements like that, we see it as YOU trying to shove YOUR beliefs down OUR throats while you claim that WE are trying to shove ours down YOURS. We're not.
For the most part, all we want to do is be able to believe what we believe without anyone (Christians OR Muslims or anyone else) telling us our beliefs are wrong or inferior to yours (no matter WHAT your holy book tells YOU.)
Any more than homosexuals recruit and convert "straights" in order to grow their ranks or "destroy marriage as an institution." Red herrings, completely, except for True Believers on EITHER side.
If I believe, claim or say that there is no god, you reach into your beliefs and historical texts to "prove" that I'm wrong. If I ask for any recent events or examples as proof, you reach into the same bag as if the proofs were on video somewhere. Sorry. Just not enough for me and a lot of others.
And, lest you make some other spurious claims, I oppose virtually ALL extremists "isms" too. I believe Islamism is one of the most dangerous of all today because if you don't follow THEIR beliefs, they claim the right to tax you or kill you (and it's their choice.) VERY un-Randian, too.
oh, and the raping women going down the street and "God-given rights" stuff?
ALL of those things fall under "power and agreement." If you exceed the speed limit in a school zone, the community has AGREED to vest POWER in the police to arrest, fine or imprison you. If you wantonly rape people, you're going to either be caught by the police, vested with the same POWER to lock you up for trial, OR that "stronger individual, male or female," who kicks the shit out of you is wielding POWER over you directly in order to convince you that you "really shouldn't do those kinds of things."
POWER and Agreement. That's what makes people stop for red lights and agree to uphold the Constitution.
Few people understand that.
Ciao, again!
Great points, there's only one problem with your points. I defy you to find one statement I made insisting that i as a Christian am right and you as an atheist are wrong. Nor have made any attempt to "convert" you to anything and in my opinion to each his own. If a person wants to hear about Christianity or any other religion, I'm always willing to discuss the matter as I have with you. This conversation started not because I insisted on the validity of Christianity or any other religion, It was your insistence on the lack of existence of a God that started the conversation. My best wishes to you in your persuits.
Fred
May I remind you of that girl Mary who got knocked up by a much older guy? If Joe hadn't been such a good guy what might have happened?
What an interesting confluence of concepts.
Nobody can worship a god and follow her teachings at the same time.
I would suggest you ask some Cubans who risk their lives getting here in small leaky boats unless you can find a few of the people who actually swam through shark infested waters wearing a life preserver.
As to Ayn Rand being an Atheist, true, but that only shows that she was mistaken in one of her beliefs. In the recently rediscovered interview, she states that one of her reasons for not believing in a God was that it conflicts with man then believing that they could never achieve being like God. her misunderstanding was that Christian belief is that we should all try to become like God, therefore proving her misunderstanding of Christianity.
Fred Speckmann
Mentioning preying I find it sad that any religion has to grow its ranks for it's members to get their ticket to their heaven punched. Do what you do among yourselves, but leave others who don't join alone.
Sadly you continue to show your ignorance regarding both matters. True, there were many criminals among the Mariel Boat Lift during the end of the 1970''s and October 1980 when it ended, but these were criminals specifically released and sent to the U.S. By Castro in order to cause great havoc in the U.S. These “immigrants” had nothing to do with the people I'm talking about and you know it. That there are criminals among refugees on occasion is not in dispute, but I'm talking about the vast majority of those refugees.
As to your ignorant comment “...I find it sad that any religion has to grow its ranks for it's members to get their ticket to their heaven punched. Do what you do among yourselves, but leave others who don't join alone.” Who is trying to inject religion on you or anyone else? It is you who through your commentary are injecting yourself into the religious beliefs of others by making your unsubstantial claims of a non existing God. None of us will have proof one way or the other until our death, that's why believers in God refer to their belief as faith. You are entitled to your faith in that there is no God and frankly I could care very little about your personal beliefs. However to insist on your belief being correct is to insist that my belief is incorrect. What difference should it make to you what my belief or the beliefs of billions of other believers in the word are? To leave each other alone without dispute is what most believers advocate. I've never heard of any religious person suing to disallow any atheist from stating their belief.
Fred Speckmann
When they try to inflict those beliefs on others through anti-abortion efforts, taking over school boards as was done in Dover, PA, blue laws...
"When they try to inflict those beliefs on others through anti-slavery efforts..."
You might want to get your history straight.
Ohhhhhhh, and abortion ain't "murder." (except in the context of YOUR religion)
Abortion is mostly legal in most of America.
You may want to consult a dictionary before you splash picket sign jabbering around.
In your eternal quest to preserve your ignorance, did you ever once hear me announce a religious objection to abortion?
An unborn child has a unique, human genetic pattern. That makes it human. Otherwise we can euthanize the crippled, the different, at will, and it wouldn't be "murder".
It's called, "science", genius, not religion.
Murder is mostly illegal in most of America... except in abortion clinics.
And an acorn has a unique oak genetic pattern. But you don't build a house out of acorns.
Pregnancy is a process that ends when your brutal god aborts it (miscarrage), or when the woman decides.
Or oak trees.
And oak trees have no rights.
When God aborts a pregnancy (miscarriage), it's a tragedy. When a human aborts it, its murder. At least that's what the state claims when a pregnancy is aborted against the will of the pregnant woman...
Finally you have acknowledge that the pregnant woman has a will of her own. Then again, even a monkey will occasionally type a word.
In America what is gestating (define by each woman who is pregnant) has absolutely no rights but what the woman gives it.
And please quit using "murder" outside the context of your religion.
BTW, I have some mighty fine oak floors in my home. Acorns just wouldn't have been the same.
You may have mighty fine oak floors in your home, but they're not made of trees.
In this country we use pine for the frames of houses, not oak.
Nice try, though.
My definition of murder is simple and has nothing to do with Christianity, and you know it.
Another question you won't answer:
What defines a human being?
If it's anything more than the genetic pattern, then it will be possible for individuals to kill other humans without it being murder.
No where does the Catholic church, or any protestant church, nor the Bible, nor any other religious tome state that a human being is one with a unique human genetic pattern.
That's mine. It is not religious, it is scientific. If you can come up with some definition of human that is able to ignore the human genetic pattern, please share it. Otherwise, I suggest you stop harping on it, because you're looking like more of a fool than usual.
OK, how did it go building a house out of pine cones?
Let's watch: "If you can come up with some definition of human that is able to ignore the human genetic pattern, please share it."
Right off the top of my head I'll agree with Descartes, "I think therefor I am."
"Humanity" should NOT be described as genetic or pretty much any other physical characteristic. Remember, entire races were defined as less than human because of genetics. Is a person missing a leg or arm at birth through genetic fault less than human? Just doesn't work
And of course when we encounter intelligent races not from Earth the situation will get really complicated. Maybe they weren't created in your god's image, if such actually occurred.
Monkeys think.
Apes think.
Is a person with Downs syndrome or other mental deficiency less human?
Is a person missing a leg or arm due to misadventure less than human?
A person through genetic fault who is missing a limb still retains a human genetic pattern. He's not suddenly Neanderthal or Australopithecene.
And that's not an argument against including as human someone with a unique human genetic pattern.
We have not yet encountered intelligent SPECIES not from Earth; and they are unlikely to be able to get a human female pregnant.
As for Descartes, you apparently misunderstand the point of his assertion; I'm sure YOU know you exist. How do you know you're human?
Entire races were NOT defined as less than human because of genetics. They were defined as less than human based upon superficial physical characteristics, not genetic patterns.
Not saying it's an "unborn child."
I'm saying it's whatever each woman defines what is going on inside of her. That's her right and you have zero say in it.
MOF, neither do I have any say. I simply respect what she wants to say.
So when I poop it out, I can dress it up and call it "Bobo"...
The world is what it is. A baby not yet born is not a part of his/her mother, any more than a two year old holding on to mommy's hand is a part of his/her mother.
Yes s/he is dependent, yes s'he's funny looking, yes s/he is inconvenient. So are two year olds and illegal aliens.
Note how we're no longer arguing "my religion" when you cease focusing on it like a rabid hamster...
Can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove your god is real.
If you don't believe in God... according to "my religion"... you will go to hell.
So why would I want to convince *you* that God exists?
Your are using your religion to commit spiritual rape if you try to force it upon another.
You are currently committing spiritual rape by trying to force your religion on me.
I'm not forcing you to do anything except stay away from those who don't want your religion.
If part of your religion is to prey upon others it is wrong.
Ayn Rand was a woman with remarkable insight, in some ways.
What makes you think I follow her teachings, ignorant child?
Was she moral without religion?
Fred Speckmann
Ayn Rand's belief in free will was coincidental with the alleged free will offered by Christians.
BTW, how's that cannibal thing going? Eat any good gods lately? You know, that transubstantiation thing?
"In theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist is changed, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality,[1][2] into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] " That's from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstan...
Your commentary is becoming more absurd and I might even say deranged by the minute. Is it that somehow in the past you were somehow disillusioned by exposure to the concept of God, whatever it was I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusions you have. But, you are entitled to them as my faith teaches me.
As to the concept of the “ sacrament of the Eucharist is changed, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality,[1][2] into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] " there are those that believe it to be a symbolic change and those that take it more literally. The question remains, what difference does it make to you? Leave and let be, is the only principle at stake in this debate. I have no desire to convince you of anything, yet you insist on your point of view to be fact. As I wrote earlier, neither of us can prove our beliefs, but I'm only stating what my belief is without insisting on it being a fact. Yet you are consistently casting aspersions on my beliefs and the beliefs of others.
By the way, congratulations on your abilities to use a dictionary. We can both play a game of digs at each other, but I would ask to what purpose? Live in piece and believe what you will, please allow me and others the same privilege.
your statement regarding Ayn Rand's belief in free will jsut proves her mistaken understanding of at least Christianity as she came to the understanding of the teachings of God without realizing it. Just proves that despite her brilliance she just didn't get it when it comes to the existence of God.
Fred Speckmann
Ayn Rand was still an atheist and I still advocate that religious folks keep to themselves and not dump on the rest of America to forward their religion.
Please provide one example of any Christian who wants to take any freedom away from anyone.
It wouldn't seem right to me either if there were such "Christians."
Fred Speckmann
Here and now in America, such religious Blue Laws have been rolled back, overruled in court, and repealed. But vestiges remain.
Until 1990 or so, in about a dozen states you could not vote, serve on a jury, or hold elective office if you did not profess a belief in God.
I mean, with everyone being atheist except for a few despicable... Christians.
I would not trust an atheist on a jury or to give truthful testimony on the stand. They've no stake in telling the truth if a lie will benefit them.
Ooops, he is kinda brutal. Sent his own kid to be tortured and die. Killed everyone except Noah and his kin. Killed a bunch of folks in a couple of cities and then Lott go so drunk on magic wine...
Brutal god. Why should I trust anyone who worships him?
I certainly agree with your concern about the liquor laws that prohibit stores from selling legal products before noon. I'm a believer in the free market and that there should be no laes prohibiting legal products to be sold whenever the storekeeper chooses to do so 24 hours a day. It seems to be a leftover from earlier times when religious influences were stronger than they are today.
However, would appreciate some further information regarding your claim that, “Until 1990 or so, in about a dozen states you could not vote, serve on a jury, or hold elective office if you did not profess a belief in God.” this would be unconstitutional in a very obvious way as the Constitution specifically prohibits any such restrictions.
Please remember that among any group and that includes Christians, there will be unreasonable people. My statements regarding religion and Christianity specifically, are about following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments as best as we possibly can. Few of us are successful at it and certainly I'm not. However, that doesn't change my beliefs and my desire to become a better human being.
Fred Speckmann
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/27...
I show my proof there.
Fred
He can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religiou...
But this should be kept in mind: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
So, although it's against the rules the "Christians" still try to have an impact on how America runs.
Such laws no longer stand in defiance of the Supreme Court decisions, but the laws have not been repealed. In point of fact, the first decision was in 1961, but 30 years later the problem still existed. See the article here in the Gulch under Politics.
Thanks.
But now I'll bet you want to define all christians rather than those themselves who call themselves christians.
You use the term, you sort 'em out. Someone says they are "christian" and advocated taking away something (like choice even though that there brutal christian god seems to have said folks should have it) I'm going to take them at their word. You don't want them to be christians then you tell them to stop using your god.
Not all religions are equal, as only one can be true.
In that she was an atheist, in the manner in which she led her life, no, she was not moral.
If it's got so much of your god in it show us some quotes from that their christian bible.
America don't have no state religion. It's right there in the Constitution. Without having a religion / god acknowledged it can't be protecting something.
Are you really in America, Hiraghm? You sure do seem to have a different slant on things.
Would you like me to inundate you with some more Founding Father quotes where they not only expressed belief in the existence of God, but expressed preference for Christianity as the unofficial religion of the U.S.?
You seem to be arguing both sides. Either America is legalistically dominated by religion or it is not. I see that things are changing. As I noted, since about 1990, atheists have been allowed to vote.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
There is no mention of the background of the culture, or the fact that it was based on Judeo-Christian values. You seem intent on just putting pieces into play on the chessboard that have no part of the game just to obscure the issue. Either that, or you are one of those highly educated individuals who "can clearly state the obvious" to those of us uneducated peons, and are responsible for the incredibly bad education system we have. Stop pontificating and speak to the matter at hand. There are lots of silly arguments you can try, but the plain and simple fact is, at that time, and in that culture, the WAS a religious influence that was reflected in our laws created then, and carried on. That was the specific reason for the 1st Amendment, to protect the individual right to choose their religion and not have it dictated by the state (which was the case in England if you studied any history). Period. End of story.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and certainly not Christian. For more insight to that fact you can go to: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfa...
If your Christian bible was so influential in America's founding can you show us any quotes from it in our Constitution?
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29152...
Still didn't find any quotes from that there Christian bible in our Constitution. Figured.
http://christianity.about.com/od/indepen...
You say: "You discard info presented out of hand and besmirch the author. That is Ad-hominem and thus inconsequential. "
A disingenuous claim. I didn't see you going after the bogus claims made about WHO and the rankings of medical care.
Fred Speckmann
You state, "Still no state religion, much as some from the right are demanding it."
Please provide one example of "some from the right demanding it."
Fred Speckmann
The Dover, PA, creationism fiasco from just a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_...
Oh, and here is another one: "Comment is free
The Mormon church won't drop its opposition to gay marriage..."
That's from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...
Let's go for another one! Is there another one... You bet: "September 7, 2011 - Massachusetts Catholic Bishops Oppose "Death with Dignity" Initiative Petition"
From: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Utility/Ne...
Ohhhhh shucks Fred one more huh...!: ABORTION: "The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion..."
That's from: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resour...
It has consistently been extreme right wing politicians who cater to the religious folks, thus trying to make religious beliefs law in America. Bad, bad, bad...
An establishment of religion would be the Anglican Church.
Solyndra, Bobo. Pig-tail, poisonous lightbulbs, Bobo. We are being forced to accept the tenets of the Green religion in actual practice by the federal government.
I notice that you don't mention one other religious imposition on the federal government: murder. All Christian religions condemn it as an extreme sin, therefore in order to avoid establishing a Christian state religion, we must halt any and all legal penalties for committing murder.
And lots of Christians call abortion "murder" but it is legal. Hasn't worked so well in halting that. Guess that there Christian influence ain't so strong.
Can't have it both ways.
Abortion, except in self-defense of one's life, IS murder because you are killing a creature with a unique, human genetic pattern, making him human.
If being inconvenient, funny looking, and dependent upon others deprives one of one's humanity, then let me get my ammo, cause I got a lot of illegal aliens and welfare parasites to shoot.
(for the candy-asses out there, that's sarcasm.)
Only in this case in the context of your religion, Hiraghm. Abortion is legal in most of America. Further, some folks even understand how it only applies to their religion. Don't believe it! Check out: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
"you are killing a creature with a unique, human genetic pattern,..."
Bull exhaust. A fetus is no more a "human being" than an acorn is a tree. Try building a house out of acorns. But, the genetic material is the same.
Why are so many around here pushing their version of christanity when Ayn Rand was an atheist? Seems to me like they have an agenda other than what Ayn Rand supported.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." - Thomas Paine
" As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others. "
-= Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788
-= Alexander Hamilton - Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793 (See Article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America).
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: "We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
You are the one who referenced the socialist paradises with universal healthcare. To bring their socialist ideas here would be to introduce a foreign element.
BTW, are you using "socialist" the same way Rush used "Marxist" about the Pope?
Also, it doesn't matter what you call them they still have better health care than we do.
I am using socialist to refer to scumbags that wish to enslave men one to another for the benefit of the inferior of spirit, at the expense of the superior in spirit (for want of better, concise terms).
The same way moochers are inferior to producers.
Fortunately this is America and we don't have to put up with that.
Sheesh, why can't you get things straight and keep 'em that way?
It's in the middle of the article at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
"I find that I agree fully with my good friend Patrick Henry when he said it cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on The Gosple of Jesus Christ." - Edward Rutledge
"Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast." - Patrick Henry
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
-- John Adams
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
The "wall of separation" is between *church* and state, not between *religion* and state, which gets back to the "establishment" issue.
Just as the 1st never protects you from *exposure* to speech, it never protects you from *exposure* to religion, even speech and religion expressed by those in high office.
Please list all the Moslems who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
After, please list all the scientologists, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, atheists (*not* "deists"!), and Hindus.
I think you will find that, particularly culturally, those who formed the government were primarily oriented toward Christianity.
Thank God.
Here is what some nasty Christians say about the Great Architect of the Universe: "Freemason's “Great Architect” is Satan!" You can find that at: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20R...
Can't have it both ways, Hiraghm. It's up to you to sort out what those other Christians are doing and please report back.
yes
yes
I don't have to give Shriner's Hospital a single penny.
I didn't say *military* doctors don't have enough incentive. Although I'd bet you military doctors are NOT the most skilled and capable doctors available.
Anything done involuntarily for the "common good" is slavery.
It is slavery for me in OK to pay for a road in Hawaii.
It is slavery for me in OK to pay for soldiers to make Afghanistan safe for Afghans. It would not, however, be slavery for me to pay for soldiers to conquer Afghanistan for possession of and control over, for the benefit of the United States.
It is slavery for me in OK to pay for clean water, etc in Hawaii.
Aside from the armies, the rest of that is no business of the federal government's, according to the Constitution. And even the Constitution prevents the federal government from having a standing army... legally.
Really? I relied upon them for four years and I thought they were great.
The doctors at Shrine Hospitals (that don't charge patients for treatment) are among the best in the world, yet they aren't money grubbing entramanures sucking what they can get from the public.
And I'd bet the doctors at the Shriner's Hospital aren't among the best in the world, except in the sense that doctors practicing in America are among the best in the world.
Missed that one. Gonna have to show me a quote on that one.
Guess Hawaii isn't a part of the United States anymore. Or is it? I seem to have missed the memo.
**"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; **
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" - U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8.
I surrounded the relevant section with asterisks.
The Founding Fathers did not want there to be a standing army; we were, however, to have a standing navy, which means a standing marine corps for those military functions necessary in situations short of actual land warfare.
There are historical reasons for this provision.
Oh, and I can understand that we don't need such a standing army as we used to. But that also means that in today's world we would have to implement a draft. Oops. It would also mean that they would have to be trained and in today's world an incident could be over before that can happen.
So, we still need a standing army. Let's let them pick the weapons instead of politicians and their pork barrel efforts though.
No, it doesn't mean that today we'd have to implement a draft.
You chose to entirely overlook the marines part of my comment. And the fact that the States are expected to train the militia, meaning we'd already have trained troops, just not the hated "regulars".
Whether we need a standing army or not has nothing to do with its Constitutionality.
And generals and Admirals have such a great track record of picking weapons, such as the cavalry officers who opposed implementation of the tank and airplane, the naval opposition to aircraft carriers (the potential of which nobody but Billy Mitchell saw before Pearl Harbor. Sad that only the Japanese listened to him).
It wasn't politicians who held up the adoption of the M16 rifle.
You know, pay me or die. Could that be part of the reason health care costs are rising so fast?
Fred Speckmann
Fred
So I can afford to feed a child in Africa while continuing to survive. The child is an individual, is in need, and I can help.
Your first statement above said a moral human would save another individual. Then you immediately switched sides when that individual is in Africa. Don't play this bullshit game saying that helping those in Africa is just a simple choice. All morality is choice or it isn't morality.
Am I immoral for not helping individuals in Africa or not? If I am, then you condemn almost the entire planet as being immoral. If I am moral though, you can't play the double standard that I have to help people to be a moral human, yet still be moral while not helping people.
One additional point I want to make, in general I choose not to engage with people who can't help themselves and have to use vulgarities in debates. therefore, not because I'm a Puritan, but because I choose not to engage in that type of language, I will say good bye to you and wish you a Merry Christmas.
Fred
You have judged gays harshly many times.
Good luck and Merry Christmas.
Fred
EXACTLY! That's how many many people feel about over enthusiastic Christians out to get their ticket to that their heaven with that their bullying brutal god.
BTW, at least militant gays haven't shot any doctors in the name of their god.
But in fact one of the moral things Bush did do was get a bunch of antiHIV medication to Africa.
"Posted by Boborobdos 1 day, 5 hours ago
Really? And what do you expect the outcome of diabetes to be when untreated? "
If they want to die for my politics then yes I will let them. If they don't want to die for my politics I won't force them.
If so I hope it is you personally who shows up at my door to be my executioner.
I'm optimistic you could find a hut in the woods like Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski did. Wayyyyy off the grid. With nobody looking for you it's unlikely you would be bothered. It would be your own personal gulch.
Otherwise you are dependent upon society. Like it or not there are obligations to be a part of it.
2. Subordinate.
3. Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children.
I do not see that any of those definitions fit rozar, as he describes himself. He lives by free, voluntary exchange for a mutual benefit. He wishes to live in a system where YOU aren't going to get any value by voting for the use of physical force against him. He would like to trade for governmental protection of natural rights from others' using force against those rights.
On all laws which limit his freedom, he does not accept them but may be willing to to endure them while actively advocating for their end.
Prove that Rozar is *dependent* on society.
Sad that you consider laws and social contracts to be "force." My guess is you just don't understand the benefits of and living in a society.
We have an excellent system with our three branches of government.
And through those three branches we get things, laws (also can be called social contracts) that generally are what is best for America.
Want proof? Look at how "trickle down" has failed.
Good enough for you?
Trading value for value is "interacting with". It creates no dependence.
If the truck driver isn't paid, the food won't arrive.
If the trucking company isn't paid, the food won't arrive.
When I pay for the food, I pay Walmart. They pay Tyson. Tyson pays the driver. I get the food.
Perfect. Natural. Trading value for value... everybody wins... until something we can't control poisons that balance...
Depending on your definition of "politics", I'm not only willing to let others die for my politics, I'm willing to kill for them. And I'm willing to pay others to kill for my politics.
The thing is, however, that when killing and dying are necessary solutions to a political problem, it's already too late to solve it.
Consider the Confederate War; 600,000 dead, and that was just the military deaths. Half the reformed country economically destroyed and in depression. The other half followed within a decade.
Or the French revolution, which resulted in greater and more widespread horrors than those for which the people were rebelling.
Or WWII, even. The political difficulty with Japan and America wasn't resolved by killing. It was resolved by the defeat of Japan and imposition of American cultural values on the Japanese.
The current war with Islam isn't a political battle, but an ideological one. Historically, ideological battles can't be resolved through politics.
Arakal said, "Ideology *counts*. The only catch is - almost always when ideology counts, *it does the counting with a sword*."
- Ideological Defeat, by Christopher Anvil
Christians have killed a lot of folks over the years. If killing is christian then I don't want any part of it and in fact will oppose it. Fortunately I'm pretty sure you don't represent all of christanity. There are still guys out there like Bishop Spong.
You are "correct when I say the difference between me and you is that you think I'm morally obligated to save a fellow human if it is within my capacity to do so."
Of course it's patently false. It's better for society if folks can stay in the workforce and don't contaminate others with disease. It isn't a question of "morality." It's just good business for a society to treat medical issues for everyone early.
"Morality" is a secondary issue at best but so many seem to think they have the be all and end all in their corner of the world with their version...
I would place the morality issue first, but that's just my preference and maybe, if you would be so kind, you could talk to me about it.
Your argument that it is good for society means that you think the benefit of society is more important than what's good for the individual.
So it's win win for the individual and society.
But there is a cost to reward ratio. The more pure water is, the more expensive. Most people would love to drink the purest water, because it's better for them, but would refuse to pay for all of the resources it takes to purify water to that level.
It is the same with health. I think I am healthy enough. But I smoke. And for right now I like to smoke, knowing that I will hate it later. Other people over indulge in food. Others refuse to brush their teeth and others refuse to exercise. They feel like their time will be better spent doing other things. Whether it is or not doesn't matter in this discussion, just the fact that they chose to do other things than maintain their body.
Even genetic diseases fall under this category. If you cared about your health you would go in for a relatively cheap check up and you would ask your family about any common diseases among them. From that point on you can choose to do something to protect yourself from your genetic disposition, or not.
Maybe you could give me your thoughts on this, I may have gotten off track from where I wanted to go but If you would like to offer your opinion I would appreciate it. Or you can tell me it isn't worth talking about and I could try again lol.
Bad habits are bad habits. You are rare that you admit yours. Around here what I most often see is folks piling on such saying they don't want to pay for someone else's bad habits. Ayn Rand herself smoked.
We are a society pretty much interacting with each other. Taking care of each other makes it better for everyone.
So you do not believe that there is an objective measure of "what is right"?
Is theft right or wrong? Is taking someone's property for someone else's use right or wrong? I regard the former as wrong and the latter as just as wrong. Does "everyone"?
In addition, I AM A MEMBER of "society," so "society" HAS benefited from my actions... but keep in mind that initially and maybe forever, only I and the person I helped are the ones who know it.
I think this is where Rand's position would be that if anyone thinks anyone SHOULD/MUST do "nice things for others" FOR the "good of society" ALONE, that IS "immoral," and I tend to agree.
If lots of people do good things for others in my society or culture, I'm probably going to benefit, but that's NOT why i'm going to, on an individual basis, "do nice things" for others. Unless I feel good about having done it. Something like all of the non-taxable donations I make to organizations that champion some of the issues of groups I'm NOT a member of....
Can I believe in Rand's points and still LIKE PEOPLE and want to see them live happier, safer lives? I think so.
But we still need to support society. Without it we don't get to enjoy the standards we have. That includes roads, bridges, health care, utilities, and all the infrastructure we need to get along.
I think the problem in the way you phrase your second paragraph is that it's impossible to quantify how much "support" "society" needs or wants.
It's the proverbial, robbing Peter to pay Paul always gets the support of Paul.
And as my lawyer-adversary Claire on Linked In's White House Group puts it, there is NO LIMIT in her mind to how much teachers should be paid. Yeah, they're very important, but NO LIMIT?! Hundreds of k per year? Millions?
I really think that individuals and a "free market" can set the "going price" of just about everything much better than any "good for society" claim.
Here in NC, there's a current battle going on between eco-forces and government agencies about repairing or replacing a bridge to the Outer Banks. One eco-group actually proposes building something like the second-longest bridge in the world to solve "access" problems for the local residents, while the government tries to point out that their solution fails to meet existing EPA regs!
Go figure. Why does my home insurance rate include subsidies for folks who own a home on the coast? Good of Society so people can go there to fish, sun-bathe and vacation.
I'd much rather pay the going rate for a sensible bridge and local dining and lodging costs based on real costs than some nebulous "good of society" impossible estimate.
I think we also agreed that rebuilding in hurricane and flood zones was crazy when structures are wiped out again and again.
Rather than a bridge might a ferry where those who are traveling down there can pay as individuals? Or, is the volume too high? A toll road perhaps? After all, it is they who choose to be out on the islands.
So, you can see that I'm not for supporting pet pork barrel projects just to suck up tax $$$.
And don't seem to have concern for folks who don't give a rat's patoot about that but just want to "get there quickly and easily," which kind of lends itself to highways and bridges.
I like it when utilities and infrastructure "carry their own weight," too. I-540 on the northwest side of Raleigh was done with the promise of electronic toll collection (and tolls!) but not too many people use it. I did some math and estimated that the per-mile tolls are 3-5x what any "average toll" tends to be. I wonder what would happen if DOTs got "transparent" about numbers like that.
btw, how do you find out if a doctor (or surgeon) is "really" good or "just in it for the money"?
I think there are dozens of niches that Consumer Reports could and should be involved in that would help answer questions like that... :)
Merry Christmas, too!
Several fronts can help keep good doctors and weed out some of the bad ones.
Enforcement and regulatory agents need to be more open about doctors with questionable outcomes.
Hospitals need to clamp down on doctors who have drinking or drug problems. If they DO something about a doctor with that kind of problem the hospital itself should be shielded from any malpractice issues.
Insurance companies, rather than increasing insurance fees, should discontinue coverage for those who are concomitant.
Medicare and Medicaid need to clamp down on fraud more than what they have been doing.
I'd like to say outcomes are important, but some surgeons take risky patients because of the challenge. Others will milk a dying patient financially for all they can. How can one tell the difference? Good question.
My local government can be paid to arrange the construction of local roads and bridges, and their upkeep, as well as utilities. The most successful roads around here are toll roads.
"We" do not need to pay for health INSURANCE (which is what Obamacare is and is NOT the same thing as healthcare).
Of what benefit is it to me that you get cancer treatment? Of what benefit is it to me that you get your hernia operated on? Roads, power grids, bridges, I can decide whether they are needed around here, and am a lot more likely to have an effect on any local government decision, as people who've never been here, who don't live here, and who have no vested interest in the well-being of my community won't be sticking their noses (or votes) in.
I pay for the products.
And trucking companies pay a TON of additional highway fees to the federal vampires.
I should pay my share of what I don't use?
You really don't get it, do you? We are in a society. If you don't like it go make your own gulch.
The trucks who are using the roads pay to use the roads. Those costs are figured in to what the company charges for the product.
Now, I could pay less for the product if the federal government didn't charge the truckers so much, because most of what I get here in OKC comes from Paul's Valley... which is local.
No, it's NOT as simple a "cause and effect" issue as you'd like to make it.
And, people "without health care" don't all die. What a crappy "argument."
Yes, diabetes, untreated, will likely kill you, but one of my local friends decided that he didn't want to be treated for his diabetes, so he went on a very strict and healthy diet, lost weight and lost his diabetes. I just had bariatric surgery last week. I was on the road to diabetes. Most people who have the surgery and had diabetes go completely off insulin or other treatment in days, weeks or months.
Stop throwing red herrings and black/white "what-if's" into the mix, ok?
Thanks.
Happy Holidays
How are those without insurance supposed to pay for the operation?
Tell me, if the surgery didn't exist... how would they treat their diabetes?
Hiraghm, you can "what if" all day.
At the end of the day America is better with universal health care and same sex marriage.
Universal health care is based, in part, on the assumption that ANY kind of free market or individual choice must be completely managed and provided by a government or central planning and delivery agency.
And as for homosexual marriage, opposition, at root, is always based on some religious doctrine and it pisses me off that the states' legislatures haven't woken up to the idea that "marriage" should be in the realm of the churches and the LEGAL rights to "life partnership" should be specified for anyone and everyone who wishes to live together and, if they wish, have sex.
Sci-fi novels have solved those issues for decades by describing "contracts," freely entered into by any two (or more) individuals, where the aspects of divorce, inheritance and ALL the other crap is spelled out in the contract.
If you don't like the contract, find another partner or a better lawyer to draft the document!
Oh, and those contracts... in many stories, they're NOT "for life." Many have specified durations "with option to renew or terminate."
And in those stories, virtually all of the issues y'all are ragging about don't exist.
Go figure.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_7...
Audible Books has it. I'll be listening to it on the way home from work.
What is it about folks who subscribe to a pure point of view can't stand about a little challenge? Are their positions that weak they can't take any criticism?
Ask me in 20 years.
Treatment for most ailments does not require a physician.
ROFL...
Yes, Hiraghm, you pray for relief.
You insist upon putting words in my mouth, so to speak, yet call me a liar for drawing conclusions as to your character (or lack thereof) from your own words.
Treatment for most ailments does not require a physician; have a headache? Bayer Aspirin will do. Cut your finger? Johnson's salve and a band-aid. Sinus headache? A bowl of boiling water and a towel. Ear ache? A cotton ball soaked in heated Vick's Vapo-Rub. A black eye? A raw piece of beef. Tummy ache? A peppermint candy. An abscessed tooth? A straight pin, some rubbing alcohol, plenty of mouthwash, a mirror and steady nerves.
Most ailments afflicting most people can be treated by the people themselves, or their family. It's only in recent days when health insurance has begun covering everything from cancer to condoms that people feel *dependent* upon the medical profession for every boo-boo in their lives.
While prayer certainly wouldn't hurt, it's not mandatory.
Your home brew medicine might be OK and not do any more harm, then again...
The practice of medicine has gone from a chicken if the patient could afford it to corporate demands of what the traffic will bare.
Insurance companies have absolutely zero interest in curbing medical costs because their percentage stays the same no matter how much or little it costs. But when costs go up they get more at the same percentage so they allow prices to go up.
Doctors who are in it just for the money IMO are worthless.
"Not" do any more harm?
I've merely given remedies which have kept me alive for half a century, and have yet to fail.
But, of course you would reject one caring for his own troubles; one must rely on "experts" for the simplest of remedies. The individual is too incompetent, too ignorant, too weak to treat even the trivial malady of his own.
He must go to experts to be drugged, prodded, carved upon. To lance a as boil is beyond the "average man" as brain surgery. So requires the progressive philosophy.
Insurance companies do not *allow* prices to go up. they cause them to go up. By covering tests that are unnecessary, by covering medicines and treatments that could as well be performed by the individual, by his family or not at all.
When a hospital charges an insured person $12,000 for the same operation that they only charge $5000 for when the person is uninsured... it's a pretty clear indicator of what the problem is.
And, remember... Obamacare is about health *insurance*... not health *care*.
Doctors who are in it just for the money are no different from bakers who are in it just for the money, or steel manufacturers who are in it just for the money, or retailers who are in it just for the money.
There are few people who follow careers of their choosing "just" for for the money.
A doctor may not be willing to sacrifice his happiness and comfort to cure the ill, but that doesn't mean he's in it just for the money. He could become a banker and gain money.
A doctor who isn't interested in the money is a doctor whose competence I question.
Where's your proof that most, if not all could make "way" more in other venues?
Some doctors take low reward jobs for the same reason people in other professions do: they lack the skills to command a higher price.
I find it sad that you attach $$$$$$$ to such skills.
My father spent the last year of his life in a VA hospital. The care was excellent.
By what definition of "health care"?
Yes, if I don't eat nourishment, I die. If I don't sleep, I die.
If I don't get a free box of rubbers, I don't die.
If I don't go have the doctor shove his finger up my butt every six months, I don't die.
If I don't have my teeth cleaned periodically, I don't die.
If I don't get a new optical prescription every year, I don't die.
If I don't exercise regularly, I feel lousy and get fat... but I don't die.
There are lots of things covered by health *insurance* that are non-lethal if not done. There are lots of healthcare treatments that don't require insurance or a doctor; aspirin for a headache, a steaming bowl for blocked sinuses, a band-aid for a boo-boo, Ben-gay for a sore back.
There is no "pay me or die". You *will* die one day; that is inevitable. All healthcare treatment... ALL OF IT... goes to delaying that inevitability.
To be more accurate...
You know, pay me for my knowledge, skill, time and effort, and in exchange I will help you delay your inevitable death. You don't pay me for my knowledge, skill, time and effort... I wish you luck. If I am forced to help you delay that day... one of us has become a slave.
Imagine a housing contractor telling you, "pay me, or you can live in the street". Is that a gun to your head? No, it's you paying a contractor for his training, skill, experience and effort, which provides you a house. A house... without which... you die.
Nobody is "forced" to be a doctor. Further, there are many examples of doctors who are not in the business of medicine. They are there to offer their expertise without the money motive. Military doctors, doctors at Catholic hospitals, the doctors at Shriner's hospitals...
Not all of medicine is run on greed.
They may *choose* at some point or other not to charge for their services, but that is their *choice*.
The intimation with your "gun to the head" metaphor is that a doctor *must* treat you, whether he wants to or not, whether he is compensated, or not. And someone who *must* do something against his will is a slave.
An honest business model is one where one is compensated for the value of his expertise, his experience, his training and his time and effort. It is not an honest business model to coerce his efforts from him by tears or threats.
I say the doctor will be paid. Not by the patient, but they will be paid.
We all do, except that it will be at a lower rate because we won't be paying for insurance fat cats.
This is America. You can leave if you want.
If I do choose to leave is that really fixing the injustice of enslaving people? I personally think that rights should be extended to people no matter where they live. Just human decency I guess.
That is the one who should leave, out of his own self-interest in his own happiness.
That's what America is about. Helping others.
And yes, change is sometimes good. The end of slavery, women voting...
They gave us a *republic*, not a democracy. They wisely disliked democracy.
If the end of slavery was good, then why do you want to return to it?
more remedial education for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIc...
Why do I have an obligation to keep them alive at my expense with no compensation? Where's the decency in slavery?
Did you ever think that you just don't fit in? I could fully understand that.
That I don't fit in... where? In a socialist paradise? You're right there. Fortunately, the U.S. isn't such... yet.
I wonder what a right wing pro-lifer would say about that.
You're the one who wants to turn America into one of those socialist paradises you keep bringing up. If anything, YOU should be the one leaving, for your idea of paradise exists. Leave my idea of paradise alone, and let us return it to what it was meant to be.
Absolutely FALSE. Quit making stuff up.
You're the one touting countries with socialized medicine, those socialist paradises, as examples of how we should change, not me.
I ain't making anything up. For my statement to be absolutely false, you would have to oppose single-payer, socialized medicine, or "universal health care" or whatever leftist euphemism you care to use for government controlled and run health care. Which would be a complete and total reversal of your position to date.
YOU don't get to define me.
But, you have said, "let them die" so it's clear you don't care about anyone but yourself and yours.
But, you have said, "let them die" so it's clear you don't care about anyone but yourself and yours."
Rest assured, 'You have defined you.' You've left no doubt in my mind at all.
I did not falsify your position, unless your own words are a false expression of your position.
You favor government controlled healthcare; you have expressed as much here in this argument. You have referenced the socialist paradises of Europe, the socialist paradises which have "universal health care" (which is a bullshit term, but it's yours so we'll use it).
Sorry, you're hung on your *own* petard, not one of my construction.
What makes you conclude I care about myself and mine, at all? You assume as much. As far as you know, I may be a complete nihilist.
I choose to be consistent, to borrow from Hank Rearden. I oppose slavery. I will not change my opposition to slavery simply because it may cost a would-be slave owner his life.
How American of you (not).
Please quit making stuff up. Doctors in Vermont will still get paid.
What I'm saying that in rising health care costs there is no incentive to lower them.
What you are trying to say is that remuneration for doctors will go to zero if Vermont's plan is implemented. Absolutely false. They will still get paid.
I'm not trying to say that doctors are not going to get paid. If I implied that I apologize. I could care less if a doctor is paid for what he does as long as he freely chooses to do it.
It wouldn't be America anymore.
I am through entertaining you. Retain your ignorance, and do not ever let your shadow fall in my presence.
I'll support never funding another "stupid" war, or oil subsidies (which are indeed stupid)...
You agree to abolishing the 16th Amendment, and not every giving one single penny of taxpayer money to any social welfare program.
Deal?
(I mean, we'd have been so much better off had we not funded that stupid war, which crippled the Northern States and devastated the Southern States...)
Are you suggesting that a doctor is a murderer because he doesn't treat and cure a person on the opposite side of the planet whom he's never met?
If not, then what's the difference between that and not treating and curing a person he's met in the same town? As I said... you're going to die. All the doctor is going to do is delay that inevitability.
Are you "okay" with watching a doctor starve to death, naked in the elements, because he doesn't have the means to provide himself food, clothing and shelter because he was obligated to give the fruit of his effort and skill to whomever desired it, gratis?
That's right, you see health care as optional and someone doesn't "need" to go to a doctor.
In fact the medical community is holding Americans up as if they are putting a gun to their collective heads. They raise prices because they can, not because of any competitive element that would drive prices to a fair level.
Now Vermont has put the breaks on that and taken the financial incentive out of the effort.
Doctors will still get paid though.
Your extremist twisting of what's posted sure is beginning to look disingenuous.
It is, and they don't.
if you find the cost of medicine too expensive... go to medical school.
Hmm... someone help me out here.. .what was it AR said about the word 'extremist'?
I'm not twisting what's posted here. You are placing an obligation upon someone who invested a chunk of his life and fortune, indebted himself in order to master medicine, *simply because he went to the trouble of mastering it*.
If nobody becomes a doctor because they can't make a living at it... THEN how long do you live?
It's like saying I'm obligated to brick veneer your house because I developed the skill to do so, and you need brick on your house so your neighbors won't make fun of you and force you into long, expensive therapy sessions.
There's nothing 'extremist' in what I'm saying.
Was Patrick Henry extremist when he said, "Give me liberty, or give me affordable healthcare!"?
"If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as 'extremism,' then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth -- any man of integrity."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works...
So, what do you think of someone who advocates for cannibalism in America today isn't an extremist? I'll bet they can produce a lot of passion for it if they want.
And yes, if you are willing to let someone die because of your own personal greed I think you are an extremist. Of course that's my opinion. If you are different that that please explain.
I see a lot of doctors moving their practices to other states.
I don't need to show any proof. What will be will be. That's the title of this thread, we will see how it turns out.
You sure seem to miss the point a lot.
But, we'll see how it turns out.
We know how it will turn out; it will turn out badly. Slave states always do.
Clue... will they be paid what their skills are worth, or will they be paid some arbitrary amount the socialist bastards in government think they should be paid?
Personally I'd rather have a doctor passionate about saving lives rather than a doctor passionate about money.
Then he can exercise his passion for saving lives.
Personally, I'd rather be treated by Dr House than by Dr. Cameron.
Yet still, my point is that greed should not be running medicine.
SLAVERY shouldn't be running medicine.
And in your case, greed IS running medicine. When you take my money, and my neighbor's money, and the guy down the street's money, and use it without their permission or consent to pay for your brother's sister's cousin's sinus medicine, that is *your* greed, and your brother's sister's cousin's greed... claiming the unearned as a right. Confiscating the product of my industry and creativity to pay for what they otherwise could not afford. Forcing doctors to settle for less than what the market would bear if they were allowed to operate freely. Denying them the yachts and vacations in the Hamptons, and thereby removing incentive for them to go through the hell necessary to become doctors.
You want a cure for high medical costs... *competition*. Reduce regulation, and allow doctors to make an even higher profit margin.
I have a friend who became a truck driver. He wasn't interested in driving trucks. But, he'd lost his business, he had had his fill of abject poverty, so he chose the profession that he was able to do and make the most money at. Yes, his decision was the result of "greed"; the further result of his "greed" is that goods were delivered.. foodstuffs... were delivered all over the country in a timely, efficient manner, because he knew that by offering higher quality for his work, he would be able to command even more money.
Likewise, a doctor offering greater quality of treatment, in a free market, will be able to command a higher rate for his services, while people will still be able to get lesser quality treatment for a lesser price from less capable doctors. The incentive to give the highest quality service lies in... greed.
Removing the incentive of greater profit, and you remove the incentive to give greater quality healthcare, and eventually the standard quality is the minimal quality to avoid losing one's license.
This is the way the real world works, whether you like it or not.
Is it "slavery" to pay for the common good with roads?
Is it "slavery" to pay for the common good with armies?
Is it "slavery" to pay for infrastructure like clean water, etc.?
Clue: Don't tell anyone at Shriner's Hospitals that there isn't enough incentive for quality care.
Another clue: Don't tell any military doctors that they don't have enough incentive.
And maybe for the time being no one is forced to become a doctor....but bo care will take care of that soon enough.
Why are you proclaiming that they don't? Doctors in Canada get paid too, as they do in all countries that have universal health care.
It means religious nuts aren't making the law.
Check out: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/justice/ut...
Ain't socialism crushing the middle class. It's the top 1% capitalists.
That's the way freedom works in America.
Fine, if that's the way freedom works in America, I gotta go stock up on ammunition, cause there's LOTS of people out there I can declare non-human...
So, are you going to shoot married same sex couples?
Sounds like the same mentality that inspired so many religious nuts to shoot born doctors and fly airplanes into buildings.
I repeat my question: why do you think I'm a Catholic?
Better than the mentality that enslaved and murdered millions in the name of the collective.
Women are still making their own decisions about abortion.
And in Oregon folks can discuss all end of life options with their doctor.
Ain't America GREAT!
You don't like my definition make up your own.
You still don't get to tell women not to abort if they want to here in America.
Your religion doesn't rule anyone but you and those who choose to follow.
You keep coming back to "your religion".
I have not made a religious argument in regard to abortion. That you keep coming back to "your religion" is a clear sign you cannot refute the arguments I have made.
Superficial appearances are indeed determined by DNA. Whether one is a man or a gibbon is also determined by DNA.
Should a woman give birth to a thousand children, not one will grow up to be a gibbon, while the thousand will all still have unique, human, genetic patterns. Unique from the woman's.
My argument is not that abortion is immoral and therefore should be made illegal.
My argument is that unborn humans are still human and therefore the law must be applied equally; either women cannot murder the humans growing helplessly inside them, or I *can* murder illegal aliens... for no better reason than that woman.
Killing human beings is killing human beings. If women are allowed to determine arbitrarily whether or not a given human being is, in fact, human, then that's a violation of the 1964 civil rights act... unless as a male I too get to arbitrarily pick and choose who is human and who is not.
If you don't want to be called an idiot or a child, don't argue like either. Take your grudge against Christianity elsewhere, it has no place in an argument *with me* about abortion.
Genetics DO NOT determine humanity. An acorn is no more a tree than what's gestating is a "baby."
It is a PROCESS through which at the end there might be a baby.
Fact is plans don't make a house. A bolt or tire doesn't make a car, even all the parts on a shelf don't make a car. They must be put together properly.
And finally, if you have a visitor in your home one minute beyond when they were invited for you can call a cop to get them out.
Yet, even if invited (having had sex is the reality) why do you demand that a woman take care of another "person" one moment more than they are wanted? If someone doesn't leave your home when you demand it my guess is you will proclaim your willingness to shoot them.
Yet you demand a woman house a "child" YOU believe in no matter what her opinion is.
Sheesh... Talk about slavery.
Indeed, an acorn IS a an oak. It is not a fern, it cannot become a fern. It is not a rose, it cannot become a rose.
Exactly how is a an unborn child different than a quadriplegic or a brain-dead patient? All 3 are helpless and dependent upon others.
The only difference is that, if left alone and cared for, the quadriplegic will not grow new limbs, and the brain-dead patient will not regain his brain functions. But an unborn baby, if left alone and cared for as you would expect quadriplegic, will become a human being. Not a fern, not a quadriplegic.
Once you let individuals decide what is human, when their own interests are involved, you enter the monstrous territory of "death panels". Worse, of letting some people, simply because of their physical makeup and irresponsible character, decide who will live and who will die.
Before that it's inside the woman and she gets to decide.
You can't enslave her to 9 months of labor incubating for your beliefs. Thank for freedoms in America where the religious views of another doesn't enslave women.
*I* do not enslave her to 9 months of labor.
No woman on Earth has ever had 9 months of labor.
So it's worse to enslave her to 9 months of caring for a human being than to murder a human being, and yet you'd sentence doctors and the rest of us to a life time of caring for millions of human beings, many of whom have actually *earned* our emnity.
And of course, every woman who chooses abortion is a victim of rape. Not a one of them is a mattressback who wants to continue behaving irresponsibly. sure. Except that's not the case.
Which is an irrelevancy. If you are in my car hanging over a bridge, and the only thing preventing you from plunging to your death is my seatbelt, it's murder if I cut it.
How long will you let them stay in your house before you shoot them?
Also I hope you weren't implying I have a Holy book.
The fact is that abortion is mostly legal.
The fact is that America is not a theocracy.
Many things are and have been legal which shouldn't be or have been.
America is also not a monarchy. Which is as irrelevant as your last assertion.
You aren't inflicting your version of morality upon anyone except those who choose.
Ain't America great!
I can honestly say that I have never attempted to convince or convert any non-believer in God. I will always wish them good fortune and only ask of them that they do the same. No Atheist has ever been able to honestly show any harm to them by any Christian. That's not to say that there aren't people who call themselves Christians who sadly aren't really clear on the concept. I wish you good fortune as I wish for any decent human being who respects others as they would like to be respected.
Fred
But the same can be said of any organized group either wishing for or trying to assert/maintain power and control - not just religions. I agree that there are many christians that live the life of non-aggression (turning the other cheek), but at the same time maintain the belief and policy of proselytizing. That's always given me a problem.
No individual of any sort will ever be safe until the basic concept and worthiness of the right of self determination and to be left alone is more widely taught and respected.
KYFHO
That doesn't reduce the horrors from religion even a little bit.
Both are wrong.
When a collectivist comes 'round here wearing that on his sleeve I'll also nail him and his hypocrisy.
Fred
The weakest of all arguments in a logical environment is "I believe." Although your belief isn't in doubt (it takes all kinds) what you believe can't be proven. Christians can't even say abstinence works because in the case of at least one virgin it didn't. It's hard to take it in the ear or swallow it in that kind of environment.
Then I see a guy... Oh what's his name? Lott, that's it, Lott. He offered his virgin daughters to the mob and later had so much magic wine he had sex with his daughters and didn't recognize them. Black-out drunk and being able to get it up. Now that's magic.
And finally I see guys like Bishop Spong doing same sex weddings one side of christanity and Fred Phelps on the other. Would the real Christians stand up so the rest of us aren't so confused?
Furthermore the allegory's you referred to are from the (Old Testament not from the new which deals with Christianity. Even the New Testament has allegory's that are not meant to always be taken literally. In addition we need to remember that all philosophy's and their published versions are influenced by man through their editing and influences ranging from the politics of the time.
Another thing is, you make reference to not having revealed your “religion,” frankly I don't care what your religion is as long as it makes you happy and a decent human being. I don't think that I need to define the word decent for you, I'm assuming that being on this site we are all decent human beings.
On the other hand, it's clear that you are perfectly capable of injecting a little poison in your comments once in a while and I find that somewhat disappointing and frankly I expected better of you.
Your argument that “ The weakest of all arguments in a logical environment is “I believe.” I beg to differ, in an argument dealing with philosophy, belief is the only thing that is being debated. It is clear that your dislike or perhaps even hate for Christianity blinds you to a degree that makes it impossible to discuss the matter either intellectually or emotionally
I wish you well,
Fred
I respect most religions most of the time. However when some of the members of some religions do hateful things (Muslims blowing things up, Christians shooting doctors, both denying the love and marriage between two people because they are the same sex) I get a bit irked.
And now we get to this current environment built around the beliefs of Any Rand. She was an atheist. When someone comes around here wearing their holy blabbering on their sleeves trying to convince folks that some spirit is responsible... Well, for me it just doesn't go over so well.
I think it's quite appropriate, from either testament, to point out the fallacies, foibles, and outright impossibilities presented on "faith."
So, I don't worry about a dead guy on a stick. I worry about the person who is carrying it around their neck or as I saw video (and darn I wish I could find it to post) of a nun trying to jam the eyes of a clinic escort with...
It's people and how they abuse what teachings might otherwise be excellent.
Have a good life,
Fred
Please accept my good bye to you that I have now sent your way 3 or 4 times.
Fred
Do you really promise this time?
It's just that my personal reason for celebrating it may be very different than yours. It's still something that I enjoy celebrating with my family and friends.
As to proselytizing, I prefer to be an asker than the asked. My experiences have taught me that Christianity is about proselytizing in that, that's the only religious people I've personally had come to my door or approach me on the street wanting to talk about belief. Thank you for your interest in teaching me about your God and Jesus. If I feel an interest, I will come to you and ask.
Sincerely yours,
Fred
May your God bless you and keep you.
When you or anyone else says to me, 'God bless you' or 'I'll pray for you', I generally thank them and I appreciate their caring and intent.
Manners and respect are indeed the keys to a civil and pleasant life.
I let the dog bark. They go away.
Have you ever heard of the true Scotsman fallacy? No true Scotsman would murder. So if you hear someone from scotsland killed another man, you just say he wasn't a "real" Scotsman.
You should at least start attempting to provide people with the truth Fred.
I don't know why my not trying to convert atheist to Christianity when I am willing to invite anyone who wishes to come and join me. On the other hand, I don't feel like wasting my time on anyone who announces that they are militant atheists, They may not use the word militant, but their arguments as you can see if you read any of Boborobdos' posts.
The answer to your question of whether I don't care about them going to hell, the answer is yes, I do. However since atheists don't believe in hell, how could that argument meet with success?
Apparently atheist and their sympathizers haven't got a clue as to what a Christian is, so I'll define it for you. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ which by the way if you choose not to believe in a divine Christ, then it still wouldn't hurt to believe in his “philosophy.”
Show me one word or sentence in anything written about Christ that in any way could be objected to by anyone.
As to Christians harming anyone on earth except in self defense, give me one example that wouldn't involve people who may spout the words of the Bible, but are false believers. As human beings we all commit sins on a daily basis, some minor and some major. That's why we have to work hard to walk the path of Jesus Christ and finding our way back to God through Jesus. It's not a difficult concept, but some people simply choose not to follow that path for their own reasons. God gives us free agency to follow any path we choose, some choose good and some choose evil, the choice is theirs.
As to my fooling myself in my beliefs, why should it be any concern of anyone else. If an atheist asked me if I would join in a lecture or discussion about atheism, I would fear participating. The odds are pretty long on my being persuaded however.
As to my valuing truth, I value it very much, the difference is that I recognize it, but it requires faith and that's what Christianity is all about, faith. I provide truth to anyone that wants to be exposed to it, but as I said, it requires faith.
Fred
Not "militant" about atheism because I'm not part of that.
What I am "militant" about is shooing over enthusiastic christians away who want to "offer" or whatever other verb you want to use for your preying upon others.
Fred
Thank you for such a fine example, Fred.
I disagree you need faith to find truth. Could you tell me how you define faith?
First, please allow me to explain about needing faith to find truth. I'm writing in the context of Christianity where ultimately all questions of truth come down to faith. Faith is simply a part of Christianity as it is in fact of any religious denomination.
I see gods hand in everything around me. How else to explain mathematics ? Could that concept be an accident? I don't believe that's possible. Nature and the way it all functions, another accident? I think not.
I define faith as asking questions and when no other answer is possible except for a higher power or as I would say, Gods hand at work.
Never fear asking questions, even of God. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “ Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
The only comments I ever found insulting were from Boborobdos, whom I eventually labeled as an idiot for his continuing rudeness in trying to make a point. Apparently few people bother to engage with him.
When you say that"no answer is possible" do you mean not possible based on what we know now, or not possible and will never be possible?
That was an interesting idea during the black plague before germs were discovered. Now we have learned it isn't your "god" that makes us suck, it's germs, viruses, genetic problems, contaminants, hormonal imbalances, and a bunch of other stuff.
It's nice to write stuff off as "god's" work, but in reality there are explanations.
Besides, only a very brutal god would attempt to scare folks into following him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=363KVe38M...
(skip to about 6:15 for the relevant passage)
I may be confused on the point you're trying to make though. Would not your duty to God, the king of Kings, be to spread his word? I know that each man has the free will to decide for his soul, but they can be persuaded right?
That's what, for me, distinguishes modern-day Christianity from modern-day Islam or, even worse, Green. Go to hell, if you want (it says). Doesn't affect me.
Massively different from Obama's "collective salvation" which he got from his Liberation Theology. And derives, or at least accompanies hand in hand, his indoctrination in the vile philosophy of Ubuntu.
Each man's duty is to his king, in exchange for that which the king provides. At Runnymeade, the barons established that kings not only had authority, but responsibility.
And Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V is one of my favorite films. About the only Shakespearean movie he made that I like.
"Base is the servant who PAYS!" - also from that movie.
Are you now saying it's OK for christians ministers to perform same sex marriages?
As OK as it is for you to give birth to a unicycle.
As OK as it is for a badger to play the violin.
Oh well... So much for intelligent discussion after it is shown how the bigotry is real.
You can't give birth to a unicycle.
A badger can't play the violin.
And without a representative of each of the two sexes, there cannot be a marriage.
If it seems nonsense to you, it is merely your inability to comprehend at work.
Yes, you've shown how very real your bigotry is.
Love makes a family, not your brutal god.
Don't expect real horses to respect your definition.
Women are still making their own decisions about abortion, etc.
Ain't American GREAT!
- Whitbread's Fyunch<click>, from, "The Mote in God's Eye"
All I want is for you to stop forcing religion where it doesn't belong.
Is that what you call telling religious nuts to mind their own business?
Taking care of Earth is simply good. We need clean air and water, etc.
We already have clean air and water, etc.
You are not telling "religious nuts" to mind their own business, you are telling people with whom you have philosophical differences that they have no right to voice their opinions, for no better reason than that they do not agree with the nonsense you believe.
You don't know whether or not my religious beliefs are "nonsense" because I haven't stated them. Quit lying.
I know that one of your religious beliefs is that Man is despoiling the Earth. To believe that requires an act of faith, as there's no evidence for it.
BTW, can you explain how Ayn Rand accomplished any "truth" in her writings without your god?
Can you explain to me why your version of christanity and that there brutal christian god is good for Objectivism?
You can scream liar all you like; my characterization of your religious views is based upon your own words, while your slander of my religious views is based upon your own bigotry.
Can you explain how Ayn Rand existed without God?
The fact is that she existed without god.
I don't need to explain the fact that she existed without god.
You certainly aren't denying it, are you?
I should not impose anything on him/her, or vice versa. The Atheist belief that Christians want to impose anything on atheist or other religions for that matter is based on false representations by those that are always attacking Christianity. That's not to say that there aren't some misguided Christians who can get a little pushy at times. The same is true for the other side of course. When was the last time a Christian filed a lawsuit to prohibit an Atheist from doing what he wants to do other than constantly sue Christians?
The bottom line is that for me as a Christian there is ample evidence of my faith everywhere around me, from natures bounty to mathematics. Are mathematics so precise by chance? I don't believe so. I believe therefor it is so.
Funny thing is that Ayn Rand actually believed in the same thing, she just chose it to be created by chance. Our core beliefs are the same.
Fred
It's absolutely none of your business if a same sex couple marries. It changes nothing in your life except that you use it to push your religion upon another.
I "believe" it when I see it. Show me your god, not a big foot foot print in the woods.
Because these are things which you cannot, personally, see. You have to take the word of others of their factuality.
You can get some insight as to how planets circling other stars are PROVEN here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial...
Same thing for subatomic particles. They are real.
So, got any real proof of your god? Didn't think so.
Seeing planets in our own solar system is not seeing planets circling other stars.
---
Yes. Look around you.
I repeat, look around you.
What I'm screaming is leave my presence and take your brutal imaginary god with you.
You're refusing to acknowledge the existence of the world around you; without creation, its existence requires an unprovable leap of faith; that the universe was always this way, which scientific evidence strongly indicates is not the case, or that it generated spontaneously, for which, there is again no evidence. Many theories and hypotheses, but no evidence.
The issue is caused by your bigotry. You don't want anyone to believe any way other than the way YOU believe, and if they do so, you launch pointless attacks, expressing as little of your own personal philosophy as possible, assuming you have one, in order to beat down their belief.
You don't disprove their beliefs, mind you; you merely seek them out and belittle them, and make it clear that any open-mindedness on the parts of others will be used as a weapon for accusations of their own hypocrisy or insanity.
But we haven't established your sanity yet.
Got any clues what I should be looking for?
Or maybe he's "invisible"? Harry Potter did that too with his cloak.
Why should he have any influence on business?
After all, your god's followers are always mooching and begging for money on his behalf. If I earn it why should I give 10% to your imaginary friend?
Fred
Really. Guess you missed the efforts of Christians to change things.
You know, the ones picketing and blowing up clinics.
You know, the ones who poured millions of dollars into Oregon to defeat assisted suicide TWICE! And they last. The PEOPLE want it.
And the funding of anti-gay marriage efforts.
Blue laws...
Christians are using their religion all over the place to trample others in America. It's silly to deny it because you may not personally take up a sign or pull a trigger. Sleep with dogs your gonna get flees.
Yet you have not one word of criticism for any other religion. In fact, the only other mention of religion on your part is a defense of Green.
You, Bobo... are a bigot.
It'a in't bigotry if it's personal. It's YOU who is trying to mussel in with your religion to change the lives of others. It's none of your business when they tell you to go away.
Where have I touted it to force others with threats?
I have stated what I believe. Have I said that I will use physical violence if you don't believe the same way I do?
The two of of us have leaped from an airplane. We both have parachutes. I tell you that if you don't pull your chute at a given altitude, you will go splat.
You disagree, vehemently, and refuse to open your chute.
At which point did I threaten you? At which point did I use force?
How can my belief be a threat to you when I don't say that I will send you to hell if you don't believe as I do?
So you admit this is purely personal animus on your part.
From what other venue have you come to stalk me, Bobo?
BTW, if at first you don't succeed don't try skydiving.
You're not secure in your own beliefs, nor are you content to believe them. Otherwise, instead of using the label of "Christianity" to challenge the *opinions* others hold which disagree with your dearly held and deeply felt opinions of your own, you would entertain the expression of other opinions and openly discuss.
But, you're not interested in expanding your own horizons, but of silencing dissent.
Your baseless accusations have nothing to do with who I am.
But, I see it as typical christian behavior.
While Believers accuse Atheists of shoving their beliefs down their throats, Atheists seem to have the same feeling/experience, but, of course "the other side" denies the allegation.
I can't prove there is NO god any more than you can prove there IS one (or more...) BFD...
Bob's right about that quote... but I discovered the reality of it back in the computer world. "Seeing is believing" works for a lot of people, but the reality is "Believing is seeing," because most folks don't "see the point" until they believe (in) what they're seeing. Try critiquing software or a user interface that the author has fallen in love with because it's his or hers. Ain't gonna be "seen" at all.
But please don't think WE will believe that religionists have no intention of converting anyone... can you point to any anti-gay legislation that's not rooted in something from someone's bible? Or their belief system, irrespective of empirical evidence? Good luck finding it. And that's why I occasionally make some "drive-by comments" when I see posts like the ones above.
Ciao!
But, they are still dismissed by people who don't want to accept them, and can't argue against them.
And for same sex marriage why can't couples marry? (remember no religious reasons, and the law must apply equally to all Americans.)
But pairs of homosexuals cohabiting is not marriage.
Homosexuality is a mental/emotional illness, where its victims have misdirected sex drives, the same as many others.
There can be no argument made for changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals that cannot also be made for defining it to include animals or inanimate objects.
If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love, then I have a "right" to marry my brother or my dog, or my car.
Marriage is the life-long commitment of male and female humans to mate. Not to breed, not to fornicate, not to hang out together, but to form the bond nature evolved there to exist between males and females to ensure the perpetuation and survival of the species.
It is not mating if it doesn't include a male and a female both.
"Homosexuality is a mental/emotional illness,"
No it isn't. Quit lying. I asked you to produce it chapter and verse from the DSM and you failed. There is no such thing as a diagnosis of homosexuality.
where its victims have misdirected sex drives, the same as many others.
"There can be no argument made for changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals that cannot also be made for defining it to include animals or inanimate objects."
Quit lying. All the law needs to say is "consenting adults."
"If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love,"
The law has already defined your relationship with your brother & sister. Cohabitation, insurance, etc. for close relatives are rarely a problem.
"or my dog, or my car."
They are not consenting adults.
"Marriage is the life-long commitment of male and female humans to mate."
So a war hero who was wounded and can't "mate" can't get married. How crewel.
"to ensure the perpetuation and survival of the species."
Bull. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation in the civil contract. The species got along, gets along, and will get along fine without your god's permission to breed.
"It is not mating if it doesn't include a male and a female both."
So, a post-menopausal woman won't be allowed to marry in your world. How mean is that?
"If you've seen any of my comments regarding homosexuality, or abortion, you would see objections with no root in or connection to religious belief.
But, they are still dismissed by people who don't want to accept them, and can't argue against them. "
>>>> Notice, Bob, that at no time or place in that post, did they even allude to WHERE they DID discover those beliefs, nor refute in any way that the beliefs were NOT, in any way, religion-based. But I was not surprised. It's the same answer I get when I ask ANYONE with that belief system "what's the basis of your 'conclusions' on the subject?" As if the idea that "marriage is only between people of different genders" sprang spontaneously into their minds one day, and not influenced by any external events or people.
It's a form of personal unconsciousness, when you don't know why you believe what you believe or can't articulate it when someone asks.
Whatever...
Kinda blasts equal treatment under law.
Meanwhile... ZERO evidence.
Or, wants to smoke pot, marry someone of the same sex...
Funny how the right consistently wants to vote rights away from people.
and believes that "the government will pay for it."
Lunacy of the highest order.
On Linked In, one libber, when asked by me if there were ANY limit in her mind to how much teachers should be paid, actually said, and I quote... "NO!"
NO LIMIT. Ten thousand, I asked? A hundred thousand? A million dollars? Ten million PER TEACHER???? "No, she answered... no limit."
And she's a lawyer, too. Go figure.
BTW, isn't Objectivity and the survival even prospering of the individuals a survival of the fittest mentality?
And over the years, one thing I learned was to NOT accept the lowest bid from ANYONE, even public school teachers. If people started to accept at least the SECOND LOWEST bid, give some thought to what influence that might have on LOTS of markets (including the Federal procurement agencies...)...
Clue: Best and brightest (Kennedy's crew) don't come cheap.
Teachers, doctors, nurses, and thousands of other folks don't go into their fields out of greed. Once substance levels are met their motives vary as much as there are people. That's part of the beauty of America. Folks can do what they want because they love it.
Besides, I don't want a doctor who is in practice out of greed. I want one who wants to cure folks or help them exit gracefully.
I often worked ten or twelve-hour days at my first "real" job because I loved the team and what I was doing and learning.
I left ten years after I started because I got too good at the job and it became boring and unchallenging and there was no career path in the organization.
The people I respect and enjoy most are NOT the ones who are "in it for the money" although, as Heinlein put it, money IS nice.
And Ayn Rand demonstrated that herself through Howard.in "The Fountainhead."
That was part of the book. Fulfillment is not necessarily financial.
BTW, didn't taking the slaves away take away property? I suspect that in that era you would have been screaming about property rights.
Further, if corporations are "people" (as defined by our government) how's come they can be traded for money? Isn't that a form of slavery?
Or give live birth to an egg...
BTW, isn't that a doctor's union?
It isn't blood on your hands if they die because of your greed. Or is it.