SurveyShould I continue arguing over trivial things?
      – Baslisks, 2009-06-27 at 08:09:28   (40 comments)

On 2009-06-27 at 08:14:07, Baslisks wrote...
Fair tax and AMT are just money redistribution and each is as evil as the other. Government provided health care should be enacted, it only makes sense. Teachers should be made to privately discuss contracts, not allowing them the leeway to deplete public funds, in fact teachers should be held accountable for their misdeeds and wastages. We should cut down on military expenditure and pull out of middle eastern countries to let settle, technology is at a point where they have all the tools needed for a controlled revolution, let them have it. I am not happy with the current political system but I tired of republicans, though I am becoming ever more aware that all political thought in america needs a reboot.
On 2009-06-27 at 21:05:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Politics seems easier than it really is - every decision a government makes has consequences. What you say 'makes sense' to you is likely to be a source of conflict with your neighbour who thinks that the opposite (either status quo or a change) makes sense instead. Argument is important, and it's a logical fallacy to assume that there's always a single right answer. Sometimes there are 3 choices and each has its pros and cons, and sometimes there are only 2 choices where one is rational and the other is supported only by religious people...
On 2009-06-28 at 04:08:03, BorgClown wrote...
Please continue to argue about trivial things, as long as you do it on the net and not IRL. I really enjoy the different sides of a topic when they're exposed strongly.
On 2009-06-28 at 04:09:05, BorgClown wrote...
Crap, I first voted "don't know" because you shouldn't argue over trivial things IRL. That's what the net is for.
On 2009-06-28 at 19:47:55, Lee J Haywood wrote...
If your personality is such that you're likely to argue, then you'll do it regardless. If you're mild-mannered, then you won't argue much IRL (if at all). I don't think there's any harm in arguing against injustice in real life - quite the opposite.
On 2009-06-30 at 18:47:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yes, you have a right to healthcare. You have a right to seek healthcare without the government getting in the way. You have a 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, that does not mean that the government (taxpayers) should have to buy you one. You have a right to healthcare, that does not mean that the government should pay for it. Be responsible for yourself, buy your own health insurance.
On 2009-07-01 at 10:42:32, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Again, though, if you cannot afford health insurance then what would your options be? You cannot guarantee that you won't need health support if you don't have insurance, and not everyone can afford to pay the insurance all the time. Or are you saying that health insurance is so cheap that anyone can afford it?
On 2009-07-01 at 20:49:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
If you cannot afford health insurance, you need to seriously re-evaluate your career, your life, and your life style. Do you have a decent education? Job skills? Do you have cable TV/ cell phone? How much do you spend on the weekends having fun? Do you drive an expensive car? Can you afford your recreational drug habit? Beer? Wine? Pot? Cigarettes? Risky sex? Take responsibility for your own life.
On 2009-07-02 at 03:30:29, BorgClown wrote...
Following that logic, the red cross should be a profit organization.
On 2009-07-02 at 13:16:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
I believe in charity and philanthropy. I do not believe in government income redistribution. The Red Cross is a charity, and it so happens to be my favorite. I donate to them regularly. Would you like to see the check stubs?
On 2009-07-03 at 03:42:26, BorgClown wrote...
If only the Red Cross did big things like chemotherapy or major surgery. Charities are limited. Without government support, if you get really sick even health insurance won't cover all your expenses.
On 2009-07-04 at 22:16:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why do think other people should pay for your care?
On 2009-07-05 at 15:44:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Other people aren't paying for your care, you're paying an insurance to cover your own health in case you cannot afford surgery, etc., when you most need it. Health insurance is much the same as any other insurance, the only difference with a national version is that everybody is included and gets an equal level of service.
On 2009-07-06 at 12:30:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
BS. Then why is it going to cost 1 Trillion dollars over 10 years? Dumbass.
On 2009-07-06 at 16:18:02, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's only an American trillion, not a real one. It's peanuts for a country the size of the US, compared to the whole economy. Anyway, I never said anything about the US - I was talking about public healthcare in general. It works fine in other countries.
On 2009-07-06 at 17:47:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
If OUR government has anything to do with it, it will not work fine, just look at everything else that they have messed-up.
On 2009-07-06 at 21:23:20, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: DigitalBoss, how does anyone in this world make progress? By making mistakes, go make a big mistake. Please.
On 2009-07-07 at 12:13:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
You do not correct mistakes by making the same ones over and over again.
On 2009-07-07 at 15:05:11, Thelevellers wrote...
Well, as national health care is a first for the US, then it is a 'mistake' that should be made... Then you can complain about making the same mistakes again... Arguing on the internet is important, otherwise idiots will think that everyone thinks the same as the trolls. IRL it is also important, but you can probably leave out the trivial stuff! Although some of the most interesting arguments I've heard have been essentially pointless: Two friends of mine had a two+ hour argument about time travel which was pretty interesting ,but in the end they both agreed that they actually had the same point of view...
On 2009-07-07 at 18:09:50, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: we haven't made this mistake... ever.
On 2009-07-07 at 19:24:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
Bullshit. The reason health insurance is so expensive now is because of government mandated coverage. They fucked it up, and now they want to fix it because it is fucked up.
On 2009-07-07 at 19:26:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
They want to fix it by fucking it up some more.
On 2009-07-08 at 01:00:41, BorgClown wrote...
Access to healing shrines (sorry, too much RPGs) should be a human right, like access to water or food. Granted, there are bound to be lazy parasites who will freeload the system, but you can't even begin to take care for yourself and make better decisions if you are sick or malnourished since birth.
On 2009-07-08 at 12:56:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
You can find water or food on your own (hunt, fish, grow) but to demand medical services from someone else means that you claim a portion of their life or the taxpayer's lives.
On 2009-07-08 at 20:14:17, BorgClown wrote...
Oh, that's sweet. So we can just stop buying food and hunt pigeons/fish herring/grow corn on private property?
On 2009-07-08 at 20:18:40, BorgClown wrote...
*breaks into DB's house at night* *Hammers DB in the head while he's asleep* "Sorry pal, make better choices in your life, learn to take care of yourself" *Starts hunting in DB's kitchen*
On 2009-07-08 at 21:23:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
I hunt and eat venison. I grow tomatoes and corn. What is the big deal?
On 2009-07-08 at 21:25:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
My brother-in-law killed a turkey on his property while we were eating Easter dinner this year. That was cool.
On 2009-07-08 at 23:41:13, Baslisks wrote...
Do you honestly produce enough food to subsist on it?
On 2009-07-09 at 09:23:28, Thelevellers wrote...
Producing enough food to feed yourself is incredibly hard work - as my parents have proved to me over my life, the number of times we've sat down and sat 'the entirety of this meal is home grown - except the salt' is suprisingly rare considering they've been farming since 1992-ish. At the moment they have the 'excuse' that they were retards and bought crappy land, but the previous farm in north Devon was good land and worked properly, but it just takes a helluva lot of effort. I think there is a perfect number of people to feed/grow together that would be self-sufficient, but it's more than one family...
On 2009-07-09 at 10:49:32, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The modern world exists precisely because we don't all try to feed ourselves. Mechanisation means that a small part of the population can produce an excessive amount of food leaving the rest of us free to do other things. I like the CIA world factbook entry for the UK... "Agriculture is intensive, highly mechanised, and efficient by European standards, producing about 60% of food needs with less than 2% of the labour force." https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/UK.html
On 2009-07-09 at 12:48:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
I didn't say that I subsist on what I grow. I was trying to make a point about demanding a part of someone else's life. When you earn, produce, or service something, you spent part of your time, money, knowledge, and resources in the process. If you demand that your healthcare needs are provided for you, you are demanding part of someone else's life that will have to be paid for by them or the taxpayers. In a sense it would be healthcare welfare. I am very strictly against welfare, at least the way it is set-up in our country now. I believe in temporary safety nets for people that cannot keep up, Capitalism is very competitive and stressful, but not for lifetime government subsidy.
On 2009-07-09 at 12:54:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
One thing about breaking into my house. I live in the city limits of Kennesaw, Georgia USA, you can google it if you wish. There is a city ordinance (law) in Kennesaw that every household must own a gun for self-defense. In other words, the crime is very low here. If you come onto my property, you will have two dogs to deal with, and then there is me with a shotgun and a pistol. We do not believe in depending on the police for self-defense. We take the responsibility for our own defense.
On 2009-07-10 at 20:09:40, BorgClown wrote...
I've already pointed to that city when I was advocating for the hypothetical benefits of compulsory gun ownership and self-made justice. I read a scifi book about a society without law or cops. Everyone had a revolver, and if someone pissed you off, you were free to kill him. Of course, that could piss others off and they would kill you, so in the end it was very balanced, crime and general assholery was extremely rare. Again, it's scifi, but your city is a good example of the spirit.
On 2009-07-11 at 05:10:22, Baslisks wrote...
so your county acts like the country of finland?
On 2009-07-11 at 09:10:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
We've argued this before - perhaps on SoapBoxxer though. No guns is good, and lots of guns can work too. But there are downsides to having lots of guns that simply don't exist when there aren't any. http://discussionator.com/?id=444
On 2009-07-11 at 18:19:49, BorgClown wrote...
@Baslisks: It was an entire planet, not a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear
On 2009-07-11 at 18:23:00, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Crime deterring is a big advantage of compulsory gun ownership, I'm glad there are real-world examples like Kennesaw to prove it. Guns are equalizers, more than any other personal weapon. Knives, swords or melee weapons rely heavily on skill.
On 2009-07-12 at 18:13:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Sure, but gun crime doesn't exist without guns and suicide isn't anywhere near as easy. Certainly drug dealers in the UK do tend to shoot each other, but the general public never has to encounter a gun on a day-to-day basis which can only be a good thing. Burglary still happens in places with high gun ownership, and the rate of burglary in non-gun areas generally reflects other factors such as isolation and inequality. Sorting out underlying problems is better than deterring burglars and/or shooting them.
On 2009-07-12 at 23:21:59, BorgClown wrote...
Sorting out underlying problems... You mean ultimately changing human nature? We are hardwired to abuse weaker creatures, and some people don't seem able to overcome this basic instinct permanently.