- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sure would love national health care
Sure would love national health careFollow
Violence is always violence.
Yes. It's just not always morally wrong. Your arguing with someone who stipulates that your argument is correct. Genocide of the human race and taxation are both violence, just of differing degrees.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#253REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 5:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How can you say anything whatsoever without saying it absolutely? Point. RACK it. Who's delusional now?
Quote:
Don't worry, it took about a year to a year and a half for the main ffxi board to become rmt experts that /shutdown false economic arguments.
I don't know what an "rmt" expert is. The entire main FFXI board are economics experts? They "/shutdown" false arguments?
I'm amazed that they didn't sub-default you for talking economics in a fantasy game forum, but actually this is relatively easy to test. I assume you're talking about the FFXI forum on this website? Another website? Provide a link to such a "false" argument begin shot down by the populice of said forum, en mass, if you please, or go there and start a thread with one.
MonxDoT wrote:
yossarian wrote:
i think what you mean is that there are a set of true "laws" governing reality which dictate the results of everything. And of course, since reality does seem to function, there must be some logic governing it, right?
That isn't what people mean when they refer to a scientific law. Usually, that is refered to as reality, or "the truth". Since we have no examples of it, and wouldn't know it even if we found it (would continue looking for exceptions to the rule) this is a semantic point, at best.
That isn't what people mean when they refer to a scientific law. Usually, that is refered to as reality, or "the truth". Since we have no examples of it, and wouldn't know it even if we found it (would continue looking for exceptions to the rule) this is a semantic point, at best.
Total bunk garbage. As I pointed out to Kelvy, anything which is said or known is necessarily by defintion either/or absolute. If you argue differently you necessarily argue that what you speak is meaningless jibberish that should be ignored. That's basic 21st century epistemology 101 (granted there may be a really high percentage of philosphy experts who are ignorant). Man is not omniscient. Man can make mistakes. But it's completely absurd to argue that it is not know by you if you posted that which I just quoted. It's absolutely true that you posted what you wrote and posted. See? We know lot's of ****, absolutely, especially actions, which are a matter of true or false fact.
I, um, didn't say we don't know anything. I measure a voltage, I know that I measured that voltage. My interpretation of it is that it was due to an electron striking a photomultiplier tube which produces a trickle of flow of electrons which my very sensitive meter picks up. And from that we derive our physical laws, such as the laws of physics. Read my post. It's all there. It's not a spooky conspiracy to avoid facts.
Your economic arguments are based on economic laws which are on far shakier ground then the laws of physics. To claim they are irrefutable is like me claiming Newton's laws are irrefutable - only worse. We basically know when and why Newton's laws break down (and I can tell you, if you like). The social sciences we hardly even have "laws" and they break down all the time.
By the way, I did, indeed post that. But it could have been my wife. You actually assume one and only one person is behind every online nic?
Naivety, thy name is MonxDoT.
#256REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 5:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't even need to get into "morality" (whatever that is) to prove the point. Theft < Rape < Murder. That covers the entire set of violence (you could argue rape is theft of use of one's body and that it's just theft and murder). Every act of violence kills society and creates poverty. Every act of consensual trade brings about society and creates wealth. That which is received is valued more than that which is given away, else trade would never ever occur. If you argue any case of violence being moral, you argue every case of violence being moral. It's the old might=right arguement.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I suspect because while everyone is in agreement on the fact that this child should not have died, if we started actually discussing limits and end points, that agreement would dissapate and the solidarity you all feel would fade away.
Yeah, that's a major concern of mine here on the forums. Someday I might not feel this solidarity with Yossarian and Bhodi and BT
Oh noes! But I like singing Kumbaya and railing against the violence inherent in the system.
He's just jealous 'cause MonxDoT and the okra farmer aren't very good singers...mmmm I do love okra though
Quote:
You know, it could be because we can agree to a general issue without deciding that we need to codify the bits 'n pieces into some absolute pseduo-forum legislation to appease Gbaji.
Oh, but I expect it is far more complex then that.
#258REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not my economic arguments. Maybe the vast majority of economic arguments you've read by those out of the know.
MonxDoT wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Your economic arguments are based on economic laws which are on far shakier ground then the laws of physics.
Not my economic arguments. Maybe the vast majority of economic arguments you've read by those out of the know.
It's absolutely true, and always will be absolutely true when it comes to the true or false categorization of all action. Voluntary sex is consensual. Forced sex is non-consensual violent rape. When and how will that ever not necessarily be true for all time?
Edited, Mar 6th 2007 7:27pm by MonxDoT
Because you define taxes as violence is an opinion. About politics. A region of social science. On far shakier ground then, say, Newton's laws.
#260REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 5:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lol, not only is that like saying because you define rape as violence is an opinion, it's false. If it wasn't violent, it wouldn't be forced, it would be a total waste of energy to force it, as it would necessarily naturally be voluntarily forthcoming. You don't know the difference between consensual sex and rape? Voluntary trade is absolutely defined. More so, if not just as well as any law of physics. You don't know the difference between walking into a game store and trading some dollar bills for a game versus walking into a game store with a gun and violently taking a game?
#261REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 5:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I already did do that and linked to it in a thread here. Don't have premium search, but I think it was in the MIT Openware thread (last page of it if I remember). But I'm not gonna bump it or link to it in this thread so that somebody else bumps it.
Every act of violence kills society and creates poverty.
You're wrong. Simple. See how easy that was?
You're wrong. Simple. See how easy that was?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
See! Solidarity all gone!!! ;)
Seriously though. Within the first couple responses we got contradiction. Smash argues that this care should include cosmetic surgery. Noby says that's "bling" and should not be covered.
And for those who think that's not important, at some point the government must have a way to tell each applicant for aid that "yes, we can do that", or "no, we wont do that". And while I'm sure we could probably codify a set of things that most people agree are "necessary" and should be included, that's never going to be a complete list that everyone thinks should be included. And those people will continue to find the cracks and holes in the system in order to convince everyone else that the coverage available isn't sufficient.
For example. Are braces "cosmetic" or necessary? These are the sorts of questions one needs to answer prior to embarking on something like this. Clearly, in the UK, it's cosmetic and therefore "bling", but maybe folks in the US will think differently?
I just think that it's a bad idea to argue for stuff based on a knee jerk reaction to a single situation. It's arguable that we could have already implemented every single thing that most (except perhaps Smash) are arguing for and this womans son would have still died. Would we then be arguing for more?
Seriously though. Within the first couple responses we got contradiction. Smash argues that this care should include cosmetic surgery. Noby says that's "bling" and should not be covered.
And for those who think that's not important, at some point the government must have a way to tell each applicant for aid that "yes, we can do that", or "no, we wont do that". And while I'm sure we could probably codify a set of things that most people agree are "necessary" and should be included, that's never going to be a complete list that everyone thinks should be included. And those people will continue to find the cracks and holes in the system in order to convince everyone else that the coverage available isn't sufficient.
For example. Are braces "cosmetic" or necessary? These are the sorts of questions one needs to answer prior to embarking on something like this. Clearly, in the UK, it's cosmetic and therefore "bling", but maybe folks in the US will think differently?
I just think that it's a bad idea to argue for stuff based on a knee jerk reaction to a single situation. It's arguable that we could have already implemented every single thing that most (except perhaps Smash) are arguing for and this womans son would have still died. Would we then be arguing for more?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smash argues that this care should include cosmetic surgery. Noby says that's "bling" and should not be covered.
Smash was joking. I don't really think poor people should be able to look like Dianna Ross on the government's dime. They should only be able to look like Natalie Portman.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#265REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 6:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Every act of violence kills society and creates poverty.
If it wasn't necessarily true, violence would not exists because that which is taken would be voluntarily forthcoming.
Nope. If people were selfless and interested in the good of the humanity as opposed to their own self interest, that might be the case.
Sorry :(
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#267REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 6:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lmao, if you want the poor to get the absolutely best deals possible, if you want all of humanity to get the absolutely best fatwallet deals possible, if you want people to be as materially well off as possible then you're for a free market, period. It's scientifically proved so that even your dumbass can understand it now. Even in a democracy you theoretically need > 50% voting for national health care, so you can create a completely voluntary 50% national health care system for those who voluntarily agree to contribute, and continue to voluntarily agree to contribute to your 50% national health care system. You can donate whatever you want to whatever poor you want. But by using violence, by forcing and compelling, you are necessarily creating poverty and necessarily leaving society less materially well off than it would be in a free market.
lmao, if you want the poor to get the absolutely best deals possible, if you want all of humanity to get the absolutely best fatwallet deals possible, if you want people to be as materially well off as possible then you're for a free market, period.
Nope.
It's a longstanding myth that free markets lead to overall increases in standards of living, but it's never been shown to be the case. It's a convent bit of fiction for the wealthy to justify exploitation of the poor, however, and obviously some of the stupider poor people buy into it as well thinking they'll someday be wealthy themselves, thus actively participating in their own exploitation.
You know how that is, though, you don't need me to explain it to you.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Smash was joking.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's a longstanding myth that free markets lead to overall increases in standards of living, but it's never been shown to be the case. It's a convent bit of fiction for the wealthy to justify exploitation of the poor, however, and obviously some of the stupider poor people buy into it as well thinking they'll someday be wealthy themselves, thus actively participating in their own exploitation.
You're kidding, right?
And no Joph. I don't assume Smash is joking (even with the statement above). He's stated his out there positions on social issues and economics so many times that I don't doubt when he says stuff like that. This is the guy who stated that he thought all income taxes should be raised to 50% to pay for all the stuff he thinks everyone should get.
When I bash him for wanting to create a socialist system with a massively empowered dictatorial government, it's not just speculation. That's what he *actually* wants. He once argued that the best people to determine how everyone should live are those in the government, because advancement in the government is a true "merit system", wheras apparently the private sector isn't. His argument came complete with government issued tests to determine the "merit" of each individual and place them in positions of power (or presumably mediocrity for most). Their pay and benefits should be determined by what? Their position within this structure.
Not kidding. He argued passionately for this many years ago.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
And no Joph. I don't assume Smash is joking (even with the statement above).
Another difference being that I'm right about it and you're wrong
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#272REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 06 2007 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's shocking how dumb liberals are. Let's say you are dying of thirst in a desert and a socialist comes along and offers you a glass of water for one million dollars, or indentured servitude for the rest of your life. Then a free market capitalist comes along and offers you a glass or water for 900 thousand dollars, or indentured servitude for 40 years. Yet another free market capitalist, and yet another free market capitalist all compete until you are offered the cheapest glass of water that can possibly be had. That's why it works. That's competition. The free market gets you the absolutely best deal possible because if it's profitable there's incentive for people to compete for that profit. You don't get paid as a free market capitalist unless you give people what they want. And you don't get paid if somebody else comes around and offers an even better deal.
You're kidding, right?
I'm not kidding. Free markets largely lead to consolidation of wealth among a small group and misery for most everyone else. Middle classes rarely exist at all in free markets, the correlation to large middle classes generally coinciding with the more socialist economic policies a government has.
Inconvenient history, I realize, but free market capitalism didn't give rise to the middle class in the US, labor unions and the New Deal did.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
MonxDoT wrote:
Let's say you are dying of thirst in a desert and a socialist comes along and offers you a glass of water for one million dollars, or indentured servitude for the rest of your life. Then a free market capitalist comes along and offers you a glass or water for 900 thousand dollars, or indentured servitude for 40 years. Yet another free market capitalist, and yet another free market capitalist all compete until you are offered the cheapest glass of water that can possibly be had.
I've just proved that capitalism doesn't work. /Pwnt and blah, blah, blah... I don't feel like making up more nonsense but I'm sure you'll respond with something asinine.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Then a free market capitalist comes along and offers you a glass or water for 900 thousand dollars, or indentured servitude for 40 years. Yet another free market capitalist, and yet another free market capitalist all compete until you are offered the cheapest glass of water that can possibly be had. That's why it works.
No, the reality is a free market capitalist would simply let you die and offer the water to someone else willing to pay more. That's why it doesn't work. Simple.
You can't even get the metaphors right.
Back to misses.org I guess.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
MonxDoT wrote:
Let's say you are dying of thirst in a desert and a socialist comes along and offers you a glass of water for one million dollars, or indentured servitude for the rest of your life. Then a free market capitalist comes along and offers you a glass or water for 900 thousand dollars, or indentured servitude for 40 years. Yet another free market capitalist, and yet another free market capitalist all compete until you are offered the cheapest glass of water that can possibly be had. That's why it works. That's competition. The free market gets you the absolutely best deal possible because if it's profitable there's incentive for people to compete for that profit. You don't get paid as a free market capitalist unless you give people what they want. And you don't get paid if somebody else comes around and offers an even better deal.
You make an interesting point if we first detach ourselves from the reality. Unfortunately the reality is that folks who can't afford the treatment they need are not catered to because the demand for healthcare is so great that the industry doesn't have to be competitively priced.
Anyone this fUcking stupid is obviously nothing more than a Shit troll.
Recent Visitors: 264
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (264)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sure would love national health care
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC