Young, Ill and Uninsured

124

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, value as however you choose to dictate it. If you don't believe dollars have value, or you don't believe dollars are an appropriate vehicle of exchange, find another.

    As I tried to illustrate before, men of our attitude come back to the dollar, and the ethic of working for that dollar. That is the minor tragedy, if you don't see the Dollar for what it is.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    You use your entire being to buy into that contract in everyday. You use the resources available to you with all of your being--your entire being drives on the roads, your entire being provides the police work to do when you speed, etc, etc. It's only in theory that you "live" otherwise. You can't use your entire being and partake of a system and expect people to deny that like you do in order to make your philosophy work. The terms of such an "invisible or imaginary contract" represents the human being named "farfromglorified", willingly, happily and deliberately supporting and interacting with the American system.

    I do willingly, happily and deliberately support and interact with the "American system". The "American system" is much bigger than the government, angelica. Primarily, it is defined by the individuals who comprise this nation, the individuals I willingly exchange with and spend time with.

    Furthermore, I willingly, happily, and deliberately drive on roads. Where in any philosophy I have do you see an opposition to roads? I don't oppose roads. I oppose forcing other people to build roads, or to pay for them. I've already been forced to pay for these roads. Why shouldn't I drive on them? If I were withholding my money from the system, you would have a point. I am not withholding my money from the system because the only way to do that is to stop working. And I will not sacrifice what I love based on the ridiculous set of "choices" I'm being handed.

    If you offer me the choice between roads delivered by force, or no roads, I will take no roads. You don't offer me that choice.
    Here we see your subjective emotions are actually painting a picture that does not exist. Emotion skews reality. You've imagined I said "drunken wife-beater". Can you show me where I said that?

    You didn't say that. It was a joke. I'll happily amend my statement:

    I think it's awesome that you effectively proclaimed America as partly the source of an unhappy marriage.

    Not quite as funny that way, but maybe it wasn't funny the first way either.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    No. You have, however, indicated that you have no problem with the general idea of considering one person's healthcare another person's obligation.

    You are being dishonest again. You and I have been discussing this at great length and I have stated before that I do NOT feel someone's health care is another's obligation. I believe in personal responsibility. I feel health care is NOT a commodity like a car or a TV. I do, however, believe in giving the individual a reasonable option to CHOSE health care for themselves. As it stands now, there isn't even an option for some.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sure. Regardless of whether or not you are going to "eliminate private industry" (as if you have any other right to do this outside of violence) or just impose additional obligations of some individuals, you're still violating what I see as correct ethics. It's not as if I consider you allowing private industry to exist as some kind of favor.

    What? Proposing ways to better our system is unethical? This victim stance is not very becoming.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    "Squat" implies ownership. You're showing, in your attitudes towards people's labor and property that ownership is nothing to more to you than possession. So you're invalidating any claim you have to "owning" something. I can't terminate a contract I never signed. All I can do is leave.

    You're ignoring a whole lot of history here. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. But this is another issue.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    As I tried to illustrate before, men of our attitude come back to the dollar, and the ethic of working for that dollar. That is the minor tragedy, if you don't see the Dollar for what it is.

    The dollar is a piece of paper, given value only by the fact that it can be exchanged by people who perceive it to have value. That's what the dollar is.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, value as however you choose to dictate it. If you don't believe dollars have value, or you don't believe dollars are an appropriate vehicle of exchange, find another.

    Where?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The dollar is a piece of paper, given value only by the fact that it can be exchanged by people who perceive it to have value. That's what the dollar is.

    It's a little more than that, Mr. Businessman.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    You are being dishonest again. You and I have been discussing this at great length and I have stated before that I do NOT feel someone's health care is another's obligation. I believe in personal responsibility. I feel health care is NOT a commodity like a car or a TV. I do, however, believe in giving the individual a reasonable option to CHOSE health care for themselves. As it stands now, there isn't even an option for some.

    Ok, then perhaps I stand completely corrected. Are you saying that you do not believe it to be reasonable to allow any person to receive health care services at the cost of another, against that other's will? Are you saying that a person's health care is their responsibility or are you saying it is society's responsibility?
    What? Proposing ways to better our system is unethical? This victim stance is not very becoming.

    Proposing ways to better our system is certainly not unethical. Proposing unethical ways to "better" the system, however, would be.
    You're ignoring a whole lot of history here. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. But this is another issue.

    Certainly! I don't deny this at all. The United States Government owns every piece of land it didn't simply steal, in my mind.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Where?

    What do you mean "where"? Anywhere you'd like. Use tree bark. Use art. Use love. Use labor. Use product. Use whatever you and the people you're exchanging with find of value.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What do you mean "where"? Anywhere you'd like. Use tree bark. Use art. Use love. Use labor. Use product. Use whatever you and the people you're exchanging with find of value.

    I'll give you a sprout of alfalfa if you sniff my ass?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    It's a little more than that, Mr. Businessman.

    It used to be. It was once backed by gold which has an intrinsic value that fiat currency does not have. But it no longer has that.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    I'll give you a sprout of alfalfa if you sniff my ass?

    I don't value either of those things, so no thanks.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do willingly, happily and deliberately support and interact with the "American system". The "American system" is much bigger than the government, angelica. Primarily, it is defined by the individuals who comprise this nation, the individuals I willingly exchange with and spend time with.

    Furthermore, I willingly, happily, and deliberately drive on roads. Where in any philosophy I have do you see an opposition to roads? I don't oppose roads. I oppose forcing other people to build roads, or to pay for them. I've already been forced to pay for these roads. Why shouldn't I drive on them? If I were withholding my money from the system, you would have a point. I am not withholding my money from the system because the only way to do that is to stop working. And I will not sacrifice what I love based on the ridiculous set of "choices" I'm being handed.

    If you offer me the choice between roads delivered by force, or no roads, I will take no roads. You don't offer me that choice....



    You didn't say that. It was a joke. I'll happily amend my statement:

    I think it's awesome that you effectively proclaimed America as partly the source of an unhappy marriage.

    Not quite as funny that way, but maybe it wasn't funny the first way either.
    It's not at all funny to me when you attribute your own view to another person in dramatic victim fashion. Couching your view as a "joke" in any way does not minimize the degree of distortion you are giving yourself permission to utilize. Just don't talk to me about ideals and contradictions, my friend. And I'm dead serious here. When you are willing to use illigitimate means to your ends you'd better build bigger and better scripts to justify that to yourself.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    It's not at all funny to me when you attribute your own view to another person in dramatic victim fashion. Couching your view as a "joke" in any way does not minimize the degree of distortion you are giving yourself permission to utilize. Just don't talk to me about ideals and contradictions, my friend. And I'm dead serious here. When you are willing to use illigitimate means to your ends you'd better build bigger and better scripts to justify that to yourself.

    I don't find humor, even if you didn't find it funny, as an "illigitimate means". I just strongly disagree with your analogy.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't find humor, even if you didn't find it funny, as an "illigitimate means". I just strongly disagree with your analogy.
    How do you entitle yourself to use illigitimate means to express your disagreement?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't value either of those things, so no thanks.
    Q: headquarters?
    A: yes?

    Q: he dont' seem to be a faggot earth monkey sorta type.

    A: hmmm.

    Q: might I suggest a Goldstein spiel, followed by a Ron Paul.

    A: That might work.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    How do you entitle yourself to use illigitimate means to express your disagreement?

    I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Q: headquarters?
    A: yes?
    Q: the un-american american seems to be conforming...
    A: conforming to what!? there is no conformity here!
    Q: I think he likes it here, sir.
    A: well, so do I, do I get a ribbon or something?

    Q: Well, no...sir...you don't.

    Q: what do I get?
    A: Um...the rest of us, the office workers and such, pretty much got you fired, and we want you to be homeless for awhile.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.

    Cool.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
    Whether you made a misinterpretation based on emotions and won't admit it, or whether it was a "joke" for you to deliberately misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes, I am asking that you acknowledge this misrepresentation. I am disappointed if you don't appreciate the gravity of undermining our communication in such a way. I expect my base positions be allowed to stand whether you disagree with them or not. I am completely accepting of disagreement, wherein both views stand as they do. And of any processes that come from such disagreement, on the even playing field. What I'm not okay with is undermining and misrepresentation that is not being owned, whether accidental or deliberate.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    Whether you made a misinterpretation based on emotions and won't admit it, or whether it was a "joke" for you to deliberately misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes, I am asking that you acknowledge this misrepresentation.

    I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.

    I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.

Categories