meatrace's page

ciretose wrote:

To quote Penn Jillette "If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."

Then Penn, though I have a lot of respect for the man, is wrong. The reason he is wrong is that our scientific knowledge is not truth. It is a useful approximation of the truth. If all of science were to be wiped out and we started again from scratch, we'd still only have a useful approximation of the truth. However, our approximation would be different from the original approximation (to make an analogy, if the first approximation is off by +1, the second approximation might be off by -1).

Let me sum up every argument you make and its implied conclusion.

"Science isn't truth, it's a very good approximation of truth. Even the best science rests on the faith in a natural order, and that we don't in fact live in the matrix. Thus science is no better than religion. Therefore atheism is a religion."

The first two points are extraordinarily nitpicky in light of the gross falsehoods and chasms of logic inherent in every practices religion, and the conclusion is nonsensical. It rests on a false equivalence between the "faith" put in concepts like parsimony or causality and the faith put in strong belief in a deity (or other supernatural force). The magnitude of these beliefs is very different.

You also are nitpicking one part of Penn's statement while dismissing it in its entirety. If the chain of custody, so to speak, of religious ideas was broken by some catastrophe, do you honestly believe the precise same religious would emerge again? Every decontextualization is a recontextualization!

Actually I wonder myself why it takes a "wall of text" to point out that an Atheist stating that there is proof that God doesn't exist is wrong.

You continue to misread the sentence. That's why you think he stated there's proof of the inexistence of god.

To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.

The sentence reads to me as "It is a statement (proven by observations) that any given supernatural explanation for existence life and the universe does not suffice in light of natural existence." What he is saying, and ALL the sentence says, is that supernatural explanations for existence fail in a natural world. You can't continue to think that the sun god drags the sun across the sky every morning with the knowledge of heliocentricity and astrophysics. The fact that the natural world makes more sense with natural reasons is what was proven by observations, not the inexistence of god.

ciretose wrote:

Metamorphosis wrote:

But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

By this reasoning, they are ALREADY in competition, and thus as perfect as they will ever be. In fact, all businesses that are in any form of competition must have been honed to perfection by the free market. And, like, firms never collude, even informally, to keep prices down.

Look, if I can sit here and figure out the ways that firms can circumvent the free market and increase their own profits then THEY already have and have put it into action. The market IS the problem, not the solution, because you can't force anyone to compete.

They're both ridiculously awesome.
I had a hard time choosing. I went with teleportation, and loved it, but I did occasionally wish I had the abilities from foresight.

I'm just really baffled by your argument now. First you were saying that no one can be poor and still afford cable TV. In other words, no one below the poverty line could afford that. I'm saying you don't have to be below the poverty line to be poor, but the poverty line is a good absolute measure of poverty.

And it seems you agree, since a family of four in area X, able to house and feed their family ONLY JUST would have to be making well in excess of the poverty guidelines.

I think my point has been made.

I don't mind sharing personal expenses with you though, for comparison. A 1-bedroom apartment in my complex, which is in a low-rent neighborhood, is 595/month. I largely cook for myself, but I still eat out probably 3 times a week. A home cooked meal costs about $2 for me, on average. A meal out costs $5-7. Cable internet costs $15 a month for me, 3mb up/5mb down, and streaming services are another $15. The money saved by not eating out and not having cable amount to ~$65/month. Less than 10% of my total, minimum, "just getting by" expenses.

Hence, as an individual making about 10% above my poverty threshold and still objectively poor, I can afford those "luxuries".

If I had to define poor in a loose sense it would be, yes, a certain percentage between absolute poverty (for me ~11k/year) and the average per capita GDP (for me 48k/year). Depending on where you live and how expensive things are, poverty is not making enough to pay for the necessities AND save any money at all. So, housing+food+health care+transportation.

What don't you believe is true?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

You're trying to force words to fit your ideas.

Which is the height of bad science.

meatrace wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

So, if we were all making $15,000 dollars a year, there would be no poverty line. Would that mean that no one would be poor?

What the f~!~ does that have to do with anything? This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said on these boards.

I asked for a definition of 'poor'. I'm now asking if 'poor' would continue to exist, given your definition of it, if everyone made $15,000/year.

Given -your- definition, 'poverty' would vanish if everyone could barely afford to eat as long as everyone was making the same amount of money (because 'poverty' is defined as a given standard deviation away from the mean income, so if everyone is making the same income, then there is no standard deviation and, so, no poverty).

Incorrect. In your situation EVERYONE would be poor, not no one.

But...there IS a poverty line. It has been defined as the government as the minimum amount of money, post taxes, that it takes to pay for housing and 3 square meals a day. The poverty threshold for me is ~11k. After taxes that's maybe 1 grand less than I made last year. And yet I can afford the piddly expense of fast food occasionally and cable television (internet+netflix) because they are statistically insignificant expenses next to the cost of housing, transportation, and food.

I really want to know your rationale of this "no one's really poor, therefore everyone is fine" argument.

So, if we were all making $15,000 dollars a year, there would be no poverty line. Would that mean that no one would be poor?

What the f##@ does that have to do with anything? This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said on these boards.

Scott Betts wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

That's where you fail. A government is not required for people to work together.

When people collaborate towards a common aim, I would argue that it's nearly impossible to avoid the accidental establishment of some kind of government, informal and unstated though it may be. Government is a natural extension of what happens when multiple independent entities balance both mutual and competing interests.

I think you're confusing 'culture' with 'government'.

Define government then. You wriggly thing you, never allowing people to use a common definition of terms, and when they do, claiming they are inadmissible in that particular instance!

Government being a method of administration to a state, government is both intrinsic and exclusive to civilization. In other words, a relatively recent development as of about 13,000 years ago during the Neolithic Revolution.

Culture is a set of binding memes and social norms that define a society. Religion is part of culture.

What he described is society, not culture. The social and economic underpinnings that inform how any one person should interact with another.

meatrace wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

And, by 'poor', I mean actually poor as in living on the streets, not this 'I have AC, a three bedroom apartment, and cable tv' 'poor'.

Oh, ZING. You heard it here folks, you're not REALLY poor unless you're dying in a gutter!

/eyeroll

I'd like you to give me a definition of 'poor' which would include anyone who can afford cable tv and regular trips to McDonalds.

Just give me a definition, so we can be talking about the same thing.

Sure. Anyone living above the below the poverty line, OR, above the poverty line but still making little enough as to not be socially mobile.

Like me. I have internet and I just got home with a bag of Popeye's. I made less than 15 grand last year. I am on no public assistance programs whatsoever, I pay my own way....barely. I don't own a car or have health insurance or any property outside my apartment. I am the working poor.

Anyone, or rather any household, making less personally than the per capita GDP average but more than the poverty line is marginally poor. In the US that's 48k/year. Social mobility generally means 1)buying a house and 2)getting an education (though not in that order) and since anyone participating in that track int he last 10 years has had a MASSIVE load of crap dumped on their chest the last few years... More and more people are poor because they are in debt more than they make and their student loans cost more than their rent.

There are a lot of reasons someone might have cable TV or eat fast food other than them being GLORIOUSLY rich. Like their section 8 housing includes basic cable (very common) or that they work two jobs, one of them being fast food, and have no time for food prep in their 80 hour work week. Or because it's actually cheaper than shopping, if you consider the cost of owning a vehicle, the OPC of the additional time spent in public transit, etc.

And, by 'poor', I mean actually poor as in living on the streets, not this 'I have AC, a three bedroom apartment, and cable tv' 'poor'.

Oh, ZING. You heard it here folks, you're not REALLY poor unless you're dying in a gutter!

/eyeroll

meatrace wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

By choosing not to cut checks. I don't believe for an instant that a Republican controlled federal government would maintain cutting checks for abortion, do you? And what about medical marijuana? As I said earlier, its best chance to get covered by insurance is in the private market.

No, they might not. But then NO private insurer covers them now so...how is this even an argument?

Private insurers cover abortions. And are more likely to cover medical marijuana in the future then the federal government is.

You say that, but...what is your proof? I mean, I can understand why you might think that, but that's not really evidence. Marijuana still has to be legal for anyone to cover it. So before we use "private insurers are more likely than the gov't to cover medical marijuana" as an argument NOT to have any government involvement in healthcare, let's wait until marijuana is legal to see what happens.

As an aside, I live in a state which recently BANNED private insurers from covering abortions. So...yeah.

Yeah the APs tend to have themed segments. RotRL especially. Believe me, you'll fight MUCH more than goblins, though there are a lot of those as well.

I'm playing through it right now (not running) and it has been very amusing. I will caution, however, it's not for the squeamish.

That whole thing with Rick Santorum talking about Kennedy's speech making him want to vomit was ridiculous. The whole speech was about exactly that: religious freedom....

Can we just start referring him to Senator Butt-Juice?

Has anyone actually been successfully swayed from their entrenched positions in any of these OTD threads?

<crickets>

Yes. A few actually. They didn't change my overall opinion in any tectonic way, but the opposing arguer made me less entrenched.

Can Atheists proselytize?

Sure. Just not about their religion. Proselytism doesn't have to be conversion about religious doctrine, just opinion. In this way, anyone who comes to your door asking you to sign a petition to make the kingfisher the state bird, or whatever, is proselytizing.

I personally don't like "militant" anythings, but I find what is described as "militant" for atheists is often anyone who says "But evolution has actually been peer reviewed."

Yes, thank you.

I'm militant in my atheism in precisely the same way I'm militant in anything else. Cuz I'm right and I'll show you. When people say something profoundly wrong and/or ignorant and I know how to show them evidence to the contrary, I do so.

So when someone says something PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT like "well evolution is just a theory, the bible is a fact!" watch the f*&# out!

All this conversation will achieve is a demonstration of high-level philosophical wankery as people who get their jollies by telling others how wrong they are, mouth off.

Did somebody say my name? No? Huh, that's weird...coulda sworn...

By choosing not to cut checks. I don't believe for an instant that a Republican controlled federal government would maintain cutting checks for abortion, do you? And what about medical marijuana? As I said earlier, its best chance to get covered by insurance is in the private market.

No, they might not. But then NO private insurer covers them now so...how is this even an argument?

Yeah, if we want to claim our society is a meritocracy we have to allow everyone to prove their merits. One's financial well-being doesn't sway the case in either direction. Useless poor people are born as are brilliant rich people, I'm sure! True also is the reverse, and NOT having health care for all, stellar free education, and (hopefully) an accessible information infrastructure only ensures such individuals are unable to ever prove their merit by living up to their potential.

If you're contrasting atheism with theism, then I agree. Atheism is not a religion and neither is theism. They are general classifications of belief systems. Atheism includes things like many forms of Taoism, many forms of Buddhism, even many forms of Shamanism. However, when people refer to 'atheism' they are commonly (at least in my experience) talking about a specific form of atheism - the atheism I've seen most common in 21st century America. And THAT is a religion.

One of its tenets is claiming that science is the ultimate authority. Though, it takes on faith the concepts of parsimony and repetition of results. One of its rituals is getting on internet message boards and claiming that religion is toxic.

Alright, well, I'm done trying to debate this with you because you can't be swayed from your entrenched pro-religious ideology. We already discussed using vernacular forms of terms like "ritual" so when you then use ONLY a nonacademic use of that term I know you are being wholly disingenuous in your entire argument.

To the comment about atheists not being scientific or something: sure. Because atheist just means disbelief in a god or gods. Atheists are as diverse in their beliefs as anyone, and are just as prone to irrational or unscientific belief patterns.

However, my personal beliefs about how the universe words ends with what is in the scientific body of knowledge. Which, as a rational input, I also have a healthy sense of doubt and skepticism about. My beliefs about how humanity works are based in social science. I hardly think science is the only thing of value, but, by and large, I think that science has more value than pseudoscience or superstition, at least as a way of understanding the world.

Darkwing duck wrote:

I never said we had to use Geertz' definition. I said that we needed to use a widely used academic definition rather than the ludicrous joke of a definition that some atheists use just so that they won't be identified as having a religion.

I haven't seen a definition yet that would include atheism as a religion that wouldn't also include soccer.

Its not a religion its a conclusion. We know you don't agree with it, don't try to denigrate the idea by insulting it.

Couldn't have said it better.

But DWD we agreed, on a past thread, to use Geertz definition which is what I was referring to. It serves, longwinded as it is.

I'm not saying that SOME atheists aren't actually religious. They could be, in the wider sense. Buddhists are atheists and yet are religious, as well as Daoists. But atheism is not, itself, a religion. Nor are all atheists religious, even by the loosest vernacular definition, which we certainly wouldn't want to use.

By and large, soccer fans are more dangerous than atheists in their collective practices.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I missed nothing.

It is not my belief that Medicare and social security are that easy. Simply that they are AS easy as the private insurance companies. If that is the case then Obamacare offers no advantage. The situation you describe with social security has been my experience with private insurance. Being driven to bankruptcy and dying while you await treatment because a soulless bureaucracy is in between you and your doctor is possible whether said soulless bureaucracy is the government or an insurance company.

When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors.

When the US government becomes an insurance provider and habitually makes a mess of things, who are its competitors?

I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

The ideal system would be SINGLE PAYER, not a completely socialized system. In other words, everyone is completely covered, but you can choose what hospital to go to. And ideally the default would be everyone pays into the system, but you could pay for premium above and beyond through a private insurer, which still totally exist in Canada and Europe among other places.

How exactly would the government make a mess of things when all they're doing is regulating the practitioners (which they already do) and cutting checks?

In fact, this system where EVERYONE is involved would look much more like perfect competition than the oligopoly we have at the moment.

I dunno. I tend to write my own adventures as well rather than making stuff up on the fly, but they vary. I like having a variety of shorter adventures strung together rather than full AP/module length. Keeps me and the players from getting bored, or so I feel.

I'd say you should shoot for 12 hours of playtime per adventure if they're short adventures, or 18ish for an AP length adventure.

Also the actual page count will likely have no bearing on how long it takes to run through. Combats take more time to run than other things, usually, with the possible exception of roleplaying encounters where everyone participates.

How about this: I shouldn't have to pay for the military since I don't need defense. Prove me wrong. Without me paying for the military I guarantee I won't be invaded or drone bombed.

I've seen community rits and rituals being practiced among atheists - one of them being collective 'pastoral work' to try to 'save' people from believing in god(s).

I thought we were going to use Geertz definition of religion from now on. This does not fit. By 'pastoral work' certainly you mean telling people who believe in things that scientifically can't exist that they don't.

What rituals, by the way?

I observe a good number of rituals as well as traditions. They have nothing to do with my unbelief. For example: every Thursday night for 8 years now I gather with a small group of friends in a circle and throw bits of plastic at a wooden table in a religious ritual we now call 'Pathfinder'. I eat corned beef and cabbage on St. Patty's day, Lasagna on Easter, and Indian food on Wednesdays. None of these things are because of, or have any relation to my unbelief.

Your desire to paint irreligious people as religious is disingenuous, since you've shared your background in religious anthropology before.

Nowadays it doesn't matter if they don't believe you. I've seen people get suspended for 30 days because someone else punched them in the face, and did NOT injure themselves doing so. Both kids got punished, with the same punishment ("Because they were Fighting"). Seriously. "Zero Tolerance", is actually "Victim Abuse".

Hear hear! I want to see that as a bumper sticker: Zero Tolerance=Victim Abuse

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

[

Darkwing Duck wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?

Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?

Let's cut to the chase, according to the "Let You Bleed" crowd, a philosphy also known as Social Darwinism, if you can't afford your own health care, you don't deserve to live. Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.

Well, this may come to a shock to you, but I totally get where the social darwinism argument comes from. I can relate, yo. However, they have misplaced values in this one.

I'm not some kind of hippie that thinks that everyone in society is equally useful or needed, a perfect snowflake, but, having some experience being poor and needing medical attention, I don't think bad luck is good grounds for expunging a population.

In other words: can't pull your weight physically, mentally, I can understand (though not agree with) a let them be philosophy. But financially? How is one's financial status any indicator of their genetic fitness?

meatrace wrote:

So here's my 2cp on the issue.

As has been pointed out, hospitals are legally required to treat people who don't have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, at least in emergency situations. We do this for a number of reasons, and I am unsure anyone in this thread wants to enact a "let them bleed" policy.

The problem you seem to have in comprehending the evolution of this thread is that there are at least two individuals that would be quite happy with a let them bleed" policy.

I'm sure there is a way you could have phrased that that didn't insinuate that I'm an imbecile, but I take your point. However, I would say that even those who have espoused that opinion might feel otherwise when confronted in the real world and not the internet jerk-zone, which was what I was getting at with the word "unsure."

Freehold DM wrote:

Isn't one of the nightmare scenarios that someone who attempts to rob someone and then the victim fights back and makes the attempted footpad fear for their lives can then be killed by the ladron who could claim SYG?

I am not entirely certain, but I believe that most SYG laws say something to the extent of if you were committing a crime and that was the source of the conflict, then you can't claim SYG protection. This is part of the reason you keep hearing people say, "Zimmerman said he was following Martin, which isn't strictly against the law." If Zimmerman had been breaking the law, then he couldn't claim protect from the SYG.

Small nitpick, they can totally CLAIM protection from the SYG. It's still up to law enforcement and the DA (AFAIK) to decide whether that claim is legitimate or not.

Ok so it's a BIG nitpick, because that's my entire argument.

I just have to ask. How many people have you killed for looking at you the wrong way? You seem pretty gung ho about being able to murder people because you don't like them.

If someone ENTERS your house in the dark, I'd hope your first response wouldn't be to blindly shoot at the stranger until he's dead. Because that would make you a lunatic.

Ok, look at it this way. Step 1 is enact a SYG law/castle doctrine. In a conservative state, chances are even a particularly dubious case with dubious reasonableness won't be prosecuted or even investigated. See George Zimmerman et al. Once it has become known that the conservatives sitting the bench and those deciding which cases to pursue...won't pursue, it makes people THAT much more brazen.

It has already reached critical mass in this regard.

You can't just say "yep, that sounds good, don't break into my house if you don't wanna be killed to death!" and nod your head without thinking a few steps down the road as to consequences of that legislation.

Remember also that, as I've pointed out, in some states these laws allow you to "protect" much more than your house. It's your house, your yard, your neighbor's (in any direction) house, his yard, your family members, their family members. We're coming to the point where you can just sit on your porch and blow away anyone who accidentally stumbles onto your grass with impunity.

Again, I'd point out to you that the other provisions in the law prevent such an alacritous extraction of wealth by the corporations, and they would have to rebate you a good portion of what you pay in. I mean the general strategy is 1)make everyone pay in 2)force the companies to charge less. Because, really, even assuming a healthy profit margin (like 8% or so) the amount of money we spend to fund the current private for profit health insurance business ought to be enough to cover everyone at a reasonable rate. The end goal being, effectively, to spread out the cost to everyone and make sure everyone also benefits from it equally.

While it's perhaps not feasible to track road usage, certainly you could track police calls or times you appear before court, or for every day you spend in a public school. I don't think any of those things should be private. I think privatizing those things would be fundamentally detrimental to a free society. I think having private, for profit health care is similarly detrimental.

There is no provision in the constitution regarding a lot of stuff, man. It's an old-ass document and needs some revisiting. Not really an argument though.

I'm not saying Obamacare is awesome or anything, don't get me wrong, but I still think it's better than the republican/libertarian ideology of "let the poor die in the gutter."

On a side note, the ER horror story I shared is precisely WHY I want something else. I REALLY REALLY wanted a public option. That was the only choice that my employer gave me. Once Obamacare provisions take effect in full, there will be far more affordable private options.

Meatrace wrote:

Now go back and read my posts on the matter.

They were read. Insulting insinuations that I can't read or didn't read your posts are a poor substitute for an argument.

I was merely trying to refer you to something you perhaps missed. I was not insinuating that you couldn't read, but perhaps that you yourself had gotten so wrapped up in arguing your point that you hadn't really digested mine. Also, it has been days and DAYS since those posts were made. Review is always good, no?

Imminent threat is the key to my argument, which I've previously made. I feel Germany was not an imminent threat to the United States in 1941. They may well have become one had we not intervened, but that's a weird sort of hindsight argument. As with the allegorical physical altercation, the lack of imminent threat demands a different response.

Germany had, at that point, said I'm going to get you Poland and invaded poland. It said I'm going to get you Russia and invaded Russia. It said I'm going to get you England and then bombed England. It said I'm going to get you France and then invaded France. Threats at a full scale invasion are pretty laughable, but they can still use subs to sink ships, use subs to attack civilian targets along the coast, saboteurs to cause massive civilian casualties. The threat was hardly toothless.

Now go back and read my posts on the matter.

I contend that every sub Germany decided to send at the eastern seaboard would have cost them far more than they could have gained by it. They're thousands of miles away, not our neighbor like the other invaded countries. We do not share a border with Germany. They were no imminent threat to us.

The subjective language about 'feeling threatened'.
It basically gives anyone leeway to kill someone. I mean, the courts could still contend that he was wrongheaded and prosecute, but this is FLORIDA in this instance. I mean come on.

The castle doctrine has the same sort of subjective language. If you think that your house is being robbed, or your neighbors in many instances, you have the absolute right to punish with lethal force. Kill first, ask questions later. It happens all the time, it's becoming more frequent, and it's a disgrace.

Well then we disagree. A law that basically says "yeah, shoot the prick, he deserves it for looking at you funny" is a BAD MOTHERF$+%ING LAW.

Meatrace wrote:

I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.

I mean, that's great and all, but clearly not everyone does.

Is that even in dispute?
And no, the other option is a single payer system, and then there's a public option, or there's mandating that insurance providers (if not healthcare providers) be not for profit. There's a fair bit of granularity there. But really the problem arises when people are unable to pay, which happens more than you might like to think. Especially near end of life and in emergency situations.

I think a part of the problem is that insurance COVERS less and less. I was, or rather thought I was, fully insured 3 years ago. I got wanged on the head and thought I might be concussed so I went to the emergency room. I was there for about 15 minutes, they had one guy come in, look at my eyes, check my head for blood, and basically say "nah, you're fine" and sent me packing. $400. WITH insurance.

My point is that we don't have a problem paying for things that we use, like roads or police or the justice system, etc. These are things we value, even when we aren't using them. Why is it so hard to think of healthcare the same way? I recognize that society is better when the least of us is cared for, then the bottom quintile has some spreading around money, and everyone is educated.

FWIW I have no recollection of anyone saying or implying that George Zimmerman was anything other than Latino. That fact came out pretty quickly in the news coverage. Doesn't mean it CAN'T be racially motivated, though I think that's just one factor among many.

Personally I think the SYG law, castle doctrine, etc. just need to go, or be seriously revised. There's just a huge gulf between a man defending his house and hunting someone down that passed by it.

So here's my 2cp on the issue.
As has been pointed out, hospitals are legally required to treat people who don't have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, at least in emergency situations. We do this for a number of reasons, and I am unsure anyone in this thread wants to enact a "let them bleed" policy. So let's take it as read that this happens and will continue to happen, and that it's probably beneficial for society that people aren't allowed to die in a gutter just because they're poor.

Now that we've established that the government already pays for healthcare, but has no means or power to reduce its costs in this regard, what do we do? Well, we could enact single payer. I think this is absolutely the best idea on the table. Obamacare is a poor substitute and a feeble compromise, but as has been stated, it was a conservative idea until the very moment Obama suggested it.

If there are more buyers, it will drive demand for health coverage up, which will drive revenues up. At the same time, other provisions in the affordable care act say that at least 80% of your premiums have to be spend on healthcare, as opposed to the 60-ish percent now, and rebate checks are already starting to be cut. So although people will be forced to pay in, and subsidized depending on income, they may also get a big fat rebate back if they don't actually consume any healthcare.

Once everyone basically NEEDS to hold coverage I feel this will encourage employers to offer or broaden their company health plans, and Obamacare incentivizes this as well.

I mean look, I'm all for personal responsibility, but let's face it: people aren't. No man is an island. You want to opt out of healthcare? Fine by me, but you also can't drive on our roads or use our justice system, etc etc.

I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

My elf magus has a 7 charisma, but a very high int. I play him as aloof and tactless. I'm casually and brutally honest, completely oblivious to peoples feelings. So is my character *boo-doom-chhh*

Here is an example of Jay aiding in a diplomacy check.

Irontruth wrote:

Saying something is immoral opens the path to a dehumanizing path.

On the other hand, so does saying nothing is immoral.

Puts everyone in a bit of a pickle, really.

Explain how saying nothing is immoral is dehumanizing?

How is accepting the concept that all are born sinners equal to dehumanization? If all humans are sinners, then how is anyone dehumanized?

This would be just as dehumanizing as accepting the concept that nobody is perfect.

Because those are radically different concepts and this sort of false equivalence is disingenuous.

Me saying "well, no one's perfect" is a response to someone dropping a glass on the floor, or missing an oxford comma, or being late to work once in a while.

Saying you are a sinner and you were born a sinner and you will always be a sinner is saying 1)you have committed a heinous act against god, one that, if you don't seek forgiveness, will lead to your eternal damnation in a fiery hell. The acts that are sins are, at least according to most christians, pretty bad things. Murder, adultery, lying, stealing. I don't want to be associated with those things especially 2)if I'm born like that. Really? An infant is just as bad as a murderer? That's not dehumanizing? You're s%@+ting me. 3)Nothing you can do about it. You're always a sinner. God always looks down on you and pities you. Poor little idiot.

Sin =/= mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone sins. Sins are bad, bad, bad things.

Saying that everyone deserves to burn in a fiery pit of hell, everyone is human refuse, IS DEHUMANIZING TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM!

You either think a)calling someone a sinner is, in fact, dehumanizing or b)think sinning isn't all that bad of a thing, all things considered. If b, I want that in writing, because I have some people I'd like to murder as long as it's a comparable offense to misspelling your school's name on your CV or some such nonsense.

There's someone I know that eats Kosher and is Vegan.
Like...what the heck does she eat? Air? Fair-trade matzah?
I dunno but she sure is gassy for a gal her size.

meatrace wrote:

I can't remember who said it exactly, and I'm too lazy to check. Someone said something about not calling homosexuality immoral would go a long way towards not dehumanizing gay people. Or some such.

Doesn't the catholic church hold that ALL men are born sinners, and that sin is inherent in our being? Doesn't that just dehumanize us all?

There's a big difference between saying, "all have sinned" and saying "some have sinned more than others".

...and the catholic church says both things.

The difference is that EVERYONE is dehumanized, some are just dehumanized more. But...what's an acceptable level of dehumanization?

Thanks for the heads-up, meat. I'm always up for some fun conspiracy-time!

It's seriously hilarious. Like, I love Jesse Ventura even if I think he's a lunatic. He's a lunatic that has it right his fair share of the time. He "exposes" some genuinely questionable organizations/conspiracies, but it's just the way the thing is shot and produced. It's just...freaking comedy gold!