OT: I want my vote back

[BoulderDawg]

The only time you're usually "hassled" over your ability to pay is if you're a walk-in and treatment isn't a matter of life and death.

So what if someone has a bad case of bronchitis. It's not life threatening but they feel awful. Should they catch a bunch of S just because they want to feel better?

Hey, I'm all far all the rich people out there having their private insurance and doctors but there should be free health care for those that want it......no questions ask...no treatment denied

[Reverend Tap]

Not really.
You're the one who wants some form of “reasoned debate”, and it helps a good deal if those who seek to engage in it use generally accepted meaning for the terms in use.
These are usually best when they're taken from fairly standard reference works.

Using the definition of "cynic" to include having a negative opinion about things one disagrees with is so much a stretch that it's absurd. And anyway, not long ago you were saying I saw the world through "rose-colored glasses." Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

If you were really “into” “things ethical”, you would have noted that there is a rather consistent modern-day concern with “semantics”. (oh, yeah... “meanings”)
(usually found in those previously mentioned reference works)

Defining terms is one thing. Sidestepping an argument you can't argue against by taking issue with my choice of term, particularly when that term has nothing directly to do with the argument in question, is quite another.

Strangely (to some), (relatively) “free-market” “capitalism” does a pretty good job of it. It generally does a bang-up job of producing lots of product and “goodies”, usually enough to satisfy the demands of “the market”, and if there seems to be a market for additional goods, there are definitely lots of takers to supply those needs, too.

You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about in this bit. I was responding to your claim that I am hypocritical for taking advantage of services and systems I disagree with. I said that if you can point me to a viable alternative to that bit of hypocrisy, I would gladly consider it, but for the time being, there is no alternative to there being a bit of a contradiction between the life I live and the political leanings I have.

I note that you haven't made any disclaimer that you would never use the phrase in that manner.....

Which part of "I never claim to be smarter than average" did you miss, exactly?

That critical thought and formal logic that you pride yourself on is ever so much easier to get around in if you use appropriate meanings/semantics from standardized references.

It is, which is why I use them. The parts of this discussion where you've referenced them thus far have all been examples of you misusing them.

“Nothing is perfect!”

Very true, but there's no reason we can't seek always for improvement.

Oooooh... does that mean that “the American System” just got some “points” from your committed socialist self?

Certainly. My standard of living here is good, I have more liberties here than in most parts of the world, etc. I just think we should have even better standards of living and more liberties than we do, and that so should everybody in the world.

Another thing that most government and socialist types have never gotten around to finding (or even thinking about) is something that looks for all the world like a private medical practice in the Downtown LA area that manages to turn a nice profit while steadfastly refusing to have anything at all to do with government and/or insurer “largesse”... while still delivering outstanding services at an “astoundingly low” (cash) price.

Um...good for them? An isolated example of someone making something work really well doesn't exactly prove the system is perfect. I am also, incidentally, not a major supporter of big government.

You only say that because you really wish that none of it actually DID have REAL RELEVANCE to the current economic “situation”.
It is all proof positive that government “tinkering”/”mandates” (there's that “suspicious word”, again) tend to muck things up rather than “fix” them.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I haven't been talking about the economy.

But, there's “room for it” in your “best of all socialist worlds”?

I don't know where you're pulling this garbage from, but no.

At its base, ethics is concerned with “correct”/”right” actions in a given situation.

My own (perhaps not-so ethical) evaluation tells me that surviving/”winning” a war is superior to any of the “alternatives”.
It may or may not be ethical, strictly speaking, but it is most certainly “right”/”correct” as regards my own continued survival.

Survival in a dangerous situation is not an ethical or unethical thing. The only ethical decision that goes into it is how do you go about surviving? There are certainly more and less ethical ways of doing that.

So, just so long as there's “no skin off your own nose”, it's “ok” if some other Americans/allies get offed by our opponents?

Try to stay on topic. I was responding to your claim that I have a death wish.

I tend to think that it's eminently legitimate when it is a matter of survival.
Whether or not “survival” s/b limited to meaning “life” or extended to cover “our way of life” is, perhaps, open to discussion.
I kinda like things the way they are... in spite of the current resurgence of the “socialist boogeymen”. (hmmmm... did I just write a “no-no”?)

Once again, though, torture and other unethical treatment of detainees is not a matter of survival, in either sense.

I've yet to see a socialist who wanted to stop at any given point.
They all seem to have a “more is better” attitude.
(even if it happens to be “less”)(as in wanting “less pollution”)
They just don't seem to know “when to stop”.

Same applies to the free-market crowd.

I thought the fact that I was referring to those who were captured as outlaw illegal combatants on “a field of battle” or engaged in “acts of violence” pretty much defined the ones I was talking about.

That's great...how about you head over to Gitmo or any other detention facility where they're being kept and let the staff there know which ones they are then, because they're having a bit of a difficult time figuring it out.

As for those who were “conspiring with” or “funding” terrorist organizations.... those folks may need to be put through a court of law of one sort or another.
In that respect, I tend to think that they should be “treated” to enjoying the fruits of their very own/favored “system of justice” that they seek to promote... whatever it may be.

And what of the ones who actually haven't done anything? There have been quite a number of them in the detention facilities.

mar·tyr·dom -noun
1. the condition, sufferings, or death of a martyr.
2. extreme suffering; torment.

Common usage trumps dictionary definition in this case. They weren't wishing they had gone through extreme suffering or torment.

Looks like you need to take this up with the folks who write those danged reference sources.

While I do periodically come across a definition that needs revising, on the whole it isn't anywhere near as much an issue as is the percentage of the population that doesn't know how to properly use those sources, of which you are evidently a member.

That's quite an admission from someone who has your other opinions.

Not really. Socialism predates Marx.

Looks to me like you're confusing it with the socio-political construct usually referred to as an “egalitarianism”.

No, the two are different things. There is egalitarian socialism, which is another subset of socialism as a whole, and tremendously different from the state socialism you think of as the only kind, but not every kind of socialism falls into one of those two categories, either.

Unfortunately for your viewpoint, the “best effort” at it to date has been on the Kibbutz collectives of Israel. They tried it, they didn't like it, they “went away” for “the usual reason”.... “collectivism” flies in the face of “human nature”.

The Kibbutz collectives had their own problems, and at least 50% of what is commonly referred to as "human nature" is learned and "socialized" behavior.

[BoulderDawg]

After today events, I was thinking that Bush and Cheney could go to Israel. I'm sure they would find plenty of opportunity for their brand of philosophy in the upcoming months.

However on second thought, they love the hatred and war but that might place them a little too close to the action. Their plan is to place others in danger from thousands of miles away while staying safely in the background. To be placed in a situation of actually being in the middle of the war would be a bit much for Mr Bush and Cheney!

In any case I'm sure they will decide to stick their noses in it and give those people all of that good American advise!

[1bad65]

After today events, I was thinking that Bush and Cheney could go to Israel. I'm sure they would find plenty of opportunity for their brand of philosophy in the upcoming months.

I've been considering going there myself. They handle their security and safety the best way, massive retaliation. The fact that they are this small country, surrounded by their sworn enemies, yet have managed to survive is a testament to the success of their policies. Also, the standard of living between Israelis vs Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Palestinians is night and day.

Israel has one of the best high-tech industries in the world, what are the countries always attacking them known for? While Israel has concentrated on bettering themselves, their enemies have concentrated on trying to wipe the Israleis out. Now ask yourselves, which countries policies have resulted in a better standard of living for their people?

However on second thought, they love the hatred and war but that might place them a little too close to the action. Their plan is to place others in danger from thousands of miles away while staying safely in the background. To be placed in a situation of actually being in the middle of the war would be a bit much for Mr Bush and Cheney!

When and where did Obama serve again? Look at the last Democrat in the White House, he was a draft dodger who still managed to send our troops to more countries than anyone before him.

In any case I'm sure they will decide to stick their noses in it and give those people all of that good American advise!

Like how to prevent any new 9/11s? Like it or not, that is a tremendous success you have to credit the Bush Administration with.

[BoulderDawg]

You should go. Now would be a good time. You would probably get some good deals on a hotel room and you would avoid the crowds!

If I was you while I was there I would visit the Gaza Strip. They have a great public transportation system that would get you there. You could also carry around one of those little American flags and wave it in everyone's face!

[Reverend Tap]

The fact that they are this small country, surrounded by their sworn enemies, yet have managed to survive is a testament to the success of their policies.

Or, you know, their "let's have the world's most powerful military superpower as a primary ally" policy. That kind of helps.

Like how to prevent any new 9/11s? Like it or not, that is a tremendous success you have to credit the Bush Administration with.

"Ah, the Bear Patrol is working like a charm. Not a bear in sight."
-Homer Simpson

[bakxierboxer]

use generally accepted meaning for the terms in use.

Using the definition of "cynic" to include having a negative opinion about things one disagrees with is so much a stretch that it's absurd.

I quoted the dictionary definition #2, which seemed to be good fit, so it is no stretch at all.

And anyway, not long ago you were saying I saw the world through "rose-colored glasses." Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

No more so than you can have a set of “reading glasses” and another pair of “sun glasses”.
There are also “hunting glasses” which tend to have a “yellow” (”jaundiced”?) tint to them.

If you were really “into” “things ethical”, you would have noted that there is a rather consistent modern-day concern with “semantics”.

Defining terms is one thing. Sidestepping an argument you can't argue against by taking issue with my choice of term

Properly defining a term narrows the argument.
Besides that, “side-stepping” is a time-honored and useful TMA tactic.

Strangely (to some), (relatively) “free-market” “capitalism” does a pretty good job of it....

I was responding to your claim that I am hypocritical for taking advantage of services and systems I disagree with. I said that if you can point me to a viable alternative to that bit of hypocrisy, I would gladly consider it, but for the time being, there is no alternative to there being a bit of a contradiction between the life I live and the political leanings I have.

So, it looks like you're “stuck” practicing hypocrisy as your very own “way of life”?

I note that you haven't made any disclaimer that you would never use the phrase in that manner.....

Which part of "I never claim to be smarter than average"...

True, and it also allows for the possibility that you are less smart than average.

That critical thought and formal logic that you pride yourself on is ever so much easier to get around in if you use appropriate meanings/semantics from standardized references.

It is, which is why I use them. The parts of this discussion where you've referenced them thus far have all been examples of you misusing them.

Not as far as the dictionaries go.

“Nothing is perfect!”

Very true, but there's no reason we can't seek always for improvement.

A valid idea, but I find it strange that you'd seek “improvement” from ideas that have, to date, proven to be far less than “satisfactory”.

Oooooh... does that mean that “the American System” just got some “points” from your committed socialist self?

Certainly. My standard of living here is good, I have more liberties here than in most parts of the world, etc. I just think we should have even better standards of living and more liberties than we do, and that so should everybody in the world.

I would think that if socialist programs were so darned great that you'd have moved your socialist butt into one of those socialist utopias long ago.

Another thing that most government and socialist types have never gotten around to finding (or even thinking about) is... a private medical practice in the Downtown LA area that manages to turn a nice profit while steadfastly refusing to have anything at all to do with government and/or insurer “largesse”...

Um...good for them? An isolated example of someone making something work really well doesn't exactly prove the system is perfect. I am also, incidentally, not a major supporter of big government.

No, but it does show that (relatively) “free enterprise” works better than "(over) regulated enterprise”, or any government-run program to date.

It is all proof positive that government “tinkering”/”mandates” (there's that “suspicious word”, again) tend to muck things up rather than “fix” them.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I haven't been talking about the economy.

It is not a good idea to talk/think about imposing socialist policies/agencies/government without fully considering their economic impact.

At its base, ethics is concerned with “correct”/”right” actions in a given situation.

My own (perhaps not-so ethical) evaluation tells me that surviving/”winning” a war is superior to any of the “alternatives”.
It may or may not be ethical, strictly speaking, but it is most certainly “right”/”correct” as regards my own continued survival.

Survival in a dangerous situation is not an ethical or unethical thing. The only ethical decision that goes into it is how do you go about surviving? There are certainly more and less ethical ways of doing that.

It's also usually “better” to survive first and discuss/evaluate (even rue) it later.

So, just so long as there's “no skin off your own nose”, it's “ok” if some other Americans/allies get offed by our opponents?

Try to stay on topic. I was responding to your claim that I have a death wish.

You responded that you didn't live in an area where you thought there was much likelihood of being subject to a terrorist attack.

I tend to think that it's eminently legitimate when it is a matter of survival.
Whether or not “survival” s/b limited to meaning “life” or extended to cover “our way of life” is, perhaps, open to discussion.
I kinda like things the way they are... in spite of the current resurgence of the “socialist boogeymen”. (hmmmm... did I just write a “no-no”?)

Once again, though, torture and other unethical treatment of detainees is not a matter of survival, in either sense.

I still think they should have been executed on the spot.
If they had been dealt with in this manner, their detention/treatment would be moot.

I've yet to see a socialist who wanted to stop at any given point.
They all seem to have a “more is better” attitude.
(even if it happens to be “less”)(as in wanting “less pollution”)
They just don't seem to know “when to stop”.

Same applies to the free-market crowd.

Not when we're talking about regulation.

I thought the fact that I was referring to those who were captured as outlaw illegal combatants on “a field of battle” or engaged in “acts of violence” pretty much defined the ones I was talking about.

That's great...how about you head over to Gitmo or any other detention facility where they're being kept and let the staff there know which ones they are then, because they're having a bit of a difficult time figuring it out.

???
All they've got to do is look through the no-doubt voluminous records sent there with them to see what the circumstances were when they were first detained.

As for those who were “conspiring with” or “funding” terrorist organizations.... those folks may need to be put through a court of law of one sort or another.
In that respect, I tend to think that they should be “treated” to enjoying the fruits of their very own/favored “system of justice” that they seek to promote... whatever it may be.

And what of the ones who actually haven't done anything? There have been quite a number of them in the detention facilities.

Can't prove it by me.
AFAIK, most of the ones who've been let go were freed due to some of the evidence against them being “disallowed” by one meddling judicial authority or another.

mar·tyr·dom -noun
1. the condition, sufferings, or death of a martyr.
2. extreme suffering; torment.

Common usage trumps dictionary definition in this case. They weren't wishing they had gone through extreme suffering or torment.

Not for me.... those definitions look like 80% torture-torment/suffering vs 20% death.
How many of them have you, personally, spoken to to know what their wishes actually were?

Looks like you need to take this up with the folks who write those danged reference sources.

While I do periodically come across a definition that needs revising, on the whole it isn't anywhere near as much an issue as is the percentage of the population that doesn't know how to properly use those sources, of which you are evidently a member.

{snort!}
You look it up and use the definition given.
If you want to be “extra sure”, you do the same look-up on multiple sites.

That's quite an admission from someone who has your other opinions.

Not really. Socialism predates Marx.

Not really, yourself.
Marx was born before the term was coined in 1834.

Looks to me like you're confusing it with the socio-political construct usually referred to as an “egalitarianism”.

No, the two are different things.

Eh.... I just said that they were different, and especially since there is also a separate political philosophy called “egalitarianism”.

Unfortunately for your viewpoint, the “best effort” at it to date has been on the Kibbutz collectives of Israel. They tried it, they didn't like it, they “went away” for “the usual reason”.... “collectivism” flies in the face of “human nature”.

The Kibbutz collectives had their own problems, and at least 50% of what is commonly referred to as "human nature" is learned and "socialized" behavior.

I think I just pointed that out about the Kibbutzim.
“Human nature” is what is present before “learning”/”socialization” is "acquired".
(in a good many instances, it is asocial)
Nowadays, there is ample evidence that a rather large number of people think that they do not need to conform with certain forms of socialization.

[1bad65]

You should go. Now would be a good time. You would probably get some good deals on a hotel room and you would avoid the crowds!

If I was you while I was there I would visit the Gaza Strip. They have a great public transportation system that would get you there. You could also carry around one of those little American flags and wave it in everyone's face!

If I go it will be for work, not for a vacation. It's just very hard to obtain a work visa to be able to work there. My company now does not have an office/facility in Israel. It would be alot easier if I worked for a company who did, but now is a risky time to leave a steady job that I'm not likely to get laid off from.

If I go, it will be obvious I'm either an American or European.

[1bad65]

"Ah, the Bear Patrol is working like a charm. Not a bear in sight."
-Homer Simpson

So are you saying 9/11, the Khobar Towers, the 1st WTC bombing, and the USS Cole bombings never happened?

Again, like him or not, Bush has had ALOT less terrorist attacks on US soil than his predecessor did. Maybe actually doing something about it actually works! What a novel concept.

[1bad65]

Or, you know, their "let's have the world's most powerful military superpower as a primary ally" policy. That kind of helps.

Having the world's best intelligence and air force helps alot too. Give them some credit.

Again, what are their enemies known for? How many great inventions/medicines/technological breakthroughs have happened in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or Jordan since 1948?

[Reverend Tap]

I quoted the dictionary definition #2, which seemed to be good fit, so it is no stretch at all.

Well, at least no one can accuse you of being overly consistent...

No more so than you can have a set of “reading glasses” and another pair of “sun glasses”.
There are also “hunting glasses” which tend to have a “yellow” (”jaundiced”?) tint to them.

Now you're just being silly.

So, it looks like you're “stuck” practicing hypocrisy as your very own “way of life”?

For the time being, there is a contradiction between my political philosophy and the way of life I must practice. But, humans being environment-altering creatures, until such time as my political philosophy is changed, I work to remedy that situation by creating an environment in which practicing a way of life I find more agreeable is feasible, though of course not to the exclusion of others, since that would rather defeat the point.

True, and it also allows for the possibility that you are less smart than average.

A possibility we all carry.

Not as far as the dictionaries go.

Considering you've been looking at words with multiple definitions and either employing incorrect ones or trying to fit a square peg in a round hole in terms of applying them, yes, as far as the dictionaries go, too.

A valid idea, but I find it strange that you'd seek “improvement” from ideas that have, to date, proven to be far less than “satisfactory”.

Again, you criticize without even knowing what ideas I actually seek improvement from.

I would think that if socialist programs were so darned great that you'd have moved your socialist butt into one of those socialist utopias long ago.

Which socialist utopias would those be, exactly? The totalitarian state socialist regimes I disagree with on a fundamental level, the state capitalist nations that call themselves socialist for the sake of appearances, or the mixed-economy capitalist states that just have a few more socialist programs than does this one?

No, but it does show that (relatively) “free enterprise” works better than "(over) regulated enterprise”, or any government-run program to date.

I'm rather fond of my socialized fire departments, police departments, and roads systems, thanks.

It is not a good idea to talk/think about imposing socialist policies/agencies/government without fully considering their economic impact.

Nice save. You almost had to admit you weren't paying attention there.

It's also usually “better” to survive first and discuss/evaluate (even rue) it later.

In a life-or-death in-the-moment situation, sure. That's not what we've got here. The "war on terror" and all the associated stuff has been going on for years; plenty of time to mull over the possibilities and consequences, even for the folks busy calling the shots.

You responded that you didn't live in an area where you thought there was much likelihood of being subject to a terrorist attack.

Indeed I did. And you added two and two and came up with five, concluding that that somehow meant I didn't care about the possible deaths of others.

I still think they should have been executed on the spot.
If they had been dealt with in this manner, their detention/treatment would be moot.

Very true, though it would have made recon and that whole "survival/winning" thing rather a lot more difficult.

Not when we're talking about regulation.

Absolutely when we're talking about regulation, just in the opposite direction.

???
All they've got to do is look through the no-doubt voluminous records sent there with them to see what the circumstances were when they were first detained.

Can't prove it by me.
AFAIK, most of the ones who've been let go were freed due to some of the evidence against them being “disallowed” by one meddling judicial authority or another.

Darn those meddling judicial authorities, not allowing us to present evidence that would be thrown out of any American court!

Not for me.... those definitions look like 80% torture-torment/suffering vs 20% death.
How many of them have you, personally, spoken to to know what their wishes actually were?

Are you really that unfamiliar with basic reasoning or are you just being contrary?

{snort!}
You look it up and use the definition given.
If you want to be “extra sure”, you do the same look-up on multiple sites.

"Twist to fit whatever situation you want it to" is not the same thing as "use."

Not really, yourself.
Marx was born before the term was coined in 1834.

The term was coined and in use before Marx began his political writings; thus, Marx did not invent it; thus, it predates him as a political theorist.

Eh.... I just said that they were different, and especially since there is also a separate political philosophy called “egalitarianism”.

I just said I am aware of the difference.

I think I just pointed that out about the Kibbutzim.
“Human nature” is what is present before “learning”/”socialization” is "acquired".
(in a good many instances, it is asocial)
Nowadays, there is ample evidence that a rather large number of people think that they do not need to conform with certain forms of socialization.

The "rugged individualism" that characterizes modern western nations (the US in particular) is a learned/socialized mode of thought. Human nature itself is based upon social rather than individualistic behavior; if this were not true, such things as societies, cities, nations, and so forth would not even exist.

[Reverend Tap]

So are you saying 9/11, the Khobar Towers, the 1st WTC bombing, and the USS Cole bombings never happened?

Again, like him or not, Bush has had ALOT less terrorist attacks on US soil than his predecessor did. Maybe actually doing something about it actually works! What a novel concept.

Um...

9/11: Occurred during Bush's term.
Khobar Towers: Occurred in Saudi Arabia, not the US.
USS Cole: Occurred in Yemen, not the US.

The only thing you can legitimately point to is the first WTC bombing, which only shows that Bush's record is no different from that of his predecessor. In any case, it's all still "Bear Patrol" unless you can point to specific instances of specifically Bush's policies thwarting terrorist attacks on US soil, because otherwise you're basing it entirely on the idea that the frequency of terrorist attacks on US soil is somehow a constant, which it would take a pretty big leap of faith for any thinking person to accept.

[Kansuke]

So what if someone has a bad case of bronchitis. It's not life threatening but they feel awful. Should they catch a bunch of S just because they want to feel better?

Hey, I'm all far all the rich people out there having their private insurance and doctors but there should be free health care for those that want it......no questions ask...no treatment denied

And anyone should be able to walk into any restaurant and get food for free too, right? And if you need a car, go to any car dealership and just take what is rightfully yours, right? I mean, that's exactly how economics works, right?

[Kansuke]

Human nature itself is based upon social rather than individualistic behavior.

It's based on both, moron.

[Kansuke]

they love the hatred and war

If anyone loves hatred it's you, and ****s like you.