Do you support universal healthcare?

Epignosis wrote: To reiterate:  Beer.

Friday night at a college apartment complex? Don't mind if I do (after another 4.5 hour of work).

Epignosis wrote: To reiterate:  Beer.

Anyone feel we could solve this problem together in a bar in 4-5 hours? 

Sorry, man, I edited my post since you last quoted it. I should have worked faster on it. But hey, I can respond to the responses you gave thus far, right?

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: I have never claimed to be superior to anything, so you calling me inferior to some things is not news to me. What amuses me, however, is how people like yourself can claim superiority on the basis of NOT knowing something. You said it yourself: you admit that you don't know. But you flaunt that as if it's something to hang on your wall. As if somehow not knowing a damn thing is better than claiming to know something. No, knowing is great, I'd agree! I'd disagree if you said most people know a lot about morality, and whether their beliefs are justified. Is it better to recognize that supposed values don't have firm ground to stand on, or to continue believing them?

Well, yes and no. I think logically and intellectually it is the obvious choice to admit when the cause behind a certain mindset is unfounded elsewhere, but emotionally and humanly, I think it is only natural for us to cling to an ideal as common as 'morality' and 'rights', regardless if they have any real roots or not in anything other than basic human nature.

Sure, we could say that because there is no 'firm ground' for claims of morality to stand on (which by the way, what is or isn't considered 'firm ground' could also be debated), but is that really why this debate is even happening? Are we here to learn the origins of such conepts, or are we here to see whether or not those concepts are worth applying in this situation based on the country's current outlook?

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Yes, you are claiming to be humble, but you do so in a very un-humble fashion. Not only to you admit that you yourself don't believe in morality, but you go out of your way to debunk others for believing such a thing exists. If you were truly just stating your own stance and nothing more, why would you attempt to make others' opinions seem obsolete in the wake of your own armchair philosophy? "Armchair philosophy?" Is there any other kind? I don't think being humble necessitates not trying to convince people they might be wrong, or at least instill some doubt in the matter. I don't want to give the impression that I'm better than anyone as far as morality goes, because it wouldn't make sense for my beliefs to do so. In fact I haven't really tried to justify my beliefs, only even more clearly explain what I mean. I should have known it was going to cause confusion. "Rights" discussion with my viewpoint would inevitably do that.

Well, judging by your response to my 'armchair philosophy' crack, it appears that you in fact do NOT hold philosophy as highly and 'absolute' as I thought. That's good! It means that you truly ARE willing to admit that just because you read about something in a witty quote, it doesn't make it true.

If you're just trying to clarify where your viewpoints are in relation to mine, then I apologize for assuming what I did. But I honestly did feel as if your behavior was a reflection of your need to 'prove us wrong' in the matter. Again, if that was not your intent, I am sorry.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Now if you're going by the Socratic method, I agree with you completely; we need to admit what we don't know before we can grow. However, claiming that other people are somehow delusional or 'quaint' is not admitting to anything about yourself other than you're cynical. I disagree. If someone has a belief that is really obviously unjustified (think of a hypothetical one, it's easy) it's fine to call them delusional. "Unicorns ram potential candidates and the ones who survive the impaling are elected!" "You're delusional." Seems reasonable to me. All ideas have to be filtered for nonsense, and if there's a really sensible and reasonable basis for morality, I haven't found it. But if someone would let me know of one, with justification, then I'd thank the hell out of them (and probably wonder why I didn't think of it first)

To be honest with you, I have wanted to know the same exact thing for years. Why is one thing considered immoral and another considered acceptable? Especially since in many cases the only thing that dictates such things is society itself, and as any given civilization evolves and changed over time, so do the 'guidelines' for what is moral and what is not.

But again, this isn't something that I think should determine whether or not universal healthcare be passed. Even if morality had an entire different basis and we were debating over something else entirely, the subject would still be based on the current general 'opinion' of what is right or wrong, and as long as the current societal outlook considers it a 'right' to be healthy without paying, I'm going to support that.

I may myself merely be a product of society's 'grip', but I stand by what I consider my 'morals' to be, regardless if they are real or dreamt up.

And I hear Obama is trying to indoctrinate our kids by telling them to stay in school!

Obama wants to kill your beer.

Negoba wrote: Obama wants to kill your beer.   (Runs and hides)

Obama smokes and drinks beer.

Now if only he'd grow a mustache, he could be coolest president of the last 50 years.

You're right, Chris, we need a world health care plan. Don't want to give your money to provide Africa with expensive AIDS drugs? YOU'RE A SELFISH b*****d IS WHAT YOU ARE!

Chris S wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: You're right, Chris, we need a world health care plan. Don't want to give your money to provide Africa with expensive AIDS drugs? YOU'RE A SELFISH b*****d IS WHAT YOU ARE! Not sure if you want to go there..................... especially as I spent 30 years living in Azania. I would prefer not to discuss the AIDS issue with you if you have not lived there...then again maybe you have, and left home a long time ago. If that is the case I apologise. Universal....is the incorrect term.

Chris S wrote: ^ Fair points......................perhaps also treating muti indoctrinated beliefs that raping a 6 month old child who is AIDS free will cure you of the disease needs to be eradicated. Sadly this has little to do with HIV treatment expenses.

Holy sh*t! And no, of course I never lived in Africa, I'm as pale as a vampire.

Negoba wrote: I have a relative working in a Central American clinic trying to bring in what treatment for HIV they can. But the belief system in Africa, even spread by the leadership at very high levels, is mind boggling.

So true and hit the nail on the head.  to those that make a difference.