Do you support universal healthcare?

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

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.

Epignosis wrote: To reiterate:  Beer.

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

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).

To gently attempt to back up Stoney...

Arguing about whether the provision of health care is a "right" by a classical definition or other metric does not imply that you think said provision to every citizen of a state is wrong.

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?

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.

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)

p0mt3 wrote: But seriously, let's get back to what this topic is about . . . healthcare!

Good idea, but I'll be stunned if nothing that's gone on here doesn't get challenged and irk me into responding. Here's to that not happening, though! Unless it's to clear my (probably smudged by now) name.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Raff wrote: All I have to say is - I hope none of those 20-year-olds will have to learn they are not God the hard way. You can lead the most careful of lives, and still get sick and die - or have an accident not through your fault, and become disabled. I had a cousin, a very high-ranking judge, who died in under two months, at the age of 52, of a particularly virulent form of cancer. She had had checkups a few months before she died, so she did take care of herself - but that didn't prevent her from getting sick and dying all the same. As to healthcare not being a right, well... It is easy to say when you are 20. Lose your good health, and then come and tell me. I am sorry if this post implies any negative wishes on my part, but seeing people speak of other people's lives in such terms makes me sick. In the past few years I have seen the fragility of our human condition first hand, and like to believe it taught me a lesson.  Acknowledging that rights exist requires a firm basis of morality. I don't have one, besides common sense, because I don't know where it would come from. I may have feelings about some things--killing my mother would upset me in tons of ways, but I don't actually know on what basis I could condemn anyone for it on moral grounds. God is a convenient falsehood, paradigms of philosophers are arbitrary, and moral relativism is unenforceable. I don't know--hence, uncertainty. By the way, I hope that my beliefs are not so easily swayed by emotion as to abandon them once bad things start happening around me. If I'm going to do that, I might as well get a lobotomy and forgo critical thought right now. And hey, I wonder if other people will pay to take care of me once I do it, too... Well, then. I guess you're just 'above' every philosophy out there, huh? Too bad we mere mortals need to delute ourselves with these vices of morality. But you're so much better than us since you renounce it all, right? You assume a lot in your responses to my posts. You think I like not having a firm moral grounding? I hate it, and it gives me no comfort. I'd love for someone to justify to my satisfaction any foundation for morality, but I don't know of one yet. And to me, most other people who say they have a firm moral ground are indeed delusional about it. It will probably fall apart under scrutiny. I'm in the same boat as everyone else, only I recognize that I don't know. Typical narcissistic response. "it's not my fault I'm so much more enlightened than everybody else. I just am! I hate being intellectually superior!" I'm sure your thorough study of narcissistic personalities as the professional psychologist you are is a valuable addition to this discussion. Are you even interested in having a conversation here, or would you continue to misinterpret my words? Lot of people are more enlightened on some things than other people are. You may not like to be inferior at some things, but you are. (Not singling you out). I for example, am less enlightened about math and a lot of science than other people. It's just true. The language may be off-putting, but that doesn't make it less true. I am no expert on morality, but I'm sure that my philosophical interest in it makes me relatively more enlightened on the subject than most people, even though my "knowledge" is very meager. I know enough that I've taken myself off a pedestal of supposed knowledge that many people still are on. I'm not too eager to proclaim I know for sure what is true or right, (because no paradigm of morality makes total sense to me), so I don't jump onto another pedestal of emboldened, shakey knowledge. In most ways, I think I'm humble about the issue, if harshly realistic about the people who don't question their supposed knowledge enough.

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.

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?

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.

Look, I'm sure that I have simply misinterpreted where you are coming from just like you said, and I'm not trying to come off as a dick (although I hear that's how I appear to people a lot of the time), so we can keep this civil I think without it getting too out of hand. I'm just being honest. If I'm wrong, then explain to me why I am, but let's not try and get too personal with the attacks, or anything, because that isn't going to help anybody.

According to your profile on here, you aren't even a full year older than I am, yet you have this attitude about you that you already have this planet figured out by simply admitting that you DON'T know. I don't think people at our age are supposed to 'know' for sure about anything, that's the beauty of life and discovery, but I can have a gut feeling about something or an opinion based on my experiences that I can go by, and I'm not afraid of basing my opinions of morality on those said opinions.

You can't explain away human nature. We'll never 'know' for certain why we feel and think the way we do about things. That doesn't make it any less prevalent or meaningful to consider universal healthcare a 'right' under this country's definition of the term.



Edited by p0mt3 - September 04 2009 at 18:27

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Raff wrote: All I have to say is - I hope none of those 20-year-olds will have to learn they are not God the hard way. You can lead the most careful of lives, and still get sick and die - or have an accident not through your fault, and become disabled. I had a cousin, a very high-ranking judge, who died in under two months, at the age of 52, of a particularly virulent form of cancer. She had had checkups a few months before she died, so she did take care of herself - but that didn't prevent her from getting sick and dying all the same. As to healthcare not being a right, well... It is easy to say when you are 20. Lose your good health, and then come and tell me. I am sorry if this post implies any negative wishes on my part, but seeing people speak of other people's lives in such terms makes me sick. In the past few years I have seen the fragility of our human condition first hand, and like to believe it taught me a lesson.  Acknowledging that rights exist requires a firm basis of morality. I don't have one, besides common sense, because I don't know where it would come from. I may have feelings about some things--killing my mother would upset me in tons of ways, but I don't actually know on what basis I could condemn anyone for it on moral grounds. God is a convenient falsehood, paradigms of philosophers are arbitrary, and moral relativism is unenforceable. I don't know--hence, uncertainty. By the way, I hope that my beliefs are not so easily swayed by emotion as to abandon them once bad things start happening around me. If I'm going to do that, I might as well get a lobotomy and forgo critical thought right now. And hey, I wonder if other people will pay to take care of me once I do it, too... Well, then. I guess you're just 'above' every philosophy out there, huh? Too bad we mere mortals need to delute ourselves with these vices of morality. But you're so much better than us since you renounce it all, right? You assume a lot in your responses to my posts. You think I like not having a firm moral grounding? I hate it, and it gives me no comfort. I'd love for someone to justify to my satisfaction any foundation for morality, but I don't know of one yet. And to me, most other people who say they have a firm moral ground are indeed delusional about it. It will probably fall apart under scrutiny. I'm in the same boat as everyone else, only I recognize that I don't know.

Typical narcissistic response.

"it's not my fault I'm so much more enlightened than everybody else. I just am! I hate being intellectually superior!"




Edited by p0mt3 - September 04 2009 at 17:33

p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Raff wrote: All I have to say is - I hope none of those 20-year-olds will have to learn they are not God the hard way. You can lead the most careful of lives, and still get sick and die - or have an accident not through your fault, and become disabled. I had a cousin, a very high-ranking judge, who died in under two months, at the age of 52, of a particularly virulent form of cancer. She had had checkups a few months before she died, so she did take care of herself - but that didn't prevent her from getting sick and dying all the same. As to healthcare not being a right, well... It is easy to say when you are 20. Lose your good health, and then come and tell me. I am sorry if this post implies any negative wishes on my part, but seeing people speak of other people's lives in such terms makes me sick. In the past few years I have seen the fragility of our human condition first hand, and like to believe it taught me a lesson.  Acknowledging that rights exist requires a firm basis of morality. I don't have one, besides common sense, because I don't know where it would come from. I may have feelings about some things--killing my mother would upset me in tons of ways, but I don't actually know on what basis I could condemn anyone for it on moral grounds. God is a convenient falsehood, paradigms of philosophers are arbitrary, and moral relativism is unenforceable. I don't know--hence, uncertainty. By the way, I hope that my beliefs are not so easily swayed by emotion as to abandon them once bad things start happening around me. If I'm going to do that, I might as well get a lobotomy and forgo critical thought right now. And hey, I wonder if other people will pay to take care of me once I do it, too... Well, then. I guess you're just 'above' every philosophy out there, huh? Too bad we mere mortals need to delute ourselves with these vices of morality. But you're so much better than us since you renounce it all, right?

You assume a lot in your responses to my posts.

You think I like not having a firm moral grounding? I hate it, and it gives me no comfort. I'd love for someone to justify to my satisfaction any foundation for morality, but I don't know of one yet. And to me, most other people who say they have a firm moral ground are indeed delusional about it. It will probably fall apart under scrutiny. I'm in the same boat as everyone else, only I recognize that I don't know.

p0mt3 wrote: LinusW wrote: What's even worse is opposing universal healthcare purely on the basis that it's not a right. Other than that, this thread is full of good arguments for both sides. And some of more dubious quality as well   I'm not one of those people who think universal healthcare should be done 'just because', but I do think that common sense and decency does play a part it in at some point. If we didn't want to look out for each other at some point, we wouldn't have half of what we do now, in my opinion.

I agree.