OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Boron:
the main "problem" is just : when you are very ill with the age of e.g. 75 years expensive medical measures will keep you alive for 5 additional years . but you won't have much life qualitiy in that additional years but it costs something like X00.000 $ . of course almost everybody would prefer to life that 5 years longer because at least i will live as long as possible but it is just impayable .

You could just die. Your children will thank you for not wasting their inheritance on prolonging your own miserable existence because you were too cowardly to embrace death when it should have rightfully come for you. The problem is that people have this bizarre, unnatural hangup about embracing their own deaths that they're willing to spend ridiculous sums of money that they don't even have in an attempt to prolong their own sorry, misbegotten, miserable existence. In a few years I'm going to be at this crossroads...and you know what? Rather than being a miserable leech and spend way more than I actually have in a sorry attempt to stay alive as a pathetic loser, I'm just gonna bite it with some dignity, and maybe will my fortune off to some worthy cause, as I lack children. That worthy recipient will undoubtedly thank me for my choice of oblivion over fruitless misery.

[LintMan]

Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.

If we want to fit this into your baseball analogy, this is equivalent to Kerry having a religion that condemns 3rd base, and then with him saying that he agrees 3rd base is bad but the standard rules of baseball have it, and he won't make laws trying to change that to fit his religion's teachings.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by LintMan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.

---

Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people. Or, to make it a matter of life and death - a person who thinks that killing animals for food is heinous. Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat? I wouldn't. Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings. Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.

And why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't ... "slipping out" murder? Those sperm cells were alive, and just as sentient as a newly fertilized ova.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same.

Sadly, Boy George only puts the laws that support his monomaniacal beliefs (that campaign contributors are good, and dissenters are Hitler/Bin Laden/Anti-Christ supporters) above his personal feelings, and pushes new laws that support his beliefs.

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet."

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Have I written anything about supporting Republicans???

In a long-running flamefest that happened many months ago, and was eventually pruned by the Moderators, you did. Alas, since it was pruned, I cannot quote it back to you (throw it in your face). You very firmly bashed all things Democratic and favored all things Republican.

Kerry ... is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.

Kerry is for the right to choose an abortion. Which is not the same thing, and is a distinction that appears to be too subtle for you. Personally, he's against abortion. But he won't cram his personal beliefs down other's throats, unlike the Bushies. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to choose someone else's path. That's tyranny of the worst sort. We Americans condemn the lack of freedom in many other countries, notably those in the mideast, yet if the Bushies have their way, they'd happily turn the U.S. into the same sort of theocracy/plutocracy that Saudi Arabia is.

Please spare us your moral indignation. It's hypocritical.

EDIT: typoes.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people.

Actually, they tried that. It actually managed to become a constitutional amendment. Scary. Eventually it was repealed for being an awful idea.

Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat?

That'd be awful. I'd start my own resistance movement right there. I mean, no meat? We'd all starve and die horribly of malnutrition.

Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings.

You can quickly reach logical coherency by discarding this premise as false. Graeme, however, would likely call me a horrible person for saying such a thing, as if I was some sort of serial killer or mass-murderer merely because I have logically discarded an internally inconsistent belief.

Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.

You mean like the people who oppose the right to die? There are people out there, trying to tell you that you're not allowed to die. In fact, they've managed to make it illegal to do so in many places! Fortunately, if you actually succeed, you'll be too dead to be brought to trial, so nobody really takes this one seriously.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.

Well, you could keep asking "why", but the logical answer is simply "It isn't."

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet."

Meh, drugs. Didn't they learn that this didn't work back in the 20s? It's deja vu all over again.

[Huzurdaddi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
I guess you have never tried both services personally. They are not at all comparable. Canadian health care sucks.

No, it really doesn't "suck". If you'd look at the most basic of statistics, you'd see that our mortality statistics are comparable or better than that of the U.S.

---

No it SUCKS. Canada has the benefit of having a 2-tier health system. If you can afford it you go to the US. If you can not you get treated in Canada. No one with a right head and sufficient capital and the time will pick a location for treatment will stay in Canada for any important medical procedure. I would not mind getting my scraped knee taken care of in Canada but any serious procedure I would want done in the US.

Seriously every jackass who thinks he knows anything about health care talks endlessly about how the Canadian system is better. I am an Ex-Pat now living in the US so I know. I have experienced both systems 1st hand. The Canadian system *SUCKS*.

Yes, yes it is clear that the statistics for a country will be better if you have universal health care. That's so painfully clear it hurts. Since there are a great number of simple problems which can be solved by a simple application of medicine.

However if you have the choice between the two systems the choice is clear: the US. US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care. The compensation of doctors within the US insures that they have the best doctors on average ( I'm sure that every person "knows a great doctor in Canada", whatever ). The compensation of doctors in the US also insures that they have the best equipment available ( the tort law also reinforces this ).

It is simply better if you can afford it.

quote:

---

*IF* you can afford US health care it is far superior. Period.

That's the problem. You can't simply ignore the people who can't afford it and then state that the system is superior. If you want your sample to be at all indicative of the actual state, then you must include even those people that can't afford proper healthcare.

---

I sure can say it is better. I said it is better *IF* you can afford it, you are the jackass saying the Canadian system is simply better. I qualified my statement to make it correct. I'm all for a 2 tier system. Of course you can't sell a 2-tier system. Hell most Canadian’s will not admit that they have a 2 tier system even though they all have "rich friends" who get procedures done in the US.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:37: Message edited by: Huzurdaddi ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care. The compensation of doctors within the US insures that they have the best doctors on average ( I'm sure that every person "knows a great doctor in Canada", whatever ). The compensation of doctors in the US also insures that they have the best equipment available ( the tort law also reinforces this ).

What's funny (that's funny as in "damned disgusting") is that the Republicans who so very much despise the concept of universal healthcare as destructive of America's present fine medical care system are also very busy trying to undo the very system of tort laws that you assert is the underpinning of why the U.S. has good health care. So, if things progress (devolve is actually a better term) the way they are going, the U.S. will end up with the worst of all possible systems: medical care that's expensive, covers only the rich, and with no system of protection against negligent/incompetent practicioners. Something to ponder ...

EDIT: OTOH, the present tort law system makes lawyers very rich, at the expense of EVERYONE else. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, with regards to healthcare/tort reform.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:50: Message edited by: Arryn ]