Page 258 of 418 FirstFirst ... 158208248256257258259260268308358 ... LastLast
Results 2,571 to 2,580 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2571
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    how is it caring to kick folks who have cancer off there health insurance exactly?

    how is it caring to kick children who have not committed a crime, who were taken here by there parents before they could talk, out of the country?
    Wow, that is really not what they want. That really is part of the demonizing and verbiage that is political rhetoric. Right there with the "People will DIE!" video Reason did.

    You need to start with trying to actually engage with a blank slate and not demonization. Ask them WHY they want the ACA repealed. There is a different reason than "I don't care if they die" because that is so heartless and inhuman a large portion of the population is not going to be that cruel. It is an irrational position for them to take, and hence, they will have a rational reason. If you are giving an irrational reason for the other tribe to feel a certain way, guess what, it is false.

    I can imagine you have heard of some irrational claim about progressives that claims some similar level of irrationality, some cruelty that is inhuman and totally false to your morals. Same BS.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #2572
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Wow, that is really not what they want. That really is part of the demonizing and verbiage that is political rhetoric. Right there with the "People will DIE!" video Reason did.

    You need to start with trying to actually engage with a blank slate and not demonization. Ask them WHY they want the ACA repealed. There is a different reason than "I don't care if they die" because that is so heartless and inhuman a large portion of the population is not going to be that cruel. It is an irrational position for them to take, and hence, they will have a rational reason. If you are giving an irrational reason for the other tribe to feel a certain way, guess what, it is false.

    I can imagine you have heard of some irrational claim about progressives that claims some similar level of irrationality, some cruelty that is inhuman and totally false to your morals. Same BS.
    if that isn't what they want ... why is what they say they want to do, then ACTUALLY do when given the chance?

    its not my demonetization, its what they say and what they do. not my words, there words and actions.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #2573
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    another lovely talking point after vegas "mass shootings are simply the price of freedom"

    how caring is that?

    im no "take your guns" liberal, im a gun owner myself. i believe we can both make our country safer, and have personal gun ownership, but simply stating that 500 people shot in one incident is just the price of your hobby ... is pretty uncaring.
    While the claims of a few, even the NRA said let's discuss restricting bump stocks.

    In the counter argument, I think two big comments struck me.

    First was the argument is not really controlling guns. That is the tool used, but in this case, what we really are trying to control is Evil. Timothy Mcveigh was able to kill more with some fertilizer and diesel. There are many tools to do evil with, and I understand trying to limit those tools. It isn't a stupid position to take. The problem is the same tools are used for protection. It is often said that those same tools protect a large portion of the population, up to 2.5 million a year (a number I accept as being potentially dramatically exaggerated), from rape, murder, theft.

    Murder is fully illegal also. Did that stop evil from murdering these people? No. And it won't.

    Evil is a predator. On the hunt, looking for easy victims. If you and I are being chased, a gazelle on the savanna, you are not going to stop the predator. You might take away one tool, but another would be used. They will still hunt.

    Legislation in this case won't stop the predator. It will take away the hooves, the horns, the fleet running of the Gazelle though. It almost ONLY limits the prey.

    The argument, with the tools out of the discussion, is trying to control the predator, or trying to protect yourself from them. The Fence or the Stick arguement.

    If you take away the sticks, when the fence falls the damage is worse. Anybody like myself who was raised on a farm knows that.

    _________________________________________

    That position is far different than the simple, rhetoric one you presented as the argument as a whole. Again, it is kind of irrational. So it really isn't a true feeling, but a strawman of sorts.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #2574
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    a poll of british muslims nearly 40% claimed you should be put to death for blaphemey against allah. any way you slice that, its against enlightenment values of freedom of speech, and freedom from religion. islam is dangerous no doubt.
    I can't respond long form at the moment (and believe me, I want to), but if you could link us that study it'd be great.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #2575
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    While the claims of a few, even the NRA said let's discuss restricting bump stocks.

    In the counter argument, I think two big comments struck me.

    First was the argument is not really controlling guns. That is the tool used, but in this case, what we really are trying to control is Evil. Timothy Mcveigh was able to kill more with some fertilizer and diesel. There are many tools to do evil with, and I understand trying to limit those tools. It isn't a stupid position to take. The problem is the same tools are used for protection. It is often said that those same tools protect a large portion of the population, up to 2.5 million a year (a number I accept as being potentially dramatically exaggerated), from rape, murder, theft.

    Murder is fully illegal also. Did that stop evil from murdering these people? No. And it won't.

    Evil is a predator. On the hunt, looking for easy victims. If you and I are being chased, a gazelle on the savanna, you are not going to stop the predator. You might take away one tool, but another would be used. They will still hunt.

    Legislation in this case won't stop the predator. It will take away the hooves, the horns, the fleet running of the Gazelle though. It almost ONLY limits the prey.

    The argument, with the tools out of the discussion, is trying to control the predator, or trying to protect yourself from them. The Fence or the Stick arguement.

    If you take away the sticks, when the fence falls the damage is worse. Anybody like myself who was raised on a farm knows that.

    _________________________________________

    That position is far different than the simple, rhetoric one you presented as the argument as a whole. Again, it is kind of irrational. So it really isn't a true feeling, but a strawman of sorts.
    the NRA has retracted support for regulating bump stocks.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #2576
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    if that isn't what they want ... why is what they say they want to do, then ACTUALLY do when given the chance?

    its not my demonetization, its what they say and what they do. not my words, there words and actions.
    It is how you look at the actions, the WHY. How you see it. Watch the videos, it really is a good start into the foundations of this discussion.

    It helps to see what the right hold as sacred also. They have items they plant in the ground, take as sacred, and any argument really is wasted on them. I know. I have my own, which is Personal Liberty, Individual Rights, Individual Responsibility. As you have yours.

    The Haidt discussion can give us a platform of verbiage to start a good discussion on.

    __________________________

    Lets start with a few items though:

    The ACA did not provide insurance. It attempted to lower costs of insurance, but still relied on existing insurance companies. It increased a large number of taxes (same have said it was the largest non-war tax increase ever) to supplement those who couldn't afford insurance. It also was a huge mess, with tens of thousands of regulations, requirements, and changes to a system that is mired down in those already. And it added a lot more that needed to be required to the system.

    In the 1980's there was about 1 insurance clerk for ever 3 doctors. Now there are 3 for each doctor. Direct pay (no insurance) for hospital care can be half to 1/4 the cost simply by removing insurance from the system.

    The ACA did make that more complicated.

    The 47 million insured was kind of a bogus number. In that, if you looked at it, more than half were people who could afford it but chose not to, the young invincibles, 9 million who were not US citizens and or contributing to the taxes to pay for it, and 3.5 million were actually below the level that could afford it, but also on review could have been covered by medicaid.

    At it's highest point, the number of people who could not get insurance due to pre-existing care and signed up to the ACA was 114,000.

    Currently about 1/3rd to half of the insurance programs in the ACA Marketplace have pulled out. It is crashing. Why? The increased demands of the ACA increased costs above the ability to cover the supplement tax payments to the ACA marketplace.

    It is a mess. It raised prices, it made insurance more complex and in trying to limit the price, reduced the ability to do it and maintain a profit. I looked up the insurance companies profits (they are online, a quick google) and the ACA was a losing prospect for most of them.

    People can still get insurance. Medicaid was nearly 3/4 of the ACA program's participants. We looked into it - and since I had to many kids the ACA wouldn't cover 2 of them. (shakes head.)

    It is just a really bad program.

    And we still are stuck in a 2nd payer system.

    SO: Lets make some changes. Lets drop it, and build something better. Hands out, lets all sit down.

    ________________________________________

    The problem is it is a sacred object that some people circle around, saying "People will DIE!" instead of accepting that there are better ways to do this altogether, ways to lower the cost dramatically, like the HSA and HDHP programs the ACA scrapped.

    For example, I support following the Singapore Model, using the Payroll Tax (Total is 12.4%) and the HSA/HDHP with a retirement plan we can get everyone catastrophic insurance, and high return investing vs the SS system.

    Or the Swiss Model, with a minimum taken out (Swiss is 10% of your paycheck) and the government supplementing a voucher style minimum required coverage you can take to whatever hospital and have insurance. You get a pick of about 30 companies in little switzerland. In Israel you get to choose any one of 4 government insurance companies.

    That would be a really constructive discussion.

    But the counter seems to be............ah, why do you want people to die?

    The moment that stops, that is the moment politics stops and a true discussion starts I feel.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #2577
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    the NRA has retracted support for regulating bump stocks.
    No. There was a bill introduced that was really poor they did not support.

    It regulates springs. They are willing to discuss regulation, but that is just a knee jerk reaction bill, not one they had input on.

    Say we were talking about milk. And somebody said, hey, let's drink more milk. And then somebody puts in the "Dog Milk In All The Schools Bill."

    A discussion needs to happen, not a knee jerk response.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #2578
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    It is how you look at the actions, the WHY. How you see it. Watch the videos, it really is a good start into the foundations of this discussion.

    It helps to see what the right hold as sacred also. They have items they plant in the ground, take as sacred, and any argument really is wasted on them. I know. I have my own, which is Personal Liberty, Individual Rights, Individual Responsibility. As you have yours.

    The Haidt discussion can give us a platform of verbiage to start a good discussion on.

    __________________________

    Lets start with a few items though:

    The ACA did not provide insurance. It attempted to lower costs of insurance, but still relied on existing insurance companies. It increased a large number of taxes (same have said it was the largest non-war tax increase ever) to supplement those who couldn't afford insurance. It also was a huge mess, with tens of thousands of regulations, requirements, and changes to a system that is mired down in those already. And it added a lot more that needed to be required to the system.

    In the 1980's there was about 1 insurance clerk for ever 3 doctors. Now there are 3 for each doctor. Direct pay (no insurance) for hospital care can be half to 1/4 the cost simply by removing insurance from the system.

    The ACA did make that more complicated.

    The 47 million insured was kind of a bogus number. In that, if you looked at it, more than half were people who could afford it but chose not to, the young invincibles, 9 million who were not US citizens and or contributing to the taxes to pay for it, and 3.5 million were actually below the level that could afford it, but also on review could have been covered by medicaid.

    At it's highest point, the number of people who could not get insurance due to pre-existing care and signed up to the ACA was 114,000.

    Currently about 1/3rd to half of the insurance programs in the ACA Marketplace have pulled out. It is crashing. Why? The increased demands of the ACA increased costs above the ability to cover the supplement tax payments to the ACA marketplace.

    It is a mess. It raised prices, it made insurance more complex and in trying to limit the price, reduced the ability to do it and maintain a profit. I looked up the insurance companies profits (they are online, a quick google) and the ACA was a losing prospect for most of them.

    People can still get insurance. Medicaid was nearly 3/4 of the ACA program's participants. We looked into it - and since I had to many kids the ACA wouldn't cover 2 of them. (shakes head.)

    It is just a really bad program.

    And we still are stuck in a 2nd payer system.

    SO: Lets make some changes. Lets drop it, and build something better. Hands out, lets all sit down.

    ________________________________________

    The problem is it is a sacred object that some people circle around, saying "People will DIE!" instead of accepting that there are better ways to do this altogether, ways to lower the cost dramatically, like the HSA and HDHP programs the ACA scrapped.

    For example, I support following the Singapore Model, using the Payroll Tax (Total is 12.4%) and the HSA/HDHP with a retirement plan we can get everyone catastrophic insurance, and high return investing vs the SS system.

    Or the Swiss Model, with a minimum taken out (Swiss is 10% of your paycheck) and the government supplementing a voucher style minimum required coverage you can take to whatever hospital and have insurance. You get a pick of about 30 companies in little switzerland. In Israel you get to choose any one of 4 government insurance companies.

    That would be a really constructive discussion.

    But the counter seems to be............ah, why do you want people to die?

    The moment that stops, that is the moment politics stops and a true discussion starts I feel.
    republicans are not for a single payer system. ie, Singapore, swiss etc.

    so, swing and another miss.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #2579
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    No. There was a bill introduced that was really poor they did not support.

    It regulates springs. They are willing to discuss regulation, but that is just a knee jerk reaction bill, not one they had input on.

    Say we were talking about milk. And somebody said, hey, let's drink more milk. And then somebody puts in the "Dog Milk In All The Schools Bill."

    A discussion needs to happen, not a knee jerk response.
    so, they did not support the law that you claimed they would.

    k.

    not even that that is the point, the NRA is one of the organizations that stated that mass murders were simply the cost of having the second amendment.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #2580
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I can't respond long form at the moment (and believe me, I want to), but if you could link us that study it'd be great.
    I have seen it and similar. Here is a Prager U link. Commentary and footnotes at the bottom of the link:

    https://www.prageru.com/courses/poli...derate-muslims

    From the sources:

    A Pew Research Center study found that significant percentages of Muslims across the globe are in favor of the death penalty for anyone who leaves the Islamic faith, including 86% of Egyptians, 82% of Jordanians, 79% of Afghanis, 76% of Pakistanis, and 62% of Malaysians. Similar numbers are in favor of stoning people who commit adultery, chopping off hands for theft, and punishing those who criticize Muhammad or Islam.
    A Pew Research Center study found that in 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say Sharia law is the “revealed word of God.” The study found that Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia overwhelmingly believe that Sharia should be the official law in their country. The only two regions Pew found in which a majority of Muslims disagreed with this sentiment were Southern-Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Even in those regions, however, percentages of Muslims who wanted Sharia were still high in some countries, including 42% of Russian Muslims and 35% of Kyrgyztani Muslims.
    There is a large wealth of data on this subject.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •