"Any spare change?" (minimal spam please)
[QUOTE=jopperm2]True, but it is my opinion that this is a fact. Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it's wrong either.[/QUOTE]
Of course it dosen't mean it is wrong - but it does mean that you should be carefull to build your oppinion and views on information you have no idea is factual or not. Which is extreemly hard - I know - but it is still sound to question the factuality of "common knowlegde" before using it as foundation.
Of course it dosen't mean it is wrong - but it does mean that you should be carefull to build your oppinion and views on information you have no idea is factual or not. Which is extreemly hard - I know - but it is still sound to question the factuality of "common knowlegde" before using it as foundation.
Insert signature here.
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
I agree.
This is basically what I am basing it on:
The common knowledge thing.
Several anecdotal pieces of evidence.
Conversations with a friend of mine who is a former social worker.
A little bit of(admittedly partisan) personal opinion.
This is basically what I am basing it on:
The common knowledge thing.
Several anecdotal pieces of evidence.
Conversations with a friend of mine who is a former social worker.
A little bit of(admittedly partisan) personal opinion.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
I'll go ahead and post the unpopular opinion. Keep in mind, I've arrived at my opinion based on my experience in Iowa. I have no doubt things are different in other places, but for the most part it probably wouldn't change my mind.
I never give money to beggars. There are intersections that I drive through every day that have these people with signs about "working for food" or whatever else they think will attract sympathy. I see these people while I drive to my job that consists of hard labor, in intersections that have help wanted signs in the backdrop. Don't tell me you can't get a job here, because there is a labor shortage that has caused a massive boom of immigrants in this state. The world is full of people that are simply lazy. As someone that busts his rear for every penny he makes, I have no sympathy for these people. There's enough government assistance in this country to get anyone off their feet, yet you want more? Drugs addicts are simply lying in the bed they made for themselves.
I'm of the opinion that human compassion short-circuits the laws of nature and will eventually lead to the demise of mankind. Rather than recognize that these leeches are making us weaker, we give more of ourselves, eventually weakening our entire race...all in the name of compassion.
I never give money to beggars. There are intersections that I drive through every day that have these people with signs about "working for food" or whatever else they think will attract sympathy. I see these people while I drive to my job that consists of hard labor, in intersections that have help wanted signs in the backdrop. Don't tell me you can't get a job here, because there is a labor shortage that has caused a massive boom of immigrants in this state. The world is full of people that are simply lazy. As someone that busts his rear for every penny he makes, I have no sympathy for these people. There's enough government assistance in this country to get anyone off their feet, yet you want more? Drugs addicts are simply lying in the bed they made for themselves.
I'm of the opinion that human compassion short-circuits the laws of nature and will eventually lead to the demise of mankind. Rather than recognize that these leeches are making us weaker, we give more of ourselves, eventually weakening our entire race...all in the name of compassion.
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
[QUOTE=JSPCHIEF]I'm of the opinion that human compassion short-circuits the laws of nature and will eventually lead to the demise of mankind. Rather than recognize that these leeches are making us weaker, we give more of ourselves, eventually weakening our entire race...all in the name of compassion.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree partly with that. <hands JSP his asbestos suit>
BTW> You're from ankeny? I went to HS in Huxley!
I'll agree partly with that. <hands JSP his asbestos suit>
BTW> You're from ankeny? I went to HS in Huxley!
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
[QUOTE=fable]...Hospitals and physicians cheating the federal government to get Medicaire funds simply doesn't happen anymore. The regulatory procedures are too tight, and the fines are incredibly steep when you're caught. I'd like links to current articles showing the massive fraud you claim.[/QUOTE]
Fable is correct. Fraud is not the problem it once was. Rather, lack of funds are the problem. I work with investigators and analysts in a regulatory agency 5 days out of the week. This agency regulates nursing facilities, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and so forth. The majority of Americans want to care for the elderly and the disabled. What they are not aware of is the butchering their care has experienced since Reagan. We are not referring only to Medicare and Medicaid funds here...I am also referring to the funds regulatory agencies receive for staffing, training, etc. That has been reduced.
The story goes on, however. I will go further. Thanks to the erosion of oversight and the shortage of trained and well-credentialed investigators, we see corporate sharks making an industry out of the care for the elderly, indigent, and disabled. They take advantage of a system engineered for their growth and profit by being an untouchable controlling entity that cannot be penalized for breaking the law. Instead, the staff they so carelessly hire - people they hire off the street without checking their backgrounds, qualifications, and licensure - take the fall while they fold up their facilities, sell them all, and go do this all over again in a different state. The after-effects of this are a tragic crisis, for quite suddenly a multitude of dependent people are left out in the cold. Who ends up footing the bill for this marvel of free enterprise? The state and Medicare. In one year alone, Texas paid 6 million dollars to relocate patients after a nursing home provider abandoned 30 of it's 40 facilities statewide. Medicare only covered a fraction of the cost. They lacked the funds to do more. "Charities" footed none of it.
Fable is correct. Fraud is not the problem it once was. Rather, lack of funds are the problem. I work with investigators and analysts in a regulatory agency 5 days out of the week. This agency regulates nursing facilities, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and so forth. The majority of Americans want to care for the elderly and the disabled. What they are not aware of is the butchering their care has experienced since Reagan. We are not referring only to Medicare and Medicaid funds here...I am also referring to the funds regulatory agencies receive for staffing, training, etc. That has been reduced.
The story goes on, however. I will go further. Thanks to the erosion of oversight and the shortage of trained and well-credentialed investigators, we see corporate sharks making an industry out of the care for the elderly, indigent, and disabled. They take advantage of a system engineered for their growth and profit by being an untouchable controlling entity that cannot be penalized for breaking the law. Instead, the staff they so carelessly hire - people they hire off the street without checking their backgrounds, qualifications, and licensure - take the fall while they fold up their facilities, sell them all, and go do this all over again in a different state. The after-effects of this are a tragic crisis, for quite suddenly a multitude of dependent people are left out in the cold. Who ends up footing the bill for this marvel of free enterprise? The state and Medicare. In one year alone, Texas paid 6 million dollars to relocate patients after a nursing home provider abandoned 30 of it's 40 facilities statewide. Medicare only covered a fraction of the cost. They lacked the funds to do more. "Charities" footed none of it.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]1> I said I want to make your prescriptions affordable instead of paying for them for you, it has basically the same effect.[/quote]
And how would you make prescriptions affordable? It's easy to say, hard to accomplish, if you don't use the method which is in place now and works perfectly well. And why fix something that isn't broken? Don't look at this from the long outdated "liberal vs conservative" POV. It's simply a case of finding an equitable way of dealing with massive medical costs that 1) pay for the goods and services, 2) ease the burden of payment from those that can't afford it, and 3) prevent massive fraud--all of this, efficiently. Politics and sloganeering have no place in our discussion, whatever the politicians may say when they're trying to garner votes for power.
Most of my evidence of this cheating is anecdotal, I'll admit that, but I think the confusion is that I'm not talking about hospitals and whatnot cheating, I'm talking about people being on disability when they shouldn't be. There are not articles that I know of because I haven't looked, this type of disability fraud(and welfare fraud too) is common knowledge where I live.
People keep speaking of welfare fraud and disability fraud, but nobody has either statistics to back this up, or numerous specific cases to offer with documented evidence. It's urban myth: "everybody knows" becomes an accepted truth, like the conspiracy to kill JFK, or the way copper bracelets will cure everything from arthritis to cancer. When something is "common knowledge," it's time to set off the mental alarms and demand evidence.
We're in agreement here I think. Medicare should be based on the expenses you have and your ability to pay them.
You still don't get it: Medicaire is like this, today. During its first decade Medicaire was subject to a great amount of misuse, which has resulted in the urban myths (see above) that we hear, now. But the legal framework was strengthened to prevent this from happening, and there are no more instances of the wealthy receiving Medicaire for hospital treatments. There simply is no hard evidence of significant abuse. It doesn't exist. If a person starts telling you it does and asks you to vote for him to curb it, ask him or her for documentation backing these fictitious claims.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, I seem to remember images of poor people being run down in the street by fancy carriages and no one caring.. Maybe I'm wrong.
Modern Euro-American culture likes to perceive itself as incredibly democratic (which it isn't), and therefore creates a pseudo-history in which an aristocratic class perpetually tormented other classes. History is actualliy a lot more complex than this, and there is no discernable pattern of social interaction between the classes that can be used as a standard for all times and places. The most that can be said is that some models of government on-the-ground favored the powerful greatly, but by no means were they usually aristocrats.
Let me provide one example that may surprise you: during the 15th and 16th centuries, many middle class merchants and lawyers in England were offered through various intermediaries full knighthoods. Most of them turned it down. We have plenty of source-based evidence of this. It was used by the monarchy as a method of raising cash, since knighthoods came with a hefty fee. (Henry VIII was especially canny in this respect.) They also entailed constant service at Court, waiting upon the requirements of the King and his government: a fulltime occupation. So knighthood was usually put off until a wealthy burgher family had several sons, including one with a university legal degree and high social skills, who could be sent to represent the family interests to London. Then, and only then, would they typically invest in a knighthood.
There are any number of excellent books on this subject, but you might want to start with the various colections of Paston letters to see how a middle class family dealt in easy familiarity with upper class patrons and foes in its pursuit of power and wealth.
And how would you make prescriptions affordable? It's easy to say, hard to accomplish, if you don't use the method which is in place now and works perfectly well. And why fix something that isn't broken? Don't look at this from the long outdated "liberal vs conservative" POV. It's simply a case of finding an equitable way of dealing with massive medical costs that 1) pay for the goods and services, 2) ease the burden of payment from those that can't afford it, and 3) prevent massive fraud--all of this, efficiently. Politics and sloganeering have no place in our discussion, whatever the politicians may say when they're trying to garner votes for power.
Most of my evidence of this cheating is anecdotal, I'll admit that, but I think the confusion is that I'm not talking about hospitals and whatnot cheating, I'm talking about people being on disability when they shouldn't be. There are not articles that I know of because I haven't looked, this type of disability fraud(and welfare fraud too) is common knowledge where I live.
People keep speaking of welfare fraud and disability fraud, but nobody has either statistics to back this up, or numerous specific cases to offer with documented evidence. It's urban myth: "everybody knows" becomes an accepted truth, like the conspiracy to kill JFK, or the way copper bracelets will cure everything from arthritis to cancer. When something is "common knowledge," it's time to set off the mental alarms and demand evidence.
We're in agreement here I think. Medicare should be based on the expenses you have and your ability to pay them.
You still don't get it: Medicaire is like this, today. During its first decade Medicaire was subject to a great amount of misuse, which has resulted in the urban myths (see above) that we hear, now. But the legal framework was strengthened to prevent this from happening, and there are no more instances of the wealthy receiving Medicaire for hospital treatments. There simply is no hard evidence of significant abuse. It doesn't exist. If a person starts telling you it does and asks you to vote for him to curb it, ask him or her for documentation backing these fictitious claims.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, I seem to remember images of poor people being run down in the street by fancy carriages and no one caring.. Maybe I'm wrong.
Modern Euro-American culture likes to perceive itself as incredibly democratic (which it isn't), and therefore creates a pseudo-history in which an aristocratic class perpetually tormented other classes. History is actualliy a lot more complex than this, and there is no discernable pattern of social interaction between the classes that can be used as a standard for all times and places. The most that can be said is that some models of government on-the-ground favored the powerful greatly, but by no means were they usually aristocrats.
Let me provide one example that may surprise you: during the 15th and 16th centuries, many middle class merchants and lawyers in England were offered through various intermediaries full knighthoods. Most of them turned it down. We have plenty of source-based evidence of this. It was used by the monarchy as a method of raising cash, since knighthoods came with a hefty fee. (Henry VIII was especially canny in this respect.) They also entailed constant service at Court, waiting upon the requirements of the King and his government: a fulltime occupation. So knighthood was usually put off until a wealthy burgher family had several sons, including one with a university legal degree and high social skills, who could be sent to represent the family interests to London. Then, and only then, would they typically invest in a knighthood.
There are any number of excellent books on this subject, but you might want to start with the various colections of Paston letters to see how a middle class family dealt in easy familiarity with upper class patrons and foes in its pursuit of power and wealth.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Ok, I've never been to Iowa, but since the genome of Homo Sapiens worldwide contains less variability than a single group of Rwandan Mountain gorillas, I am willing to bet people in Iowa are not totally different to people elsewhere. So, let me pose some questions:JSPCHIEF wrote:I'll go ahead and post the unpopular opinion. Keep in mind, I've arrived at my opinion based on my experience in Iowa. I have no doubt things are different in other places, but for the most part it probably wouldn't change my mind.
I never give money to beggars.
1. What are these "laws of nature" you are referring to? Can you describe them? Is it something like Social Darwinism, it sounds so? What are the mechanisms and consequences of these "laws"?I'm of the opinion that human compassion short-circuits the laws of nature and will eventually lead to the demise of mankind. Rather than recognize that these leeches are making us weaker, we give more of ourselves, eventually weakening our entire race...all in the name of compassion.
2. You claim that compassion for beggars etc are "weakening" the human species...this sounds like a very odd idea to me. Weakening in what way? What would constitute "weak" and "strong" characteristics, and according to what parameters?
3. Those "weak" people as you call them, why do you think they exist at all today? Can you explain why this type of people have not been naturally selected against during human evolution?
EDIT:
That means same questions to you as to JSPCHIEF, in the cases where your opinion coincide with his/hers.jopperm2 wrote:I'll agree partly with that.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
@Chanak, You're right here. Hospitals and the like don't get away with cheating, what they do get away with is crappy care for way too much money. I think you can attest to that.
@fable, I think that government funding to develop those drugs would lower the prices dramatically, most of them do not cost too much to actually make.
How do you explain the constant healthcare arguments in Washington if the system doesn't need fixing like you say? Also, where have I resorted to sloganeering in that quote?
I realize that common knowledge is often wrong, I am stating my opionion here. I have seen and know many people, some of them relatives of mine, that are frauds. I don't think you'll ever get a study that proves this, but I don't think that the bars it from being true. Just out of curiosity, what sort of area do you live in?
I am aware that medicare has restrictions as we have discussed, but there are a lot of people, my own grandparents included, that are using medicare but shouldn't be in my opinion. I think the income caps should be lower, but as I have said before, my issue isn't with medicare. And I don't vote on medicare issues, I don't think it is one of the big issues right now to vote on.
I am aware of the sale of titles as you have mentioned it. I was of the understanding that the view of urban lower class people in that time period was much lower than you are indicating.. If that is incorrect, my apologies.
@ CE, The only part I was agreeing with is that we give too much of ourselves in the name of compassion and get nothing in return. Then again, that's what compassion is.
@fable, I think that government funding to develop those drugs would lower the prices dramatically, most of them do not cost too much to actually make.
How do you explain the constant healthcare arguments in Washington if the system doesn't need fixing like you say? Also, where have I resorted to sloganeering in that quote?
I realize that common knowledge is often wrong, I am stating my opionion here. I have seen and know many people, some of them relatives of mine, that are frauds. I don't think you'll ever get a study that proves this, but I don't think that the bars it from being true. Just out of curiosity, what sort of area do you live in?
I am aware that medicare has restrictions as we have discussed, but there are a lot of people, my own grandparents included, that are using medicare but shouldn't be in my opinion. I think the income caps should be lower, but as I have said before, my issue isn't with medicare. And I don't vote on medicare issues, I don't think it is one of the big issues right now to vote on.
I am aware of the sale of titles as you have mentioned it. I was of the understanding that the view of urban lower class people in that time period was much lower than you are indicating.. If that is incorrect, my apologies.
@ CE, The only part I was agreeing with is that we give too much of ourselves in the name of compassion and get nothing in return. Then again, that's what compassion is.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
Social Darwinism and just plain Darwinism. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. For example: People pour money and food into starving countries in Africa trying to save these people, and the result is that they do nothing themselves to adapt to the situation. If we left these people to the mercies of nature, they would be forced to figure out that they either have to live somewhere where they can produce their own food, or reduce reproduction to make what food they have adequate, or they will die. It's certainly a cruel thing to say, but if you're starving, yet you're not smart enough to adapt to the situation, then you are a weak link. If these people died, it would be no loss to the human population. They drain our resources, while adding nothing.C Elegans wrote: 1. What are these "laws of nature" you are referring to? Can you describe them? Is it something like Social Darwinism, it sounds so? What are the mechanisms and consequences of these "laws"?
Not specifically "compassion for beggars" but human compassion in general. I believe we're turning into a society of leeches. It's no longer a mindset of "band together for the common good". It's a mindset of "I'm a human so I'm entitled to everything that every other human has, regardless of what I've done to earn it". The weak ones are the people that have nothing to offer in return for what society has given them. Ideally, human compassion would allow us to care for the physically disabled, the elderly, etc. But in reality, it's created an industry of false illnesses and excuses. Simply put, there no incentive to not be a deadbeat or bum. Then you have the criminal population, where in civilized countries, you're provided for, way beyond basic necessity, and it's done on my dime. The gallows were a cruel thing, but a noose never produced a repeat offender, and it's a close as you can come to them costing society what they are actually worth. We have communities that are beset by transmissible disease, and instead of that community dying off, we make eforts to sustain their lives, which in turn allows them to continue to spread their disease..2. You claim that compassion for beggars etc are "weakening" the human species...this sounds like a very odd idea to me. Weakening in what way? What would constitute "weak" and "strong" characteristics, and according to what parameters?
Because we're at the top of the food chain. If humans did not hold the level of compassion they do, these people would have been weeded out. We have become our only natural predator, and obviously we don't "prey" on each other in a literal sense. Human compassion combined with our medical technology allows us to save the lives that nature is trying to weed out. Everytime an ambulance comes to the rescue of the kid that crashed his car because he was too stupid to respect the power of a 2,000 pound machine, Darwinism is short-circuited. Everytime we send aid to a village that has decided to live in an area that doesn't allow them to provide for themselves, we short circuit the laws of nature. Everytime we create social policies that allow someone to sit at home and drink whiskey and smoke cigarettes, instead of going to work to put food on their table, we short-circuit "survival of the fittest". Imagine if a herd of deer clung to it's weak the way humans do. Eventually the wolves would be able to slaughter the entire herd.3. Those "weak" people as you call them, why do you think they exist at all today? Can you explain why this type of people have not been naturally selected against during human evolution?
I just think human compassion will prove to be the fatal flaw in what would otherwise appear to be a shining example of evolution. I'm not suggesting that the world would be better if it were devoid of compassion, and I'm not saying that I'm devoid of it. I just look around and am saddened by the thought that the people that once would have been highly respected members of their community (laborers) are now considered the dregs of society, a necessary evil. You're no longer lauded for work ethic, but instead lauded for how much you can get with the least amount of effort. I think somewhere along the way, we were probably as close to the "perfect world" that human misgivings would allow us to get. I don't know when that time was, but I know it's passed.
[QUOTE=JSPCHIEF]Social Darwinism and just plain Darwinism. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. For example: People pour money and food into starving countries in Africa trying to save these people, and the result is that they do nothing themselves to adapt to the situation. If we left these people to the mercies of nature, they would be forced to figure out that they either have to live somewhere where they can produce their own food, or reduce reproduction to make what food they have adequate, or they will die. It's certainly a cruel thing to say, but if you're starving, yet you're not smart enough to adapt to the situation, then you are a weak link. If these people died, it would be no loss to the human population. They drain our resources, while adding nothing.<snip>
[/QUOTE]
OMG. I do hope you are either not serious otherwise you are so ignorant it is frighening, and I mean that as respectful as I can phrase it.
You do know that one reason for the state of for instance Africa is due to the explotaiton by the "western world"?
Due to the fact that once people in belived in the right to exploit "savages" and their ressources, from other continent simply due to the fact that they weren't as "strong" as the western world?
That was jungle law - Survival of the strongest - that have created the situation we have now.
Also - where should the line be drawed? If it is truely the survival of the strongest - then it is okay for people to take up arms and kill people that disagree with them. Because afterall - if they die, they aren't as strong?
What is to stop the poor from taking the food by force from your table if they are physical stronger then you?
Law and order becomes void because at the core of it is a compasion for people not able to defend themselves.
I think people with such opinnions is what is wrong with the human race. It is such that wages war against fellow men for something as trivial as dead animals liquified into oil. Because "we" are stronger - we have a right to take it from "you"
[/QUOTE]
OMG. I do hope you are either not serious otherwise you are so ignorant it is frighening, and I mean that as respectful as I can phrase it.
You do know that one reason for the state of for instance Africa is due to the explotaiton by the "western world"?
Due to the fact that once people in belived in the right to exploit "savages" and their ressources, from other continent simply due to the fact that they weren't as "strong" as the western world?
That was jungle law - Survival of the strongest - that have created the situation we have now.
Also - where should the line be drawed? If it is truely the survival of the strongest - then it is okay for people to take up arms and kill people that disagree with them. Because afterall - if they die, they aren't as strong?
What is to stop the poor from taking the food by force from your table if they are physical stronger then you?
Law and order becomes void because at the core of it is a compasion for people not able to defend themselves.
I think people with such opinnions is what is wrong with the human race. It is such that wages war against fellow men for something as trivial as dead animals liquified into oil. Because "we" are stronger - we have a right to take it from "you"
Insert signature here.
@JSPCHIEF: I seems you need to do some reading on Social Darwinism and evolutionary science, because what you describe is not related to evolution. You do know that Social Darwinism has little in common with evolutionary science except abusing the name of Darwin?
I will reply point by point to your post later, but first I'd like you to explain this contradiction:
I will reply point by point to your post later, but first I'd like you to explain this contradiction:
Ok, so you mean "weak" people have survived because of others' compassion. But why has compassion been selected for during evolution, if it's so bad for humankind? Why does it exist?I just think human compassion will prove to be the fatal flaw in what would otherwise appear to be a shining example of evolution.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
It sounds like you're assuming the casserole is done cooking. Maybe it currently exists simply because we haven't evolved past it. Or maybe we aren't successfully evolving. I could just as easily ask why we haven't evolved to point that we're immune to cancer. There are certainly other species that have become extinct because they didn't properly evolve.C Elegans wrote:@JSPCHIEF: I seems you need to do some reading on Social Darwinism and evolutionary science, because what you describe is not related to evolution. You do know that Social Darwinism has little in common with evolutionary science except abusing the name of Darwin?
I will reply point by point to your post later, but first I'd like you to explain this contradiction:
Ok, so you mean "weak" people have survived because of others' compassion. But why has compassion been selected for during evolution, if it's so bad for humankind? Why does it exist?
I don't necessarily believe that compassion has always been a weakness. Like I said in the end of my previous post, I believe there was probably a time when we were at the perfect balance between compassion and cruelty. If you think of it as a scale, then in the early stages of mankind, the scale tipped heavily towards cruelty, barbarism, etc. Now I believe it has not only balanced, but is tipping in the other direction. Ideally, we'd live in a perfect world when the scale tipped completely to the side of compassion. But history has shown time and again that the cruel survive as well or better than the compassionate. There's a reason socialism seems idealogically perfect but is realistically impossible. Humans aren't capable of being "ideal". The world needs to hold a certain amount of cruelty, so that humans are driven to survive, and ultimately thrive.
And in response to Xandax:
Why these African nations are in the state they are in has nothing to do with my point. The lion doesn't remain in an area devoid of food, then justify starving by saying "the hyena ate my food". He moves to a new area that has food, or he kills the hyena that takes his food, or he uses some other method to adapt. If not, he dies. He doesn't get to say "that's not fair"
And you have a valid point that there must be a line drawn. I agree. I just think the line could be in a different place than it currently is. I'm not saying I want to live in a world that has no compassion, but I can't help but wonder at what point compassion excuses all responsibility for our actions (or more importantly lack of). It seems to be rearing it's ugly head every time I drive by corners containing people that make a "living" off of human compassion.
I think people with such opinnions is what is wrong with the human race. It is such that wages war against fellow men for something as trivial as dead animals liquified into oil. Because "we" are stronger - we have a right to take it from "you"
Oh, instead it should be, "you have a right to what's mine, simply because you are of the same race"? If that's the case, why should I try harder than the next guy? There's a reason that people wage war over possessions. There's a reason socialism doesn't work. It's because the human race is not "good". We want what you have, and we want more of it, and we want to obtain it easier, etc.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]@fable, I think that government funding to develop those drugs would lower the prices dramatically, most of them do not cost too much to actually make.[/quote]
Based on what? Where are you pulling your information? We researched the cost of development, the years spent on some on creating and testing some of these drugs, which then had to be re-tested for approval on release. The costs can go into the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. And we're not talking about drugs that everybody needs, in most cases.
How do you explain the constant healthcare arguments in Washington if the system doesn't need fixing like you say? Also, where have I resorted to sloganeering in that quote?
The healthcare arguments are fueled by 1) politicians who know they can use the issue as a flagwaver to win elections, and 2) various parts of the healthcare industry--and there are many--that work together, but each of which would obviously like more of the pie to provide better and (in their opinion) the most important services to the patient.
As for sloganeering, I think this qualifies: "I don't think that there was never a time for liberalism, now just isn't the time. If labor had never organized I don't think we would be where we are in industry. Also if the New Deal never existed, our economy would not be were it is. Liberism has it's place, I just don't think it has it's place in the US welfare system today." All of this sounds like political campaign rhetoric--specious comments without a single fact backing them up, remarks about "liberalism" when our current neo-con president is out-liberaling the most liberal presidents of the past in his spend-and-spend policies, and his foreign wars--and guess what? Absolutely none of it is relevant in the slightest to this discussion.
I am aware of the sale of titles as you have mentioned it. I was of the understanding that the view of urban lower class people in that time period was much lower than you are indicating.. If that is incorrect, my apologies.
If it's a generally accepted truth, it's probably, at least in part, false. Cultures have their own specific filters through which they view everything. I've found for what it's worth that it's best to question just about everything a culture throws at you as "true," if not because it will help you in any practical fashion, because I seriously believe true perception is healthier than falsehoods.
Based on what? Where are you pulling your information? We researched the cost of development, the years spent on some on creating and testing some of these drugs, which then had to be re-tested for approval on release. The costs can go into the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. And we're not talking about drugs that everybody needs, in most cases.
How do you explain the constant healthcare arguments in Washington if the system doesn't need fixing like you say? Also, where have I resorted to sloganeering in that quote?
The healthcare arguments are fueled by 1) politicians who know they can use the issue as a flagwaver to win elections, and 2) various parts of the healthcare industry--and there are many--that work together, but each of which would obviously like more of the pie to provide better and (in their opinion) the most important services to the patient.
As for sloganeering, I think this qualifies: "I don't think that there was never a time for liberalism, now just isn't the time. If labor had never organized I don't think we would be where we are in industry. Also if the New Deal never existed, our economy would not be were it is. Liberism has it's place, I just don't think it has it's place in the US welfare system today." All of this sounds like political campaign rhetoric--specious comments without a single fact backing them up, remarks about "liberalism" when our current neo-con president is out-liberaling the most liberal presidents of the past in his spend-and-spend policies, and his foreign wars--and guess what? Absolutely none of it is relevant in the slightest to this discussion.
I am aware of the sale of titles as you have mentioned it. I was of the understanding that the view of urban lower class people in that time period was much lower than you are indicating.. If that is incorrect, my apologies.
If it's a generally accepted truth, it's probably, at least in part, false. Cultures have their own specific filters through which they view everything. I've found for what it's worth that it's best to question just about everything a culture throws at you as "true," if not because it will help you in any practical fashion, because I seriously believe true perception is healthier than falsehoods.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@JSP,
The 'strength' of races plays the most miniscule part in determining their prosperity. Africans today do not starve because they are inferior, they starve because they are born in countries who have no economy or infrastructure because of internal corruption and external exploitation.
-You seem to believe that on an international scale poor nations should not receive aid from the people of rich nations, as this is parasitic.
-Related to this, you argue that those who take national benefits without contributing to society by working are similarly parasitic.
BUT:
-On an international scale YOU are the parasite*. You have only worked for each dime you make because you are fortunate enough not to have been born in Africa. The fact that there are jobs for you is due to the diligent exploitation of poor countries by rich countries, and the random chance that you were born in a rich country.
-Nobody is taking an easy ride off of you. It is not the hard work of good men like you that has made America rich, it is slavery. You are taking a free ride off the countless millions who have worked and work for America's gain and no gain of their own.
-You liken Africans to a lion whos food is stolen by a hyena, and then unjustifiedly appeal to morals when nature is all that counts - but if this is the truth of it, then you have no right to complain about benefit fraudsters. You say the African lion has no right to say 'That's not fair' when the hyena (who is this? First world multinational business presumably?) How can you moan 'That's not fair' when the devious whiskey-swilling layabout urban hyena steals your food? If you are dying, having your food eaten by a parasite, according to the nature analogy, you deserve it.
*Yes, so am I.
The 'strength' of races plays the most miniscule part in determining their prosperity. Africans today do not starve because they are inferior, they starve because they are born in countries who have no economy or infrastructure because of internal corruption and external exploitation.
-You seem to believe that on an international scale poor nations should not receive aid from the people of rich nations, as this is parasitic.
-Related to this, you argue that those who take national benefits without contributing to society by working are similarly parasitic.
BUT:
-On an international scale YOU are the parasite*. You have only worked for each dime you make because you are fortunate enough not to have been born in Africa. The fact that there are jobs for you is due to the diligent exploitation of poor countries by rich countries, and the random chance that you were born in a rich country.
-Nobody is taking an easy ride off of you. It is not the hard work of good men like you that has made America rich, it is slavery. You are taking a free ride off the countless millions who have worked and work for America's gain and no gain of their own.
-You liken Africans to a lion whos food is stolen by a hyena, and then unjustifiedly appeal to morals when nature is all that counts - but if this is the truth of it, then you have no right to complain about benefit fraudsters. You say the African lion has no right to say 'That's not fair' when the hyena (who is this? First world multinational business presumably?) How can you moan 'That's not fair' when the devious whiskey-swilling layabout urban hyena steals your food? If you are dying, having your food eaten by a parasite, according to the nature analogy, you deserve it.
*Yes, so am I.
SYMISTANI COMMUNIST
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
@fable,I'm not getting information from anywhere, I haven't gone this far into it. A lot of the R&D is done through universities, I wonder if government money could be fed into those and make things more cost-effective.. Perhaps CE would have some insight in this, though not from a US perspective.
Okay, I'll buy your point on the healthcare arguments, but I still think it costs too much for the results it gets.
I assure you my intent was not to sloganeer, those were my genuine feelings on those topics. But apologies if I went too far there. "our current neo-con president is out-liberaling the most liberal presidents of the past in his spend-and-spend policies" I agree here, though I'm not really a Bush hater. I hate Kerry more than Bush, But I would have voted for another Clinton term over the second Bush term.
I'll also go along with your final comment.
Okay, I'll buy your point on the healthcare arguments, but I still think it costs too much for the results it gets.
I assure you my intent was not to sloganeer, those were my genuine feelings on those topics. But apologies if I went too far there. "our current neo-con president is out-liberaling the most liberal presidents of the past in his spend-and-spend policies" I agree here, though I'm not really a Bush hater. I hate Kerry more than Bush, But I would have voted for another Clinton term over the second Bush term.
I'll also go along with your final comment.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
Frogus
Unfortunately I can't undo what's been done. Maybe my prosperity is an indirect result of my forefather's sins, but how can I be held responsible?Slavery can't be undone. I also don't discount "luck" (as in lucky enough to have forefathers that took advantage of countless weaker races) as a factor in the life I was able to lead. I'm not sure what all that has to do with what I'm saying. It seems like you're just using it as an excuse to indict me for the mistakes of those that came before me. The world used to be a much crueler place, and some of use are prosepring from it, while others aren't. I can't help it that a native American's bows and axes didn't match up to the settler's guns. The layout of the entire world was decided by the strong defeating the weak, how far back would you like us to go when we make reparations for it all?
And when I said "he doesn't get to say 'that's not fair'", I didn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it, I meant simply saying it does nothing to improve his situation. He's required to take action to improve his lot in life. On the same token, I can say "that's not fair" when I pay taxes that go to social welfare programs. But saying it does nothing for me either. Instead I'm required to take "action" in the form of voting for the people whose political stances come closest to mirroring mine.
Unfortunately I can't undo what's been done. Maybe my prosperity is an indirect result of my forefather's sins, but how can I be held responsible?Slavery can't be undone. I also don't discount "luck" (as in lucky enough to have forefathers that took advantage of countless weaker races) as a factor in the life I was able to lead. I'm not sure what all that has to do with what I'm saying. It seems like you're just using it as an excuse to indict me for the mistakes of those that came before me. The world used to be a much crueler place, and some of use are prosepring from it, while others aren't. I can't help it that a native American's bows and axes didn't match up to the settler's guns. The layout of the entire world was decided by the strong defeating the weak, how far back would you like us to go when we make reparations for it all?
And when I said "he doesn't get to say 'that's not fair'", I didn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it, I meant simply saying it does nothing to improve his situation. He's required to take action to improve his lot in life. On the same token, I can say "that's not fair" when I pay taxes that go to social welfare programs. But saying it does nothing for me either. Instead I'm required to take "action" in the form of voting for the people whose political stances come closest to mirroring mine.
I asked you those questions about why our species has not "evolved" past certain phenomena as a trick question in order to clarify your views. If you asked me why we are not immune to cancer I could give you a very long medical answer, but also a very short one: because evolution does not work in a hierachical, linear way so that the "best" or "strongest" survive. I will explain that below, buf suffice to say is that your replies to my questions hitherto has revealed that you do not now anything about evolutionary science and mechanisms.JSPCHIEF wrote:It sounds like you're assuming the casserole is done cooking. Maybe it currently exists simply because we haven't evolved past it. Or maybe we aren't successfully evolving. I could just as easily ask why we haven't evolved to point that we're immune to cancer. There are certainly other species that have become extinct because they didn't properly evolve.
Let's start from the beginning. You wrote:
Social Darwinism and just plain Darwinism. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest.
Darwinism is a popular term used to denote Darwin's theory of evolution (which is of course only one of several parts of modern evolutionary science).
It usually includes
A) the concept of evolution, that organisms change over time
B) gradualism, that such changes are gradual and accumulated (ie not saltational)
C) common descent, that all life on earth has descended from a common ancestor
D) Multiplication of species, ie mechanisms for biodiversity
E) Natural selection
Darwinian natural selection refers to one type of evolutionary change which is also called adaptive changes. There are also other types of change, such as genetic drift, sexual selection and mutation. The idea that all evolutionary change is "for the better" is a popular layman misconception. The idea that all features of an organism has been selected for by adaptive selection, and that natural changes are (or should be) adaptive, is called strict adaptation.This idea was suggested by a few biologists after Darwin (never by Darwin himself) and it was abandoned some 100 years ago.
The layman must realise that what is "fit" today may not be "fit" tomorrow, so selection for only what is fit today would soon lead to the extinction of a species. Many laymen laymen do not know that large genetic variance is the key to successful survival, not selection for what is most adaptive right in this minute of geological time. It must also noted that "fitness" in Darwinian terms means "tendency to producy surviving offspring". It is not the same as "fit" in ordinary language. "Survival of the fittest" means "survival of those who has the largest probability to survive".
Social Darwinism on the other hand is not a science but a quasi-scientific ideology that was invented by a 19th century English thinker named Spencer. Spencer was inspired by Malthus, not by Darwin, and by the English colonisation of Africa, where the English killed off many millions of African tribe-living people in order to exploit natural resources in the area. Social Darwinism was part of the Victorian Imperialism in England at the time, and it became popular among racist Europens during the late 19th century. By the early 20th century, it was picked up by eugenic ideologies such as the German nazis. Due to lack of scientific evidence supporting social darwinism ideas, the whole concept died out in Europe, but was picked up in the US by Ronald Reagan and during the 1990's it was recycled by US groups of libertarians and laissez-fair capitalists.
It is important to understand the difference between a scientific explanation model, and a political ideology.
To be continued...
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]@fable,I'm not getting information from anywhere, I haven't gone this far into it. A lot of the R&D is done through universities, I wonder if government money could be fed into those and make things more cost-effective.. Perhaps CE would have some insight in this, though not from a US perspective.[/quote]
The R&D is done through a combination of private labs, and university labs that receive huge grants to do in part the research by the pharmaceutical industry. The benefits of the latter are pretty obvious: in exchange for devoting a pre-stated amount of resources to specific projects, the university laboratories get the funds to purchase the latest equipment, hire the best teachers/researchers, and train a new generation. Everybody benefits. It is extremely cost-effective.
Don't fall for the rhetoric of best-sellers that claim golden solutions in place of the current Medicaire/insurance-based system without hard facts, like Health Care Without Medicare. That there will have to be structural changes to the Medicare system in the future no one doubts; but this is not as a result of any non-existent massive fraud such as you have mentioned, but a result of governmental systems that regularly need to be reconsidered in the light of changing economic conditions.
The R&D is done through a combination of private labs, and university labs that receive huge grants to do in part the research by the pharmaceutical industry. The benefits of the latter are pretty obvious: in exchange for devoting a pre-stated amount of resources to specific projects, the university laboratories get the funds to purchase the latest equipment, hire the best teachers/researchers, and train a new generation. Everybody benefits. It is extremely cost-effective.
Don't fall for the rhetoric of best-sellers that claim golden solutions in place of the current Medicaire/insurance-based system without hard facts, like Health Care Without Medicare. That there will have to be structural changes to the Medicare system in the future no one doubts; but this is not as a result of any non-existent massive fraud such as you have mentioned, but a result of governmental systems that regularly need to be reconsidered in the light of changing economic conditions.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I fail to see how this answers CE's question. You are taking carefully-chosen ambiguously hypothetical scenarios and positing them as reasoning. Indeed, there are species that have become extinct, but I don't see what this has to do with compassion. There is really nothing in the fossil record that suggests extinction of a species is the result of compassion. To the contrary, discoveries of burial mounds from the Palaeolithic period and before suggest quite the opposite, that early humans cared for the sick and the deformed. If we are dealing with qualitative data, there is considerably more evidence to suggest that compassion has in fact aided human survival.JSPCHIEF wrote:Maybe it [compassion] currently exists simply because we haven't evolved past it. Or maybe we aren't successfully evolving. I could just as easily ask why we haven't evolved to point that we're immune to cancer. There are certainly other species that have become extinct because they didn't properly evolve.
Have you ever actually studied, in depth, History, Anthropology, Economy or Philosophy? No offence intended, but it sounds to me as though you are largely informed by anecdotal hearsay and the likes of individuals such as Ayn Rand.I don't necessarily believe that compassion has always been a weakness. Like I said in the end of my previous post, I believe there was probably a time when we were at the perfect balance between compassion and cruelty. If you think of it as a scale, then in the early stages of mankind, the scale tipped heavily towards cruelty, barbarism, etc. Now I believe it has not only balanced, but is tipping in the other direction. Ideally, we'd live in a perfect world when the scale tipped completely to the side of compassion. But history has shown time and again that the cruel survive as well or better than the compassionate. There's a reason socialism seems idealogically perfect but is realistically impossible. Humans aren't capable of being "ideal". The world needs to hold a certain amount of cruelty, so that humans are driven to survive, and ultimately thrive.
How *very* convenient on your part.Why these African nations are in the state they are in has nothing to do with my point.
And I can't help but wonder how many times the privileged will blame the poor for their situation as a way of justifying their own exploitative, self-indulgent behaviour.I'm not saying I want to live in a world that has no compassion, but I can't help but wonder at what point compassion excuses all responsibility for our actions (or more importantly lack of).
I'm deeply cynical about mankind, but human society is not that black and white. Perhaps in your environment it is acceptable, legitimate, and even desirable, to be a grasping egotist. However, there exist countless examples indicating that we are as much capable of "good" as we are of "evil." That you choose to focus on the selfish and the greedy is simply an apathetic and convenient attempt to justify your own position. As such, your argument is invalid.There's a reason that people wage war over possessions. There's a reason socialism doesn't work. It's because the human race is not "good". We want what you have, and we want more of it, and we want to obtain it easier, etc.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12