healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:02 pm

NON PARTISIAN CBO and Medicare Actuary quotes.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49273.html

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Thursday that the health care law will reduce employment by 0.5 percent by 2021 because some people will no longer have to work just to afford health insurance.

--No shit, if you can get somethign for free, why would you work for it?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... testimony/

"The Medicare actuary warned that the half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts in the Democrat health care law are so drastic that providers might end their participation in the program," Johnson said.

--No shit. If you lose money every time you see a patient, you stop seeing patients.

Richard Foster, the nonpartisan chief actuary of Medicare, who testified later, said he worries that cuts in Medicare would eventually hurt seniors. Of course, the nearly 80 million baby boomers retiring would pitch a fit and Foster thinks Congress would be forced to reverse any policies that had that effect.

"And if so, then that implies that the actual future costs for Medicare would be quite a bit higher than what we have projected under current law," Foster said.

--like the so called doc fix. and no shit.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:31 am

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... ob-killer/

I was listening to a program the other day that had individuals calling in to give their statements on what they thought about healthcare reform, and one fellow stated that he owned a business with something like 52 employees. He then went on to say that if he is forced to buy healthcare for his employees, he will fire some of his employees and make sure that he NEVER employs more than 49 employees.

I guess there will be job losses, but honestly, I feel sorry for the people that work for this guy. And for the community he operates in.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:16 pm

I have heard a few variations of that story - and I wouldn't be surprised if most people you hear saying it are making it up for shock value. But assuming it's true - so what? People make decisions all the time based upon the incentive/disincentive structure put in place by the government. We put money into IRA's.. buy houses instead of rent (mortgage interest deduction)... quit smoking ($10 per pack in NYC). If the government creates an incentive to have fewer than 50 employees, how can anyone be surprised if... people structure their business to have fewer than 50 employees?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:39 pm

They already have that, Corth. Most state mandates in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Illinois apply to groups of 50 or larger. You'd have to check the other states to see how many of them also follow this rule of thumb, but I think it's pretty well spread out across the US.

I know it's for shock value. Some employers are mad and they don't want to be "forced" to do anything ... like pay taxes, follow labor laws, pay overhead, pay overtime, pay minimum wage, pay workers comp premiums, or thousands of other things they have to do to open or run a business. When minimum wage goes up it's always the end of the world.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:47 pm

Minimum wage and overtime are evil.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:55 am

Ashiwi wrote:http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/16/gop-leadership-intentionally-distorting-obamacare-as-job-killer/

I was listening to a program the other day that had individuals calling in to give their statements on what they thought about healthcare reform, and one fellow stated that he owned a business with something like 52 employees. He then went on to say that if he is forced to buy healthcare for his employees, he will fire some of his employees and make sure that he NEVER employs more than 49 employees.

I guess there will be job losses, but honestly, I feel sorry for the people that work for this guy. And for the community he operates in.

What he should do is just open another business. But honestly, businesses will use any excuse they can get to cut their worst employees. It's all around good for the organization to get rid of the slackers.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:08 pm

Corth wrote:Minimum wage and overtime are critical.

FTFY :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:29 pm

They are unnecessarily coercive and morally corrupt. The minimum wage prevents people from working. If you have no marketable skills and therefore your time is worth less than the minimum wage then you simply can't get work. It's cruel to keep people who are willing to work out of the workforce.

Compulsory overtime is perhaps a little less disgusting. While it is an unneccessary intrusion into the labor relationship between a willing employer and employee, at least you aren't keeping people out of the work force. You are, however, using the coercive power of the state to keep these people from doing productive things with their time. I have a couple of paralegals who would like to work more than 40 hours a week - but I'm not willing to pay them time and a half - so instead I work a little but more myself and they make less money than they otherwise would. It's unfair to both my employees and myself.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:40 pm

I posted it for shock value... if you read the article closely, I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did. It won't cost the economy 800k jobs... it will allow 800k people who only work for health benefits to quit which ought to actually employ 800k more people (who actually want to work).

I actually know quite a few people like this, about 50/50 between entrepreneurs and farmers whose wives work in city/county/school jobs or as bankers so they can have healthcare insurance. One works because her son has expensive and severe medical issues.

So at least 800k new free loaders.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:17 pm

In this thread, kiryan calls the American workforce "freeloaders."

If you hate Americans so much, why don't you move?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:53 pm

in this thread, Ragorn forgets to exercise his mental faculties.

If you stop working because the government will provide the healthcare you need at a free or subsidized price... what would you call that? Right a free loader.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:57 pm

kiryan wrote:in this thread, Ragorn forgets to exercise his mental faculties.

If you stop working because the government will provide the healthcare you need at a free or subsidized price... what would you call that? Right a free loader.


You're talking about wives who are being supported by their husbands. If that's freeloading then half the species has been freeloading for thousands of years. (Until like the 60's anyway.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:00 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:in this thread, Ragorn forgets to exercise his mental faculties.

If you stop working because the government will provide the healthcare you need at a free or subsidized price... what would you call that? Right a free loader.


You're talking about wives who are being supported by their husbands. If that's freeloading then half the species has been freeloading for thousands of years. (Until like the 60's anyway.)

And in fact, kiryan just got done telling us that he supports non-working mothers staying at home.

So I guess, in this thread, kiryan defines the biblical model of the nuclear family as "American freeloaders."
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:12 pm

let me try and make this easy for you.

A person who currently and has for years worked to get a specific benefit.

This person stops working because they can now get that benefit for free or subsidized by the US government.

That is a free loader. You were willing to work for it, but now because you can get it for free you refuse to work anymore. That is a free loader.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:36 pm

kiryan wrote:This person stops working because they can now get that benefit for free or subsidized by the US government.

That is a free loader. You were willing to work for it, but now because you can get it for free you refuse to work anymore. That is a free loader.

You should read the healthcare bill. There is no free healthcare being supplied by the United States government. Less herpy derp, please.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:39 pm

Ragorn wrote:You should read the healthcare bill. There is no free healthcare being supplied by the United States government. Less herpy derp, please.

Kiryan was right about those mental faculties of yours.

When the government forces everyone to pay into the healthcare industry, guess who's supplying the free healthcare?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:52 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:force everyone to pay

free healthcare

First you require a citation for a dictionary definition, now you're confusing "forcing people to pay" with "providing free healthcare" in the same sentence.

Should I use smaller words? Would that help bring my "mental faculties" down to a level you can contend with?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:force everyone to pay

free healthcare

First you require a citation for a dictionary definition, now you're confusing "forcing people to pay" with "providing free healthcare" in the same sentence.

Should I use smaller words? Would that help bring my "mental faculties" down to a level you can contend with?

No, I should use smaller words with you: paying for less than you consume = free.

Smarter people would have an understanding of this already. You clearly don't understand how the system works, your attempt to 'contend' is pathetic, and shows just how much is going over your head. What's MOST amusing was that you even thought you had something to start with.

Additionally, congratulations on misinterpreting a dictionary definition to include the majority of governments in the world as theocracies. If only we all misinterpreted and completely missed basic concepts like you, we could be equally 'intelligent.'
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kindi » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:08 pm

so it's back to direct, personal insults?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:59 pm

What is it that they say you should do if you can't stand the heat...?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:22 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:No, I should use smaller words with you: paying for less than you consume = free.

Writing lies in other colors doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want them to be. Any time you use the phrase "free healthcare" you're just lying for shock value, which we're all aware of. It doesn't matter how prettily you format the text -- you are still a liar.

Additionally, congratulations on misinterpreting a dictionary definition to include the majority of governments in the world as theocracies.

I'm sorry, I quoted a direct definition from a major dictionary, and you're crapping your pants because you don't like the implication. It's not a misinterpretation, it's just an uncomfortable idea. I'm glad it bothers you; it's good to see that being called out as a hypocrite is something that disturbs you. It doesn't bother kiryan in the slightest, he has no problem wearing the label with pride. If you believe that theocracy is a poor system of government, then you should avoid supporting politicans who claim to be guided by divine providence. America has plenty of those, and it doesn't stop being true just because you don't like it.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:06 pm

Teflor was just trying to bring it down to your level, you know like kindergartners and crayons.

I can't see your logic... even under Marxism, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, a person would necessarily work and prodcue according to their ability to receive the free benefit.

Also, would you object to a theocracy that celebrated Gandhi's as the son of God and fully implemented his ideology? Would you support it only if he wasn't thought of as descended from God? WHy or why not?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:13 pm

kiryan wrote:Also, would you object to a theocracy that celebrated Gandhi's as the son of God and fully implemented his ideology? Would you support it only if he wasn't thought of as descended from God? WHy or why not?

I object to all theocracy because I oppose theology as a system of law. Theocracy faces three problems that make it incompatible with modern government:

1) Theological systems are static... what's been written in your holy book is immutable law for all the ages. It has no tolerance for change, no flexibility for contemporary issues. That's not to say that all laws need to change, but a legal code MUST contain within it a process by which it can adapt. The United States Constitution is a living document which can be amended (and amendments repealed) over time. The Qur'an, Bible, Talmud, etc. cannot. If you govern according to ancient laws, then your society will never progress out of ancient times.

2) Theological systems take the power of law away from the people and place it in the hands of the ruling class. If the ruling class can pass and enforce law based solely on their interpretation of an unobservable relationship with an imaginary deity, then their government is no different from monarchy, oligarchy, or a dictatorship. In all cases, they are asserting their rule on the population.

3) God is fake, and anyone who says they hear him talk is either lying or crazy.

It doesn't matter who the theocrat is, and it doesn't even matter if I personally agree with every line item in his moral code. If any person claims power based on divine providence or a sacred relationship with god, then he is unfit to lead.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:27 pm

1. If theological systems are static, then what are islamic fatwas, mormon "revelations" and how has christianity changed over the past 2,000 years... 6,000 + if you consider Jews.

Furthermore, how does moral law change over time? Is it good for a moral code to change over time? Moral laws are in my mind mostly immutable, fundamentally defining right and wrong in unconditional, impartial terms...

While I can see need for the specifics of a moral code may need updating as technology progresses... for example if viewing porn is illegal for whatever reason... at some point a law would logically be developed on the same principal regarding sex robots (something that couldn't have been conceived 2000 years ago)... I can't make the same leap to say that the fundamental moral basis for those laws should change... That would seem almost to me as being simply right as defined by what others vote for so eventualyl becoming anythign from lord of the flies to equilibrium (all emotion is outlawed because its the cause of all evil).

2. how is this different than the US? We are ruled by a ruling class (Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys). We are further ruled by a political class of lobbyists and "public policy experts".

Consider how the vatican runs... on some level they aren't exactly elected, in other senses they are exactly elected and are subject to the will of the people. You can think of the catholic as the largest organization of voluntary theocracy in the world...

3. What moral basis are you using to make your decision that even if you agree with every single thing, you have to reject it on the basis of its origin. That doesn't seem very rational for a person who claims to be the open minded pinnacle of rationality.

I incorporate aspects of buddihism into my daily life, practice of my Christianity and especially in the instruction of my children. Why? Because I agree with aspects and its not incompatible with my Christianity. You would appear to be inclined to exclude it simply because of its origin because you are so engrossed with the your principle doctrine.

as a matter of fact, I first came to christianity because even if God didn't exist, it was still a pretty good set of rules for life. BIBLE, basic instructions before leaving earth
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:43 pm

kiryan wrote:as a matter of fact, I first came to christianity because even if God didn't exist, it was still a pretty good set of rules for life. BIBLE, basic instructions before leaving earth


Such independent thought! I never came to the bible because I was able to decide on "a pretty good set of rules for life" on my own.

Just sayin.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:43 pm

kiryan wrote:1. If theological systems are static, then what are islamic fatwas, mormon "revelations" and how has christianity changed over the past 2,000 years... 6,000 + if you consider Jews.

A fatwa is an Islamic scholar's interpretation of religious law.

Christianity has changed over the last 2,000 years only because Christians have found certain parts of their holy book inconvenient. Christians find shellfish to be tasty, so they just decided to start skipping over that bit. In a theocracy, the Pope would tell you what parts you're allowed to skip, based on his own interpretation of God's will.

2. how is this different than the US?

We are a democracy that votes for candidates based on their opinions and how they relate to current issues. I don't understand the question... are you asking me to explain why the US is not currently a theocracy?

Bill Clinton was elected by popular vote, twice. Hillary Clinton is a tremendously popular politican that was elected on the state level several times and eventually appointed to federal office by yet another extraordinarily popular politican. They were not put in positions of power by god, nor did they claim power based on the assertion of divine providence. The closest thing we have in America to divine appointment is the Supreme Court... a body of judges appointed (not elected) and chosen to serve for life. They're not representative of the people, but their purpose in the government isn't to serve the public interest, it's to uphold the laws passed by the politicans that the population DID elect.

It's a much better system than, say, the Pope. The Pope, who's voted in by a small group of high-ranking religious officials, who enjoys unlimited power to interpret "god's will" and speak holy law for the rest of his natural life. The Pope tells Catholics how to live their life, and they have no choice but to obey or leave the organization.

Consider how the vatican runs... on some level they aren't exactly elected, in other senses they are exactly elected and are subject to the will of the people. You can think of the catholic as the largest organization of voluntary theocracy in the world...

Yes, and the Vatican is horribly governed.

What moral basis are you using to make your decision that even if you agree with every single thing, you have to reject it on the basis of its origin. That doesn't seem very rational for a person who claims to be the open minded pinnacle of rationality.

I explained (and numbered) the reasons I would oppose a theocracy. I want to live under a government where I can elect politicans I feel are relevant. I do not want to be ruled by a government with the power to wake up one day and issue a law based on something "god told them" the night before. Power in the hands of the people, not power in the hands of those who interpret god's will.

I incorporate aspects of buddihism into my daily life, practice of my Christianity and especially in the instruction of my children. Why? Because I agree with aspects and its not incompatible with my Christianity. You would appear to be inclined to exclude it simply because of its origin because you are so engrossed with the your principle doctrine.

I incorporate aspects of several different religions into my daily life. I also have the power to choose among them, and to disregard the parts of each religion I find distasteful. I have the power to change my belief system at will, based on new information. Theology does not. You're still lobbying against homosexuality because your book tells you that a burning tree said it was unnatural six millenia ago.

as a matter of fact, I first came to christianity because even if God didn't exist, it was still a pretty good set of rules for life. BIBLE, basic instructions before leaving earth

And I abandoned Christianity when I was 18 because there were too many rules written thousands of years ago that no have bearing on modern life.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:34 pm

1. so basically no difference. you can't see that because you don't understand Christianity.

2. At what point do the serial revoting of the same people stop being a freely elected democratic representatives and rather a result of a political ruling class that is kept in power by mechanisms that are vast and institutional. Feudal lords stayed in power because they owned land... what do US politicians own?

3. The point about the pope is its a voluntary theocracy. and the pope can be over ridden and removed. There is a such thing as an "anti-pope" who was a pope later to be shown to actually be a fraud.

Although the pope's election is certainly not a democracy, given catholcism's voluntary membership... its essentially reflecting the will of the people. Like I said, the largest theocracy in the world. Volunteer theocracy.

4. you don't want a government that can wake up tomorrow and issue a law based on what god told them. but its ok for the EPA to wake up tomorrow and declare CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. or the TSA to declare groin checks as necessary before flying. You know, the average theocracy is probably far less whimsical than the average democracy and not always making laws based on reasons more valid than "god told me so".

--You abandonced Christianity because you wanted to. There are what appear to be inconsistencies in the Bible and many find one and declare it all bullshit. Is real truth ever so simple cut and dry? I've studied the Bible extensively... many others over many thousands of years have dedicated their whole lives to it and not lost the faith. I guess we're all just dishonest liars that give 10% because for some reason I can't even fathom.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:05 am

Corth wrote:What is it that they say you should do if you can't stand the heat...?

Turn up the AC. This is America.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:07 am

So what, then, if any, is the difference between immutable religious law and an unalienable right? If your answer is none, you are correct.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Zukal
Sojourner
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Zukal » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:41 am

1. The TSA or EPA making declarations, supported intensively be research which follows closely the scientific method, is far different than a theocrat declaring that by divine providence something must be done.

2. If a person only worked in order to afford healthcare for their children, but would have much rather been a stay at home mom or dad with their spouse being the primary breadwinner, and are now able to do that because of changes in healthcare laws, how is that freeloading?

3. I don't think that this should have been the first step taken in healthcare reform, though I do think it is a step in the right direction. The first step should have been medical malpractice and tort reform. The second step should have been the demonopolization of the health insurance institution. After that, if healthcare was still out of reach for millions of Americans then the viability of a universal healthcare system should have been investigated.

I want to say that most of the time I avoid this section of the BBS like a plague, but I actually enjoyed reading a lot of what was here.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:02 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:So what, then, if any, is the difference between immutable religious law and an unalienable right? If your answer is none, you are correct.


The prior are either given by religious doctrines directly from religious text or divined from religious texts, usually through induction, or religious figures. The latter are necessary features of society gained through deduction. It is not hard to see which are easier to bend and otherwise distort through will and perspective.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:14 pm

1. The TSA or EPA making declarations, supported intensively be research which follows closely the scientific method, is far different than a theocrat declaring that by divine providence something must be done.

--Right because thats how government works in the USA... every decision is based on science after extensive research? its called politics not science for a reason. For every topic you'll find those on both sides claiming science supports them.

2. If a person only worked in order to afford healthcare for their children, but would have much rather been a stay at home mom or dad with their spouse being the primary breadwinner, and are now able to do that because of changes in healthcare laws, how is that freeloading?

--please see my previous response. if you couldn't afford it before the healthcare law without working... how is it you are able to afford it afterwards? hint, its not because the actual cost was reduced... just your share.

3. I don't think that this should have been the first step taken in healthcare reform, though I do think it is a step in the right direction. The first step should have been medical malpractice and tort reform. The second step should have been the demonopolization of the health insurance institution. After that, if healthcare was still out of reach for millions of Americans then the viability of a universal healthcare system should have been investigated.

--I don't believe healthcare should've included an individual mandate. I could probably live with the rest. Healthcare costs are too high, something does need to be done, but government's response as typical is too late and misguided as usual. Tort reform and malpractice reform would help to alleviate defensive medicine, but I think Dems are probably closer on the mark in saying it would result in very little savings (relative to the whole).

The problem with healthcare costs are three part not necessarily in order of share.

1) government regulation
1a) causes the labor shortage (for good or bad)
1b) causes medicaid cost shifting
1c) private emergency rooms required to give free care

2) medicaid using its leverage to pay less cost shifting to private insurers and private pays at the same time increasing the number of people it covers.
2a) yet reimburses certain types of "medical device intensive" procedures highly resulting in a higher price for that equipment. Because of the reimbursement rates on cancer related procedures, cancer centers have sprung up all over the USA... they are HIGH profit centers.

3) chronic labor shortages for 20+ years that we have known about but done nothing serious to address. (market failure but not solely the markets fault). A healthcare company's #1 expense is labor (labor is usually the #1 expense at every company).
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:17 pm

kiryan wrote:Feudal lords stayed in power because they owned land...


Land never kept bitchforks at bay. Frankly, I couldn't translate the rest of what you said so...

3. The point about the pope is its a voluntary theocracy. and the pope can be over ridden and removed. There is a such thing as an "anti-pope" who was a pope later to be shown to actually be a fraud.

Although the pope's election is certainly not a democracy, given catholcism's voluntary membership... its essentially reflecting the will of the people. Like I said, the largest theocracy in the world. Volunteer theocracy.


Know how you keep saying taxes are theft? That's because you can't opt out of living here. (Technically you can, but no one is ever willing to go to a third world shithole where their anarchic views are actually practiced for some reason.)

That's a LOT different than the Catholic church, though you should be aware of at least one fact: The Catholic church actually was a near theocracy at one point, with a lot of power in the government. This lead to people having to flee across HALF THE WORLD to practice their beliefs.

Sure, Christian morality-led government sounds all well and fine... until the particular denomination of Christianity in power isn't yours and they enact some law you don't like. Because sure, you're all Christian... but no one can agree on what laws that book of yours actually cares about.

The biggest irony is none of them are that important, believe in Jesus and you're fine. Who cares if you're a mass murderer as long as you believe and are repentant!

So the only law under your theocracy should be: Apologize for your actions, no matter what they might be.

4. you don't want a government that can wake up tomorrow and issue a law based on what god told them. but its ok for the EPA to wake up tomorrow and declare CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. or the TSA to declare groin checks as necessary before flying. You know, the average theocracy is probably far less whimsical than the average democracy and not always making laws based on reasons more valid than "god told me so".


Do you actually TRY to prove you're retarded? Collecting and analyzing data is how we do EVERYTHING. It's what makes this world work, and lets us communicate over thousands of miles. You want to ignore data while following a book written 2000 years ago. Yet time and again we see you in threads espousing that we should kill affirmative action or some other thing because mathematically it doesn't seem efficient to you.

Make up your mind.

--You abandonced Christianity because you wanted to. There are what appear to be inconsistencies in the Bible and many find one and declare it all bullshit. Is real truth ever so simple cut and dry? I've studied the Bible extensively...


Given your "command" of the English language, I seriously have to doubt any interpretations you could come up with.

many others over many thousands of years have dedicated their whole lives to it and not lost the faith. I guess we're all just dishonest liars that give 10% because for some reason I can't even fathom.


If you approach something wanting and needing to believe it, you will. Studying it further will only convince you of it's "truth." You claim your holy book is the truth, but any Buddhist monk would make that claim about their own books.

Meanwhile, 90% of Christians only know what passages are read to them by their pastor on Sunday. Actually less, since few actually go to church on Sundays these days.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:51 pm

Do you actually TRY to prove you're retarded? Collecting and analyzing data is how we do EVERYTHING. It's what makes this world work, and lets us communicate over thousands of miles. You want to ignore data while following a book written 2000 years ago. Yet time and again we see you in threads espousing that we should kill affirmative action or some other thing because mathematically it doesn't seem efficient to you.

Make up your mind.

--So you've never heard that statistics can be manipulated to say anything you want huh? Boy I wonder where that crazy town idea came from. Statistics proved Africans were animals 200 years ago. Statistics proves there is a direct correlation between pirate attacks and global warming. I generally believe statistics and I generally consider them strongly.

However statistics are a tool used to make a judgement of "good" in a large sampling. This is basically a tool for advancing the moral view that the ends justify the means, that actions that generally result in a net positive are fine even though they may result in negatives for a few. its public good vs individual good / rights. You want to argue rights for gays, but argue public good for other liberal causes.

Can you make up your mind?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:29 pm

kiryan wrote:--So you've never heard that statistics can be manipulated to say anything you want huh?


But not the Bible, right? That's the only thing that should ever be listened to ever. Right? :roll:

Boy I wonder where that crazy town idea came from. Statistics proved Africans were animals 200 years ago. Statistics proves there is a direct correlation between pirate attacks and global warming. I generally believe statistics and I generally consider them strongly.


No, you believe statistics which agree with you and denounce or ignore anything that doesn't.

However statistics are a tool used to make a judgement of "good" in a large sampling. This is basically a tool for advancing the moral view that the ends justify the means, that actions that generally result in a net positive are fine even though they may result in negatives for a few.


You mean like a free market economy? Oh wait, that results in net positives for a few with a lot of negatives for many. Until they get enough rocks and pitchforks to start rioting, anyway.

its public good vs individual good / rights. You want to argue rights for gays, but argue public good for other liberal causes.

Can you make up your mind?


Can you? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. You're the one trying to ban gay marriage. I would argue public good for gay marriage. Personal liberty is a public good, and you want to take that away.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:15 pm

You justify your point of view by declaring science and statistics on your side. Well they're on my side too.

No I look at statistics that differ with my point of view with skepticism. you ignore statistics that disagree with yours.

I haven't seen your public good argument for gay marriage, only your unalienable rights argument. I'm sure I can find other examples if you want to have a serious conversation about selective application of your principles.

personal liberty is only "good" under the moral view of most liberals as long as it serves the public good. You really can't dance around your emphasis on the public good. Its the foundation of marxism, socialism, higher taxes on the rich, aid to the poor... everything you want. Accept it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:24 pm

kiryan wrote:You justify your point of view by declaring science and statistics on your side. Well they're on my side too.

No I look at statistics that differ with my point of view with skepticism. you ignore statistics that disagree with yours.

I haven't seen your public good argument for gay marriage, only your unalienable rights argument.


That wasn't my argument, but you put personal liberty above public good anyway... so I think the burden on you is to prove it's bad for the public. Otherwise shouldn't you be siding with personal liberty?

I'm sure I can find other examples if you want to have a serious conversation about selective application of your principles.

personal liberty is only "good" under the moral view of most liberals as long as it serves the public good. You really can't dance around your emphasis on the public good. Its the foundation of marxism, socialism, higher taxes on the rich, aid to the poor... everything you want. Accept it.


Not saying I don't accept it. I'm saying that any law violates personal liberty by limiting choices. Therefore when passing laws, there better be a public benefit to it. Banning gay marriage violates that, it limits personal liberty while providing no public benefit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:15 pm

again, you do not have a right to get married. Its not an inalienable right, its not explicitly protected by the constitution. Its a recognized legal relationship recognized by the state for purposes that we can't seem to get started defining.

Gays have no more natural "right" to get married than fathers and daughters do or polygamists do. You can make an argument about it in terms of discrimination, but you must address whether polygamists or brothers and sisters can get married if you want to win that argument.

Do you support incest? If you don't then its up to you to prove why gays should be treated differently than polygamists and incestuous couples. Not up to me to prove that gays aren't being discriminated against.

If you accept marriage equality FOR ALL not just all gays, then I might feel obligated to defend a position that denies gays marriage based on the purpose of the institution of marriage in society.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:30 pm

kiryan wrote:again, you do not have a right to get married. Its not an inalienable right, its not explicitly protected by the constitution. Its a recognized legal relationship recognized by the state for purposes that we can't seem to get started defining.


Who said anything about rights? YOU, Kiryan, just stated that personal choice is the paramount morality. YOU said that. YOU, however, want to prevent people from making a choice you don't like.

Get back to me when you've resolved your inner struggle. People have a Right to personal liberty. You argue that personal liberty is the highest good. Right to marriage? Who cares if it's a right or not. We value personal liberty in this country, and you want to take it away.

Do you have a valid reason to do so?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:31 pm

kiryan wrote:again, you do not have a right to get married. Its not an inalienable right, its not explicitly protected by the constitution. Its a recognized legal relationship recognized by the state for purposes that we can't seem to get started defining.

Gays have no more natural "right" to get married than fathers and daughters do or polygamists do. You can make an argument about it in terms of discrimination, but you must address whether polygamists or brothers and sisters can get married if you want to win that argument.

Do you support incest? If you don't then its up to you to prove why gays should be treated differently than polygamists and incestuous couples. Not up to me to prove that gays aren't being discriminated against.

If you accept marriage equality FOR ALL not just all gays, then I might feel obligated to defend a position that denies gays marriage based on the purpose of the institution of marriage in society.


Kiryan, gays now should have the right due to society creating an inequality where there was none before. Because there is marriage, there must now be gay marriage if marriage is not going to include gays. Natural law is equality of man. When man introduces an inequality by creating a complexity in the system, man must correct that mistake. Since it is natural for man to be equal, it is natural for man to restructure to provide for equality when man has introduced an inequality.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:44 pm

kifle, do you support incestual marriage and polygamy?

Sarvis, they should have the right to liberty. That does not mean we have the right to claim a designation under any legal relationship we have a whim to claim. I can not claim the legal rights associated with being an S Corp or a non profit or a disabled veteran because the state does will not recognize me as meeting the criteria of the institution sought.

Now again, do you support polygamous and incestuous marriage in the pursuit of "liberty"?

Its a simple fucking question, one of you answer it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:12 pm

kiryan wrote:kifle, do you support incestual marriage and polygamy?


Kiryan, do you? Personal liberty is paramount right?

Sarvis, they should have the right to liberty.


Not according to you. You think they should only have the right to make choices you think they should.

That does not mean we have the right to claim a designation under any legal relationship we have a whim to claim. I can not claim the legal rights associated with being an S Corp or a non profit or a disabled veteran because the state does will not recognize me as meeting the criteria of the institution sought.


But you could form any of those entities.

Now again, do you support polygamous and incestuous marriage in the pursuit of "liberty"?

Its a simple fucking question, one of you answer it.


Do you? You're the one who puts personal liberty as the highest good. Is it or isn't it? Is the highest good really "what Kiryan doesn't think is disgusting?"

My argument on those subjects would be derived from an examination of the Public Good, which you have denounced as invalid when considering laws. Therefore my answer does not matter to you.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:53 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:So what, then, if any, is the difference between immutable religious law and an unalienable right? If your answer is none, you are correct.


The prior are either given by religious doctrines directly from religious text or divined from religious texts, usually through induction, or religious figures. The latter are necessary features of society gained through deduction. It is not hard to see which are easier to bend and otherwise distort through will and perspective.

Through deduction or through shared societal beliefs divined from personal or family values?

Don't forget that religious texts are frequently interpreted differently.

It would seem that EITHER basis can be distorted through will and perspective just as easily.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:57 pm

Zukal wrote:1. The TSA or EPA making declarations, supported intensively be research which follows closely the scientific method, is far different than a theocrat declaring that by divine providence something must be done.

2. If a person only worked in order to afford healthcare for their children, but would have much rather been a stay at home mom or dad with their spouse being the primary breadwinner, and are now able to do that because of changes in healthcare laws, how is that freeloading?

3. I don't think that this should have been the first step taken in healthcare reform, though I do think it is a step in the right direction. The first step should have been medical malpractice and tort reform. The second step should have been the demonopolization of the health insurance institution. After that, if healthcare was still out of reach for millions of Americans then the viability of a universal healthcare system should have been investigated.

I want to say that most of the time I avoid this section of the BBS like a plague, but I actually enjoyed reading a lot of what was here.

Thanks for keeping an open mind and visiting.

But let's be honest, in our society, rarely are decisions made on the basis of scientific principles, more biased research is funded by biased individuals/organizations, and cited by biased politicians looking to score a political victory.

Freeloading takes place any time someone consumes more than they contribute - which, when you violently remove wealth from the hands of another person and give it to someone else, is freeloading exactly.

Finally, sure, there is some honey in the toxic healthcare bill. But that doesn't mean the whole thing should be given a pass because a FEW things in it are ok or even good.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:11 pm

kiryan wrote:kifle, do you support incestual marriage and polygamy?

Sarvis, they should have the right to liberty. That does not mean we have the right to claim a designation under any legal relationship we have a whim to claim. I can not claim the legal rights associated with being an S Corp or a non profit or a disabled veteran because the state does will not recognize me as meeting the criteria of the institution sought.

Now again, do you support polygamous and incestuous marriage in the pursuit of "liberty"?

Its a simple fucking question, one of you answer it.


You're creating a false dilemma; regardless, I will answer your question, but it bears to relevance to my initial claims due to extenuating circumstance. We do not live in a black and white world. With that being said, no, I do not support incest, but I do support polygamy insofar as the family is able to self-sustain without reliance upon socialist programs such as welfare, wic, medicare, etc.

Incestual relationships, when taken to a sexual level, actively attack the human race. So, do I support incestual marriage? Sure, but would I support incestual breeding? No, and neither would natural law.

Now, for the purpose of this discussion, I would not outlaw incest or the breeding within an incestual relationship -- insofar as it did not infringe upon my liberties or the liberties of others. For instance, if the babies born through such a union were denied socialist programs, carried a raise in health care premiums, etc., I do not see how that infringes upon our liberties -- and this is only due to the fact that we've created a society. Without society, there would be no issue of necessity; therefore, we deem it inappropriate only due to economic constraints and moral sensibilities. However, because there are created inequalities by allowing such babies to be created, due to economic burdens placed upon all through health care, legal action is necessary to protect the whole from the individual.

Also, you will notice that incest was not frowned upon until relatively recently in society. That would be a great indication that laws governing such action are moral perspective rather than moral necessity, but, again, due to the change in society (health insurance), the environment of which laws are justified has changed, and with it, necessity has changed as well. This does not boil down to liberalism, and an "to each their own" policy; it boils down to necessity and protection of those entered into the social contract.

Again, I know this looks much like utilitarianism, moral right stemming from the greater good, but it is farther reaching than that. This idea overlaps utilitarianism in that the ends are similar; however, the justifications for restrictions and protections are very different.

Polygamy is another animal entirely. That is a completely artificial argument. Polygamy does nothing but challenge the accepted, conservative (literal meaning, not political) view of marriage. In fact, I would go so far as to say that polygamy is much closer to nature than a two partner marriage. In the animal kingdom, females mate with multiple males and males mate with multiple females. Additionally, polygamy mirrors the natural trends of evolution in that it propagates the bloodline of those who partake in such relationships much more than that of the traditional marriage dynamic. The man, by necessity, must have some trait or set of traits that are more desirable than another in order for him to procure so many mates; therefore, it would follow that his gene pool has something to be gained. Again, laws should not protect sensibilities.

With that being said, marriage is a social construct -- nothing more. It has nothing to do with nature; in fact, it could easily and strongly be argued that marriage is an attempt to push away from nature. Laws are not justified if the only reason they are created is to protect a sensibility. Therefore, laws banning polygamous relationships are tyrannical and unjustified by virtue of the social contract and societal necessity. Laws banning incest are more grey, and a case could be made for both; however, I have shown a distinct reasoning how both sets of laws disrupt the equality guaranteed to us by government insofar as government is justifiably created and maintained.

Lastly, we could go back and forth all day. You could give me an anecdotal situation that seems to counter my logic, but I will be able to defend. Why? Because the logic with which I solidify my position is flawless. If you want to get to the meat of the issue and not waste time, it would be wiser to attack the theory directly rather than an indirect attack through hypothetical situations.

I have answered your questions, no please answer one of mine: Is it not tyrannical and unjustified to create a law which either creates an inequality in man where there is none in nature, create a law which subjects anyone to discrimination, or create a law which causes you to act in direct opposition to your personal morality? Be careful on that this one as I did not ask whether or not laws should be created to allow others to act according to a moral standard with which you do not subscribe. Examples of each: Should we make a law that Asian-Americans must pay an additional 2% federal tax? Should we make a law which causes Asian-Americans to drive on special roads with bumpers separating each lane? Should we make a law which has each classroom change the pledge of allegiance to "under allah"?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:18 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:So what, then, if any, is the difference between immutable religious law and an unalienable right? If your answer is none, you are correct.


The prior are either given by religious doctrines directly from religious text or divined from religious texts, usually through induction, or religious figures. The latter are necessary features of society gained through deduction. It is not hard to see which are easier to bend and otherwise distort through will and perspective.

Through deduction or through shared societal beliefs divined from personal or family values?

Don't forget that religious texts are frequently interpreted differently.

It would seem that EITHER basis can be distorted through will and perspective just as easily.


I wouldn't say just as easily, but you are correct to an extent. My definition of inalienable right and those used by others often diverge, though, and I don't think my definition is so easily muddied as others. Unfortunately, perspective is not something that can ever be disassociated with human thought or action -- the best we can do is mitigate the damage caused or take ourselves out of the equation as much as possible.

To your first statement, that was half of my point; however, we still have "immutable religious law" -- which is most definitely impossible by virtue of the original statement. I think Judaism is the best example of why religious law should never be entered into secular law -- in any way shape or form.

Lastly, by virtue of the induction and deduction, deduction is the lesser of the two evils when forcing another to live as directed by government. And, since religion relies heavily on induction, while logic relies solely on deduction (as the formal study goes), we must protect ourselves from religion ever creeping into a secular government.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Kifle wrote:I wouldn't say just as easily, but you are correct to an extent. My definition of inalienable right and those used by others often diverge, though, and I don't think my definition is so easily muddied as others. Unfortunately, perspective is not something that can ever be disassociated with human thought or action -- the best we can do is mitigate the damage caused or take ourselves out of the equation as much as possible.

To your first statement, that was half of my point; however, we still have "immutable religious law" -- which is most definitely impossible by virtue of the original statement. I think Judaism is the best example of why religious law should never be entered into secular law -- in any way shape or form.

Lastly, by virtue of the induction and deduction, deduction is the lesser of the two evils when forcing another to live as directed by government. And, since religion relies heavily on induction, while logic relies solely on deduction (as the formal study goes), we must protect ourselves from religion ever creeping into a secular government.

I actually agree due to bacon.

Any law that outlaws good people from eating bacon is simply unjust.

But you should also consider that logic factors into religion every bit as much as "science" or another amorphous belief structure. Societies built purely on religious law are both rare and contain small populations.

It's not a serious factor to consider... just about most places in the world.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:26 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:I wouldn't say just as easily, but you are correct to an extent. My definition of inalienable right and those used by others often diverge, though, and I don't think my definition is so easily muddied as others. Unfortunately, perspective is not something that can ever be disassociated with human thought or action -- the best we can do is mitigate the damage caused or take ourselves out of the equation as much as possible.

To your first statement, that was half of my point; however, we still have "immutable religious law" -- which is most definitely impossible by virtue of the original statement. I think Judaism is the best example of why religious law should never be entered into secular law -- in any way shape or form.

Lastly, by virtue of the induction and deduction, deduction is the lesser of the two evils when forcing another to live as directed by government. And, since religion relies heavily on induction, while logic relies solely on deduction (as the formal study goes), we must protect ourselves from religion ever creeping into a secular government.

I actually agree due to bacon.

Any law that outlaws good people from eating bacon is simply unjust.

But you should also consider that logic factors into religion every bit as much as "science" or another amorphous belief structure. Societies built purely on religious law are both rare and contain small populations.

It's not a serious factor to consider... just about most places in the world.


Granted, there are aspects of logic that have entered into religion, most notably Buddhism and Taoism. Judaism is another that has branched from mysticism (in certain sects) to a more rational concept and belief structure. We could even throw in thinkers such as Descartes and Spinoza as well with their attempts at deductive religion; however, these attempts, like all others, have failed due to necessitating assumed prima facie premises related to the existence of god. And the reason I used Judaism in the quote was due to the heavily reliance upon interpretation exemplified by the Talmud.

Now, I wouldn't say science and religion use logic in the same manner. Religion uses inductive logic, as does science, but what religion cannot do is rely on deductive logic without assuming some premise to be true beforehand without proof or experimentation. Second, all religious logic will fall prey to the disprovability factor. Regardless of the syllogism used in any religious logical induction or deduction, with regards to validity as apposed to truth, the conclusion does not afford the critic any course to disprove. This is one of the demarcating principles of science -- the theory must be able to be disproved in some way, generally through experimentation. Therefore, regardless of whether or not religion has used logic (which it has in many cases), the logic, and thus the premises and conclusions, is worthless outside of a discussion of logic in and of itself. The conclusions are no more real than if they had formed a contradiction within the syllogism.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:30 am

The Roman Catholics are a great study of how logic works on religion. If you haven't had the opportunity to see how much the church has changed over the years, then you are missing out on a significant portion of my argument. They've left behind notions of a flat earth, that the heavens revolve around the earth, so forth and so on, and are arguably a BETTER determination of when a science is settled than anything else.

Ultimately, religions are like societies, systems of governments, and even philosophical schools: they are made out of people.

Things do change in religion, as much as they do outside of it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:12 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:The Roman Catholics are a great study of how logic works on religion. If you haven't had the opportunity to see how much the church has changed over the years, then you are missing out on a significant portion of my argument. They've left behind notions of a flat earth, that the heavens revolve around the earth, so forth and so on, and are arguably a BETTER determination of when a science is settled than anything else.

Ultimately, religions are like societies, systems of governments, and even philosophical schools: they are made out of people.

Things do change in religion, as much as they do outside of it.


In each of those examples, the myth was dispelled by science and much later taken as fact by the church. Don't forget what they did to Galileo for thinking such preposterous and blasphemous things. The fact that they've later been taken up by the church only shows the complete fallibility of the church, it's texts, the inductions and deductions from the texts, its logic, and their ability to use logic in any way resembling critique. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Logic never "worked" on religion, it pounded religion until it gave up. Unfortunately, religion keeps throwing bodies at a solid wall expecting it to pass through it, century after century, only to find out there was a door just a few steps down.

Here's the difference in other words, with respect to logic: A good scientist endlessly tries to disprove his theories; a good priest endlessly tries to defend and prove his beliefs.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests