Congressional report says that repealing Obamacare would cost $100 billion over the next decade. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005654]You're insulting dude.[/QUOTE] This is a really convenient way for you to ignore the statements made in relation to the argument, isn't it? Why bother with my argument when you can just insist i'm rude or something, right?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005657]People in the republican party actively want people like Rocket to repress who they are and hide, they want people like Rocket to not exist in their america And you claim he's a fucking bigot?[/QUOTE] But I'm not repressing anyone here... I'm just stating a viewpoint.

How about instead we elevate all political parties to a national level, and have all of them on all of the ballots. That would decrease the influence of both of the main 2 parties.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005669]This is a really convenient way for you to ignore the statements made in relation to the argument, isn't it? Why bother with my argument when you can just insist i'm rude or something, right?[/QUOTE] No one is ignoring anyone here.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005661]But that's not [I]WRONG FACTUALLY[/I] that is [I]an ideal that most people today disagree[/I] with. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I'm not saying they're wrong, he's being a bit rude. I don't think we have to result to bad language or poor manners.[/QUOTE] Yes. It sure is a mindset that most people would disagree with because on a very simple metric(The metric being the manner of measure) that hurting people is wrong so it's easy to see that under that metric, it's ALWAYS wrong to do so.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005679]No one is ignoring anyone here.[/QUOTE] Oh so then would you stop this bullshit and respond to the argument?

[QUOTE=Megadave;48005676]How about instead we elevate all political parties to a national level, and have all of them on all of the ballots. That would decrease the influence of both of the main 2 parties.[/QUOTE] That's an interesting perspective. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48005684]Its is my opinion that your opinion is utter shit.[/QUOTE] That's rude. I don't say anyone elses opinion is shit, I just disagree with it. If I have said that, I'm sorry, but I don't recall having insulted anyone. I'm trying to be polite and just state what I think about the matter.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005672]But I'm not repressing anyone here... I'm just stating a viewpoint.[/QUOTE] Am I talking about you? Did I say "You"? No, I'd like you to start reading my posts rather than pretending i'm insulting you. People WANT to repress rocket, and they want to do that through social, and government means. To wish those people didn't hold the view that Rocket doesn't have the right to exist the way rocket wants to is reasonable, more reasonable than the view that rocket shouldn't exist at all. Or is it better if we just exist in a world where we don't give a shit about anything and we allow people to say "Black people should be segregated, LGBT people should be converted" even though that's clearly harmful? Is that okay? You would allow them to hold those ideals, and I feel like you wouldn't even argue against them because "ALL IDEALS ARE OKAY".

[QUOTE=Rocket;48005681]Oh my god, you are a robot. Moral relativism doesn't mean people can't say things are immoral.[/QUOTE] I also consider that an insult... It is immoral. But ideals aren't inherently things that are true or false.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005714]I also consider that an insult... It is immoral. But ideals aren't inherently things that are true or false.[/QUOTE] Oh so now you're not even going to pretend to be consistent about moral relativism and instead just insist that an ideal can't be wrong even if under some concept of morality you've yet to define in any way shape or form that it's "Immoral"?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005712]Am I talking about you? Did I say "You"? No, I'd like you to start reading my posts rather than pretending i'm insulting you. People WANT to repress rocket, and they want to do that through social, and government means. To wish those people didn't hold the view that Rocket doesn't have the right to exist the way rocket wants to is reasonable, more reasonable than the view that rocket shouldn't exist at all. Or is it better if we just exist in a world where we don't give a shit about anything and we allow people to say "Black people should be segregated, LGBT people should be converted" even though that's clearly harmful? Is that okay? You would allow them to hold those ideals, and I feel like you wouldn't even argue against them because "ALL IDEALS ARE OKAY".[/QUOTE] Where is the repression coming from? Have I said someone should be repressed? If so, I'm sorry. That's not something I believe in, but what I have read here is that an entire political party should not be around anymore. That sounds like desiring the repression of a party to me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005712]Or is it better if we just exist in a world where we don't give a shit about anything and we allow people to say "Black people should be segregated, LGBT people should be converted" even though that's clearly harmful? Is that okay? You would allow them to hold those ideals, and I feel like you wouldn't even argue against them because "ALL IDEALS ARE OKAY".[/QUOTE] Dude, you can't just say people aren't allowed to have particular ideals. You don't even have to say all ideals are okay! You just disagree with them. It's that simple. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rocket;48005727]You really have to understand what people mean when they say things. When someone says "X is wrong," what they mean is that "this goes against what I consider moral." Republicans hate gay people. I think that's very wrong. It goes against what I believe is moral.[/QUOTE] Yes, but one person's idea of morality cannot be forced on others. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think it's okay for people to have differing ideals of what they think is moral, but people should be okay will knowing that there are differences, but not persecute them. Just tolerate them.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005723]Where is the repression coming from? Have I said someone should be repressed? If so, I'm sorry. That's not something I believe in, but what I have read here is that an entire political party should not be around anymore. That sounds like desiring the repression of a party to me.[/QUOTE] Okay So i'm at a loss for words here so I'll just start from an allegory that MIGHT explain to you why you're view point here is just impossible to maintain. If a party is repressing black people, is that okay? Is that something that ANYONE has the right to stop? Can someone wish that those people DON'T hold destructive ideals without you thinking they're repressing everyone themselves? The republican party of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, essentially refused to acknowledge blacks rights and the plights of blacks, and even made things worse for them. I ask you, did MLK have a justified reason to SUPPRESS those people who wanted to SUPPRESS him? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005729]Dude, you can't just say people aren't allowed to have particular ideals. You don't even have to say all ideals are okay! You just disagree with them. It's that simple. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Yes, but one person's idea of morality cannot be forced on others. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I think it's okay for people to have differing ideals of what they think is moral, but people should be okay will knowing that there are differences, but not persecute them. Just tolerate them.[/QUOTE] It's not like i'm going around punching people for holding views. They can hold them. I'll just insist at the deepest level that those views are wrong, hurtful, and SHOULDN'T be held. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] I mean do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in your trying to silence my view that they shouldn't hold those views and saying I CAN'T hold that view? That's LITERAL hypocrisy.

Why are you guys presenting only a particular set of ideals to me that even I find immoral? Why does it have to be about killing Jews or black people? Do you think I want to kill Jews? Do you think I have something against black people? Why do you think my viewpoint is impossible to maintain? Because you don't agree with it?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005745]I mean do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in your trying to silence my view that they shouldn't hold those views and saying I CAN'T hold that view? That's LITERAL hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] Honestly, that's a bit meta. And a good point, sure! If you want to say that you believe people shouldn't be able to hold views, then you are in fact a bigot, and making a case against yourself. But I don't think that's what you mean to say. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rocket;48005777]You seem to think that there are no bad ideals, and that we should never criticize other people for having ideals. Even if those ideals are harmful. Even if those ideals are about genocide.[/QUOTE] No, but you seem to be implying any differing ideals from someone else's are inherently ones about race or genocide.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005768]Why are you guys presenting only a particular set of ideals to me that even I find immoral? Why does it have to be about killing Jews or black people? Do you think I want to kill Jews? Do you think I have something against black people? Why do you think my viewpoint is impossible to maintain? Because you don't agree with it?[/QUOTE] Holy shit how do you not understand the concept of an analogy? An analogy is a way to demonstrate to you internal flaws in your logic. That's why it's impossible to maintain, because it has logical contradictions and issues out the wazoo. You imagining and ignoring our analogies and allegories about these issues and how they clash with your mentality is why no one here is able to take you seriously. Rather than deal with any of the scenarios, thought processes, arguments you've just jumped them, and gone straight to 1) calling me rude, 2) calling people insulting, 3) focusing on the people you're arguing with and 4) taking things personally. Look, you can say you're not ignoring our arguments, but you are. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005779]Honestly, that's a bit meta. And a good point, sure! If you want to say that you believe people shouldn't be able to hold views, then you are in fact a bigot, and making a case against yourself. But I don't think that's what you mean to say. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] No, but you seem to be implying any differing ideals from someone else's are inherently ones about race or genocide.[/QUOTE] Holy shit fucking read what I'm saying man. I said they shouldn't hold those views. Not that they shouldn't be able to.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005768]Why are you guys presenting only a particular set of ideals to me that even I find immoral? Why does it have to be about killing Jews or black people? Do you think I want to kill Jews? Do you think I have something against black people? Why do you think my viewpoint is impossible to maintain? Because you don't agree with it?[/QUOTE] I think it might have something to do with you going all "ideals can't be inherently wrong" when they literally can. An ideal is always built on an idea, and if the idea is flawed then the ideal is wrong. For instance "segregation between black people and white people is a good thing" is mostly built on the idea "black people are subhuman and/or detrimental to society and therefore need to be contained". This idea is obviously completely, factually wrong and thusly so is the ideal.

Why do you need to use race or genocide as an analogy? Why can't you just reference the actual issue at hand. You seem to desire to attack me personally instead, and then when I mention people insulting or attacking me, you say I'm ignoring the issue. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=A Noobcake;48005796]I think it might have something to do with you going all "ideals can't be inherently wrong" when they literally can. An ideal is always built on an idea, and if the idea is flawed then the ideal is wrong. For instance "segregation between black people and white people is a good thing" is mostly built on the idea "black people are subhuman and/or detrimental to society and therefore need to be contained". This idea is obviously completely, factually wrong and thusly so is the ideal.[/QUOTE] Why are we talking about race? Are you implying I am a racist? This is about healthcare!

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005801]Why do you need to use race or genocide as an analogy? Why can't you just reference the actual issue at hand. You seem to desire to attack me personally instead, and then when I mention people insulting or attacking me, you say I'm ignoring the issue.[/QUOTE] No one has fucking attacked you. We use them because they are STRONG EXAMPLES of the issues with your own internal logic. The issue here is, you won't even attempt to humour the examples and run them through to see the errors of your logic. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005801] Why are we talking about race? Are you implying I am a racist? This is about healthcare![/QUOTE] AND YOU ARE DEFENDING ALL THE OPINIONS AND IDEALS THAT CAN OR EVER COULD EXIST AS BEING EQUAL AND VALID. You MADE the conversation about that. So, to point out to how you're wrong, we used EXAMPLES.

I think it would be more helpful to talk about healthcare. These analogies are causing me to not be able to understand your viewpoints in the right light, and I think I'm only able to pick up the parts. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] But why do you need to use bad language? It makes me a bit uncomfortable and it makes me feel like you're making an attack on my character.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005817]I think it would be more helpful to talk about healthcare. These analogies are causing me to not be able to understand your viewpoints in the right light, and I think I'm only able to pick up the parts.[/QUOTE] If you can't understand a basic analogy than that's pretty hard to overcome on OUR ends. As far as healthcare goes, the very issue is that some people hold a view that healthcare being shared amongst the populace will destroy the society, so they'll do everything they can to stop that and prevent any reasonable discussion to exist about it. How can the other side every do ANYTHING if that's their constant opposition? How can progress be made in the face of a factually incorrect opinion? [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005817]I think it would be more helpful to talk about healthcare. These analogies are causing me to not be able to understand your viewpoints in the right light, and I think I'm only able to pick up the parts. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] But why do you need to use bad language? It makes me a bit uncomfortable and it makes me feel like you're making an attack on my character.[/QUOTE] You've been making this about your thin skin from the beginning of the discussion even though the amount of insults against you is just about nil(aside from being called a "Robot") you haven't actually been insulted and you've just been taking things personally as a method to avoid the issue as far as I can tell. Stop trying to make this about how you're being insulted or attacked. You're not.

I don't exactly think correlating healthcare to racism or genocide is a basic analogy. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Then please don't make it sound like you're yelling at me?

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48005293]And the Republicans would gladly spend every penny of that.[/QUOTE] nice jab, but republicans are for less government spending it's so frustrating to know that some of you people think we have an unlimited amount of money to spend

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005856]I don't exactly think correlating healthcare to racism or genocide is a basic analogy. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Then please don't make it sound like you're yelling at me?[/QUOTE] Then exercise some basic wherewithal to understand how you defined the conversation to be about view points being okay and not JUST about healthcare.

I think everyone wants less goverment spending. I've seen both Republicans and Democrats state this... In the future, it might help to have a discussion that doesn't have insulting undertones: [QUOTE=Rocket;48005629]Change them to ones that are less [highlight]dumb[/highlight]. And this is not bigotry by any reasonable usage. If I thought we should kill all jewish people, it's not bigotry for someone to say "No, that's [highlight]dumb[/highlight] and [highlight]you're a nazi[/highlight]."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rocket;48005681]Oh my god, [highlight]you are a robot.[/highlight] Moral relativism doesn't mean people can't say things are immoral.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48005705]I think that what you think is [highlight]stupid[/highlight][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RocketSnail;48005889]nice jab, but republicans are for less government spending it's so frustrating to know that some of you people think we have an unlimited amount of money to spend[/QUOTE] The republicans say they want small government but they really don't when they do privacy violation and behind bedroom doors legislation. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005909]I think everyone wants less goverment spending. I've seen both Republicans and Democrats state this... In the future, it might help to have a discussion that doesn't have insulting undertones:[/QUOTE] You are making this about a nonissue rather than the issue you wanted to talk about

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005905]Then exercise some basic wherewithal to understand how you defined the conversation to be about view points being okay and not JUST about healthcare.[/QUOTE] Well, for example here are two viewpoints: "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." "I believe society should help each other pay for healthcare." These are two statements which are unfalsifiable. They are opinions. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48005912]The republicans say they want small government but they really don't when they do privacy violation and behind bedroom doors legislation. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] You are making this about a nonissue rather than the issue you wanted to talk about[/QUOTE] No, I'm asking for people to not call me dumb, or not tolerate their fellow human's perspectives.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005921]Well, for example here are two viewpoints: "I believe individuals should pay for their own healthcare." "I believe society should help each other pay for healthcare." These are two statements which are unfalsifiable. They are opinions. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] No, I'm asking for people to not call me dumb, or not tolerate their fellow human's perspectives.[/QUOTE] Their opinion would be more in line with "Socialized medicine will destroy society" That IS falsifiable.

No, you're literally saying something else.

[QUOTE=andrewmcwatters;48005801]Why do you need to use race or genocide as an analogy? Why can't you just reference the actual issue at hand. You seem to desire to attack me personally instead, and then when I mention people insulting or attacking me, you say I'm ignoring the issue. [editline]19th June 2015[/editline] Why are we talking about race? Are you implying I am a racist? This is about healthcare![/QUOTE] Well then let us use health care as an example instead. A lot of people seem to be holding the view that "every individual should be responsible for their own health care, this is better than universal, tax/government funded health care". This also happens to be the model that for the most part is being used, and has been used, in the US for quite some time. Let's do a quick fact check. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Statistics"]'Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States was at or near the top in infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and rates of disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy'.[/URL] To be exact, the current lifetime expectancy of a US citizen is currently at 78.4 years. The same study also states that [URL="http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13497&page=109#d25"]'Public health efforts are credited with much of the gains in life expectancy that high-income countries experienced in the 20th century (Cutler and Miller, 2005; Foege, 2004)'[/URL]. From this it should be pretty obvious that privatized healthcare is, in fact, less effective than public healthcare, and is part of the reason why the US is stereotyped as an obese, unhealthy country. In other words, the idea behind the ideal at hand is wrong, and as such the ideal in itself is also fundamentally wrong and should be abandoned in order to further improve the general health of americans.