pirana

Exactly. I've read much on the topic, and while I find it interesting to examine how people come to believe things - and some very weird things indeed - a religious believer is never going to get far at all into this kind of material. They have an automatic denial reflex on anything that contradicts their beliefs. For them, hope and desire are the equivalent, or better than, evidence. Deductive reasoning, logic, empirical evidence, scientific thought, critical thinking, etc will never ever never ever never sway someone from the faith based beliefs. Well, not very often anyway. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I wanted to vote both for a good way to teach values and a joke. It can be either depending on how it is practiced. My take is religions start off with all good intentions, but get morphed into nothing more than just another politicized institution once the people in charge think they have all the answers. Teaching respect is all good and well, imposing dogmatic beliefs on the other hand is pure evil. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, she was a MacDonald. and they wanted so badly to hitch their wagon to the royals that they basically sold off their daughter, right? What a frustrating path for anyone. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You should not need to ask. The answer is directly deduced from the data. It is because religious people are much more likely to be emotive instead of deductive thinkers, the effect of which is that they are more prone to acting irrationally and violently. Next question please. (OK, maybe "directly deduced" is a stretch.) But still . . . Next question please. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

A no brainer. They give because they have more to give. Next question please. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yes. We are always running out of everything that is being consumed and no longer being produced. This is such an easy test. Next question please. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My neighbor has several cars on blocks. Thank goodness he is 1/2 mile away. I do wonder if they complain about the collection of old appliances behind my barn? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

all that from a sample size of 1.... why aren't you working for MIT or CERN? Either of those associated with CHAOS? (That is who I work for). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'd say election year drivel; but you do not have regularly scheduled elections, correct? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Hey, I know parts of that line from somewhere. Where from? Is it from Scent of a Woman? Great character, good movie. OOO AHHH. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Also, for a thorough understanding of how the science is actually carried out, consider reading Just a Theory. It is a great read for anyone looking to understand the process of distinguishing fact from fiction. The topic at hand (and therefore emotion) has no place. It is all about the structure of discovery. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Your post proves the weakness of your belief. You discredit evolution not based on any evidence, but based on your hopes and desires. For emotional reasons you reject the evidence. The fossil history is more than sufficient to support evolution. Visit some natural history museums. Better yet, start with a good primer; something along the lines of Cosmos, but more recent. The gaps in the record of the rocks are nuances debated by the scholars of the subject; none of them even come close to being sufficient to discredit evolution. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Clearly a case of mistaken identity. If it was an election year, they were probably politicians on the campaign trail. If it was a non-election year, they were probably owners of professional sports teams blackmailing the local politicians into giving them several hundred million dollars for a stadium. BTW, we can't be too far away from the 1st billion dollar stadium, heh? And all it will take to get it done is another sales tax hike on all business conducted within nuclear blast range of the intrended site. Now THAT'S true evil. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How is it that nearly every armchair amatuer political scientist in the world knew how this was going to go, but the administration of the most powerful nation in the world missed so badly that their tactics have been the equivalent of trying to put out a bonfire by tossing in a few marshmallows? It'll be interesting when this is over to draw up the balance sheet and see exactly what we got for what it cost in terms of lives, money, and credibility. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'll 2nd that, or 3rd it; or whatever it's up to now. Wife and I did tandems together. She has no desire to jump again, but it made all the difference in the world when I told her I was going to enter training. She visits the DZ occassionally and digs the people she meets, but truth is most people find the DZ is a pretty boring place if you do not jump or are not in the business in some way. Cool and sensational at 1st, but gets old fast for non-participants. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So I'm responsible for their consequences, their station in life? I've fucked them? Because I don't want to pay their bills? That's absurd. I think they've fucked themselves. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Show me a nation with no classes; no social, cultural or financial divisions that result in some sort of ability to choose the manner in which people live. All people are not created equal, and there is nothing to be gained by trying to make everyone the same (as if that could be accomplished anyway). What exactly is your point? That it is unfair that people are free to make choices, and that the myriad volume of choices and options ensure that we will end up living life differently - with some materially more well off than others? Of course tehy all have classes, not nearly as defined as here though. Choose teh manner in which we live / not to be confused with choosing which hospital to go to as in Socialized countries. Gained? How about basic humanity? No one said anything about making anyone equal, just another EXTREME statement by a person avoiding the humanity issue (conservative pesticide). Are you for real? Look at the topic, look at my constant reiterations of, "It is unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide basic healthcare for its citizens." You can can all that rhetoric about cosmetic surgeries and forcing people to live equally, this is about having a cavity filled or an ulcer checked out. Not a matter of deserve. As with most other services, it's a matter of can you afford. It is just too easy to jump to "Then I want it free" when it can't be afforded instead of addressing the root causes of not being able to afford it. I don't see my example as extreme. The manner in which you live has a lot to do with how and where you seek health care. Just as it has a lot to do with where you shop for clothes, where (and if) you go to school, what you do for a livelihood, what you are likely to eat for dinner, and just about everything else in your life. I see nothing wrong with people paying the price for their behaviors. I don't see healthcare as something sacred that must be exempted from the rules that apply to other material commodities and services. The only thing that bites is that in the long run we (taxpayers in general) end up picking up their tab anyway. I understand you find the current system unconscionable. When enough people find it unconscionable enough, or as unconscionable as you do, it will change. Personally, I find abuse of welfare and charity and the lackadaisical approach to cracking down on it unconscionable. If and when enough people feel the same way, it will change. Until then, I refuse to support throwing good money after bad by advocating support for band-aid type fixes - especially when some of the money being thrown will be coming out of my pocket. (The government already taps me for 40 to 45% of my income. If they can't make ends meet on that, then we need to find new systems for delivery of the things they are handing out - - - and not just keep increasing the quantity of the handouts). Just had another brain thingy about unconscionableness. How about the level of gun ownership and murder rate in the US compared to other developed countries. Now that's unconscionable. Apologies for the aside; couldn't resist. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Absolutely. I'm getting used to it. We have rules like this at work now. Strictly CYA. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I guess we just disagree then on what is a right and what is a privilege. But I'm not trying to snow you or impress you with ornate language. The definitions are tough to nail down. You may think what is reasonable would be an easy consensus. I can assure you from experience that it is not. (This actually is the business I'm in). You may have clear ideas about it, as do I, but as is evidenced by many of the debates on this foruym, building consensus is a different ball of wax. Health care is very expensive; with it being the number 2 expense for most service industries right after payroll. And it is growing at about 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation, and shows no sign of slowing down. The dilemma is going to get much worse; even without adding new classes of expense to the system. Advocating universal care (even at a reasonable level, if you can get agreement on what that means) not only does not represent a solution; it amounts to fanning the flames. What is most urgently needed is to dramatically change the way health care is consumed, thereby reducing that expense as a % of income. Anything else is just performing patchwork on old leaky plumbing. I'll agree that whether care is viewed as a right or privilege is largely cultural (of which political motivations are a subset); and add that how it is consumed, the real driver of costs, is also cultural. If the price does not slow down, then come down, relative to income, bickering about who pays or who gets what is going to soon become very trivial. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Actually, that crowd eschews health care premiums, even modest ones, when they are offerred. For the most part the typical 25 year old does not see health insurance as something worth spending money on. Most of them, if given the money to buy it, would spend the cash elsewhere. So a government enforced mandatory universal program of coverage basically becomes telling people how to spend their money. The amount of money is what makes such a program tough for a lot of advocates of personal choice to swallow. If it were $20 or $30 per month to support emergency services or something like that, it might be more palatable. But being forced to turn over several hundred dollars worth of the value of my labor each month to support a mandatory health care program in not acceptable. Then throw in the fact that I also would be in the group helping to pay for those that can't, and my part of the bill becomes well over $1000 per month. Too much. I want to choose whether or not i participate and at what level. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My "public education" ended with a PhD from the #2 ranked university in the world, at age 25. Do you have an issue with that? YEAH, I do!!!! Can you help me with my homework? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Show me a nation with no classes; no social, cultural or financial divisions that result in some sort of ability to choose the manner in which people live. All people are not created equal, and there is nothing to be gained by trying to make everyone the same (as if that could be accomplished anyway). What exactly is your point? That it is unfair that people are free to make choices, and that the myriad volume of choices and options ensure that we will end up living life differently - with some materially more well off than others? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't think anybody forces the hospitals to do this. It is almost always the families choice - the patient if they are able or their appointed person. Seen it happen in our extended family, the elder had not made their desires legally binding and the person of authority refused to let go. It was sad and pathetic watching her being kept alive in pain, even if only for a few days. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

As with any complicated issue, the devil is in the details. One sticking point we run into is how you define reasonable. Most of the public, when pushed for detail, come up with a definition that makes delivery outrageously expensive. If we were talking cars, most could be rational and consider the funding side, and factoring that in come up with a reasonable level for reasonable. With healthcare though, the debate gets very emotional, even before you leave the realm of the hypothetical. And when you cross over from hypothetical debate to real world action - - - everybody wants the Cadillac without much concern for how the payments get made. As far as it being a have and have-not issue; benefit pricing has become very standardized. Nobody gets a very different (or better) deal than anybody else willing to spend the same amount of money. It is a rare employer that can afford full coverage plans anymore. Everybody gets copays and deductibles and most of the standard exclusions. There is very little differentiation in rates these days, other than a carrier trying to buy business with low initial premiums. So yeah, it is like most things that cost money. If you don't have any money, you can't buy much. I don't think it is a conspiracy or anything like that. If you want more goods and services, go make more money. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well, Dr Boudreaux and I disagree, so that makes two. "most people agree that there is some level of basic health care" but nobody agrees on what exactly it is. Even establishing a basis for doing so is morally repugnant according to contemporary, popular belief systems. Not to mention that it's hugely impractical and inefficient. So you're in an automobile accident and critically injured. Nobody knows who you are or how you're gonna pay. Do you think someone should save your life? I do... not because it's your *right* to have your life saved, but because it's the right thing for us as people to do for each other. linz Good one. Save the life at a minimum. Maybe the approach should be to assume the person can pay until it is established that they can't. I agree though, even then, you still save the life. No liposuction, gastric bypass, Lasix, megabuck prescriptions, plastic surgery, or any of that stuff. If they can't pay they get stapled up like Frankentein. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley