Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:27 pm
Explain your statement is what the question mark means. Explain how Snodgrass's setup showing communism is evil shows he's a socialist.
Proudly ignored since 1867
http://www.smbc-comics.com/smbcforum/
http://www.smbc-comics.com/smbcforum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4498
Or do you think that taking away 80% of ones labour is and giving it to freeloaders reflects "according to his work" fairly?Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his 1936 Soviet Constitution. He writes that "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
be more considered and use a more civil language.Ayn Rand WAS a starving child under the communist dictator that took her father's business, you fucking psychopath.
Yes I read it. Still don't understand what you're saying. I'm trying, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. How does Snodgrass saying communism is garbage make him a socialist? Not getting it. Your quote doesn't seem relevant.Nino wrote:I gave you a quote of a socialist slogan and a link to wikipedia. Were you just not bothered to go there and readOr do you think that taking away 80% of ones labour is and giving it to freeloaders reflects "according to his work" fairly?Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his 1936 Soviet Constitution. He writes that "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
Don't tell a stranger how to behave to another stranger. Since we are giving out unsolicited advice. It's absolutely smug and insultingly audacious. Uncivil as I am, I would never dream of correcting someone like their parent in that fashion, even if I knew the person personally.Nino wrote:be more considered and use a more civil language.
I was not referring to Snodgrass perception that communist is garbage, I was referring to his example of redistribution of products of labor (i.e. the tomato example) and I gave a quote of a famous socialist principle that states that fruits of the labour should stay with those who produced the labour. Idea that said fruits (and tomato is a fruit) should go to somebody who didnt put any labour in is very contradictory to that principle, or others of that kind .How does Snodgrass saying communism is garbage make him a socialist? Not getting it. Your quote doesn't seem relevant.
As I said before communism is not unlike other religions - you can cherry pick it to support almost any view and at the extreme end there are always some atrocities.He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a New Testament aphorism originally by Paul the Apostle, later cited by John Smith in Jamestown, Virginia, and by Lenin during the Russian Revolution.
You are in a public place so spewing obscenities is not unlike shitting in the middle of a street. If you dont understand it insulting to passer bys then really there is no point trying to tell you something is there? So for future referense *please* assume Im talking to Snodgrass and not you, ok?Uncivil as I am, I would never dream of correcting someone like their parent in that fashion, even if I knew the person personally.
It's contradictory to capitalism also. So you choosing to say he's "in tune" with socialism when he's clearly a capitalist, he quite clearly lauds capitalism over and over and over, and you knowing that but saying what you said comes off as snarky. Your posts are very unclear, your point is unclear, you're unclear. Still don't know what your goal here is. Unless it's to say something absolutely pointless and trivial, like that socialism and capitalism share traits? Is that the point? Because if so no duh.Nino wrote:I was not referring to Snodgrass perception that communist is garbage, I was referring to his example of redistribution of products of labor (i.e. the tomato example) and I gave a quote of a famous socialist principle that states that fruits of the labour should stay with those who produced the labour. Idea that said fruits (and tomato is a fruit) should go to somebody who didnt put any labour in is very contradictory to that principle, or others of that kind .How does Snodgrass saying communism is garbage make him a socialist? Not getting it. Your quote doesn't seem relevant.
And here you are wasting MY time with repeated smugness! Do stop trying to inform me that I'm being insulting when I was trying to be insulting.Nino wrote:You are in a public place so spewing obscenities is not unlike shitting in the middle of a street. If you dont understand it insulting to passer bys then really there is no point trying to tell you something is there? So for future referense *please* assume Im talking to Snodgrass and not you, ok?
I believe that the more you allow people to keep what they earn, and the better off they are, the more charitable they become. I seem to recall a study I read in college where it pointed out that when taxes were lowest in United States history, charitable contributions were higher. People like to give when they are given the choice. People obviously do not like to give when forced, because of course that is not giving it is theft.Guest wrote:Contrast with the USA's great depression. People went poor, broke, homeless, and some starved, but they did not starve in the millions and the whole country did not starve in such great extremes. Part of that was from charity, people lose money but some of them were willing to lose more to keep people from starving to death, times were hard but many people in the US made it through. Another part of that was from human kindness, which I think we all feel to some degree on this forum no matter which side we are on in the debate.
Great point. It's always funny to me how my country has always lauded capitalism (until recent years, where it's sliding into socialism on the way to communism), how people en masse will brag that in the US you can be anything, you can do anything, you can work and be rich if you try hard enough! But then they casually and automatically hate anyone with money, and people on news will say facts about something like a person's income in a tone that it's an indicator that being rich means he's somehow a piece of garbage. Always hated that contradiction. XDGuest wrote:After reading Ayn Rand's books I don't think she would let the ten children starve. Her deal is more to do with promoting exceptionalism and the individual, as a means to benefit society more than the concept of collectivism and the group, which in her philosophy actually drags a society down by smearing the most productive and talented people out of a sense of collective jealousy. Think about how many people you've heard talk shit about a public figure, celebrity, or role model you admire and you'll understand where she's coming from.
I did not know this and I find it very interesting. I watched a lot of "Star Trek TNG" as a kid, so there's a utopian society as I envision it. How do we get there though? Well, it's my contention that technology is being artificially held back, in addition to capitalism being artificially tanked, and people being artificially forced into poverty, so basically I think the solution is just to stand back and get out of the goddamn way. We need to overthrow our evil overlords, whose admitted purpose is to reduce the population and widen the gap between rich and poor, with a wealthy elite and a giant, poor underclass. Get rid of them and I think humanity by itself will find its way. How to do that though hmm...Guest wrote:There are issues and benefits to each system, and none of them are perfect. Well-read Freemasons know that Karl Marx admitted as much in his pamphlets he wrote that socialism is supposed to lead to communism, and communism was not meant to sustain a nation, but to destroy it, and from all the chaos and upheaval birth a fourth, new kind of system, in order to achieve utopia. He died before he specified what that utopia system would be like, and many equate communism to the utopia by mistake.
Valid point, and I can be very rational when arguing. But I don't see the point of it when someone's passive-aggressively insulting me, or insulting me outright. I can easily keep my temper when someone with wildly different worldviews doesn't agree with me, if they're civil about it. Because I'm not losing my temper so much as escalating by choice when someone's trying to be a dick as I don't agree with pandering to douchebags. I see people stay calm, and get insulted, and stay calm and debate, and get insulted, and stay calm, and it's just sad. It's like watching someone get slapped repeatedly and pretend its not happening. I'd rather, if you slap me, punch you in the face. To bystanders I look like a crazy, enraged psycho, like omg that reaction didn't fit the circumstances!! But it did. It's infinitely more honest. The hypocrite wanted a fight so why shouldn't I give it to them?Guest wrote:Be civil, rational, and make an effort to be unemotional when debating this topic. The lives of billions of people worldwide ride on where we go with this, many people's own personal lives are at stake. It is easy to get heated in an argument, to get overly emotional, and to insult people. It is very hard to try to think of things from different people's points of views, to think critically, and to be fair to the opposing argument. But if we keep a degree of civility and rationality, while still leveling well-deserved critiques at serious issues, which do involve the lives of many many people, we will be able to reach new ideas and compromises sooner rather than later. Perhaps from those debates and the spread of information thereafter, someday someone will build reasonable solutions to our problems.
That's still me and ohhh I actually DID! What was it... "You Caring" I think? But the problem there is that I don't get do Facebook and Twitter and whatever else, so I don't really have a way to spread the "help me out link" so it didn't really get visits or go anywhere. Not sure how to overcome being as reclusive and hermit-like as I am, and still get help from people. Probably is no way. You gotta buy into society, and I don't. :\Guest wrote:As for the poorer person from a few pages back, I'm really concerned for you. Have you thought about starting a crowdfunding page to fix your car? I've seen people start those for all sorts of things like dental work and recovery from assault. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to do that in comparison. If you happen to be in the United States, you should be able to shop around for lower rates soon. Medicare enrollment is on oct 15th. Involuntary healthcare was supposed to pay for people like you for you to get back on your feet, not cause you such financial and emotional hardship.
This is a fantastic, fantastic thing you've just said. It seems like it should be obvious to people but it isn't. I constantly talk about this hypocrisy, how our society is all about "The children, the children, help the children! Oh what you're 18 today, fuck you got nothin' for you go die now." But when I try to express this, simpletons just take away "Oh so you hate kids." DXGuest wrote: I really do not understand how the same people who claim to care about poor, starving children, could then laugh in your face and say such biting words to you. Children are valued because of their innocence. People forget they grow into adults, too, and lose empathy for their fellow adults.
East Germany.Guest wrote:Astrogirl, what country did you grow up in? You've dropped hints, I'm guessing it was somewhere around eastern europe? Just curious.
Does anyone else know what she meant?Astrogirl wrote:I have no idea what that means.JosieQ wrote:Um so, "I know you are but what am I?" is your defense?
Is not? What is it then? I'm reasonably certain that is exactly what capitalism is.JosieQ wrote:That's not capitalism.Astrogirl wrote:Potentially. Depends on how much you contributed to the tomatoes. The current real world where you keep 7.999 tomatoes and give the other guy 0.001 tomatoes is theft.
You may want to run that through Google translate again, telling someone they are Wahnsinn is actually quite a high compliment. Yeah, idioms are weird.JosieQ wrote:But since you've given me the date... (1st of July, 1990) And since you seriously, frighteningly seem to be saying your country was better off before, then all I can say to you is du bist mehr batshit wahnsinn than I originally hat gedacht.
You don't seem to have a firm grasp on what is relevant or not. This is 100% apropos.JosieQ wrote:Cool story, but irrelevant as fuuuuuck.Astrogirl wrote:Depends on your definition of business. They both ate the stuff themselves and traded it with other people for hard-to-obtain things (mostly the eggs, tomatoes were not so high in demand to be useful for barter). My grandparents were also teachers, not sure my greatgrandmother had another job.Your comment on that is only relevant if your grandparents' literal business and income came from growing tomatoes and selling them, along with chicken's eggs and pork, and your communist government didn't take any of that.
But people also were farmers who owned their farms and sold their stuff for money and the government didn't take the things they produced away nor their means of production. There was a lot of social pressure to join a co-op (once a month someone came by and talked to you about how nice it is in the co-op, that you work only 40 hours and get 25 days of vacation and you don't have to worry when there is a bad harvest or your animals get a disease), but it was not legally required.
That's nice, thank you.JosieQ wrote:I'm actually starting to feel really sorry for you
I have a hint for you: If you want to drop a conversation, just drop it. Don't go in replying with more incendiary stuff and in particular don't add replies to stuff that was not towards you but towards someone else in the thread.JosieQ wrote:if we can go back to my now decades-old desire to agree to disagree and stop talking, that'd be suuuuper.
Must feel bad to be so wrong all the time.Astrogirl wrote:Is not? What is it then? I'm reasonably certain that is exactly what capitalism is.JosieQ wrote:That's not capitalism.Astrogirl wrote:Potentially. Depends on how much you contributed to the tomatoes. The current real world where you keep 7.999 tomatoes and give the other guy 0.001 tomatoes is theft.
Actually, looks like Google translate gives you "verrückt". I chose "wahnsinn" because I like the word, from my own experience, from majoring in German (among other things) in college. I'll admit though that your English is much better than my German, however it's still not good enough for you to be having this argument and making your points understood, and understanding the points of others. Which you're doing poorly.Astrogirl wrote:You may want to run that through Google translate again, telling someone they are Wahnsinn is actually quite a high compliment. Yeah, idioms are weird.
I already called it an "obvious trap," remember? Because the obvious trap is, communism always fails. And you blundered right into obvious trap and are from EAST GERMANY, of all places. The most obvious and provable example of how communism is garbage, as the West side provably advanced while the East side provably stagnated? Haha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahahaholyfuckingshitseriously.Astrogirl wrote:I'm still curious what you needed the country for. In the case of East Germany you reacted with calling me crazy (well, trying to call me crazy). And in the case of some other socialist/communist country you ... would have reacted differently? Which country would that have been and what would the reaction have been?
Must feel bad to be so wrong all the time.Astrogirl wrote:You don't seem to have a firm grasp on what is relevant or not. This is 100% apropos.JosieQ wrote:Cool story, but irrelevant as fuuuuuck.
Oh do please tell me, scumbag, more about how your kind thieving from me and literally killing me are doing me good? If only they did it right, I guess, it wouldn't still be morally wrong and everyone would be happy! Except all the fit healthy people pissed about how they have to pay in for the more expensive healthcare of the unfit fat people, which leads to legislation telling you you're legally not allowed to smoke or drink anymore, or have cookies, or even a too-large soda. Yeah great plan, divide people even more in your idiotic effort to make them care about each other.Astrogirl wrote:Anyway, forcing people to buy health insurance is right and good, and it should be around 7% of one's income and be required to cover insulin.
It's been a really long time since I learned about East Germany in World History class but I remember something about the Berlin Wall... here it is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_at ... man_borderAstrogirl wrote:East Germany.Guest wrote:Astrogirl, what country did you grow up in? You've dropped hints, I'm guessing it was somewhere around eastern europe? Just curious.
Capitalism is more like, you grow the 8 tomatoes and they're all yours except, the goal is really to try to sell those 8 tomatoes to the local pizza shop, and you're competing fairly with your neighbors for who has the lowest priced and best tomatoes that the pizza shop wants to buy. Whoever wins this competition is going to grow (potentially) from a tomato garden into a full-scale tomato farm. Other factors apply such as how in demand the pizza is (and therefore your tomatoes). The benefit is that you've voluntarily upscaled your tomato thing going from a gardener to a massive farmer, in which case the general area now has a whole lot of tomatoes. At which point you can't grow all those tomatoes yourself anymore, so you have to hire workers.Astrogirl wrote:Is not? What is it then? I'm reasonably certain that is exactly what capitalism is.JosieQ wrote:That's not capitalism.Astrogirl wrote:Potentially. Depends on how much you contributed to the tomatoes. The current real world where you keep 7.999 tomatoes and give the other guy 0.001 tomatoes is theft.
I think that study makes sense. I've never heard that tidbit myself, opting to spend my research project time in college on gay rights and the argument for gay marriage instead. But it makes sense to me now. The more I read and the more I talk to various people in person and on the internet, from all those anecdotal experiences combined I have been mulling about the idea that it would be best to advise people to focus on prospering themselves more, because by having more yourself, and taking care of yourself first, then you can be generous to others. And because you have set yourself up with all the tools, resources, and knowledge to continue to prosper the amount of generosity you can give is multiplied.JosieQ wrote: I believe that the more you allow people to keep what they earn, and the better off they are, the more charitable they become. I seem to recall a study I read in college where it pointed out that when taxes were lowest in United States history, charitable contributions were higher. People like to give when they are given the choice. People obviously do not like to give when forced, because of course that is not giving it is theft.
That's the thing about people who think communism is good. In admitting that, they're also admitting that they think people are garbage who need to be FORCED into caring about other human beings. And if that's the case, if humanity will only help one another at the point of a gun, then we are doomed anyway. If you're gonna force a lion at gunpoint to be a vegetarian, it is against his nature and you will fail, and he will either die or beat you and start eating meat again. You're not going to win that fight by force, you're not going to forcibly change the nature of man.
I don't believe we are inherently monsters though.
I've been poor most of my life and had things taken from me, but rarely ever given. As such, I don't give to charity or panhandlers, because I can't afford to and also I am in a constant state of bitterness from having been constantly stolen from. In the very few times where I've suddenly had some kind of windfall and gained a bit of money so that I actually have some breathing space, I immediately become more giving, and will hand a dollar to a guy on the street with a sign that very day. And it's not even sensible, because I should be saving it, because next week there's a catastrophe and I'm poor again and I really need that dollar.
But I believe human nature is to want to help each other, when we don't feel constantly taken advantage of.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. -Ronald Reagan"JosieQ wrote: Great point. It's always funny to me how my country has always lauded capitalism (until recent years, where it's sliding into socialism on the way to communism), how people en masse will brag that in the US you can be anything, you can do anything, you can work and be rich if you try hard enough! But then they casually and automatically hate anyone with money, and people on news will say facts about something like a person's income in a tone that it's an indicator that being rich means he's somehow a piece of garbage. Always hated that contradiction. XD
Marx was just a poor person in the industrial era once, not too much different from you and me, just a bit of an idealistic writer and a bit lazy on the work ethic, so he found a way to justify and condense that into his philosophy. What really changed the world for the worse is when Lenin read his book. Lenin, and later Stalin, wanted power. So yeah, even without that tidbit it's pretty open knowledge how precarious communism is, the one effective tool that they've had is the way they teach their students that outsiders to communism just do not understand communism, and therefore their followers stay loyal and don't question it much or invent new thought often to at least progress the theory. How many decades has it been since communism has had a new evolution?JosieQ wrote: I did not know this and I find it very interesting. I watched a lot of "Star Trek TNG" as a kid, so there's a utopian society as I envision it. How do we get there though? Well, it's my contention that technology is being artificially held back, in addition to capitalism being artificially tanked, and people being artificially forced into poverty, so basically I think the solution is just to stand back and get out of the goddamn way. We need to overthrow our evil overlords, whose admitted purpose is to reduce the population and widen the gap between rich and poor, with a wealthy elite and a giant, poor underclass. Get rid of them and I think humanity by itself will find its way. How to do that though hmm...
By all means do what you like and what will satisfy you then I didn't think of it like that. To me it seemed like some arguments are just not worth the energy to get upset about. Energy is better spent thinking of a good move, like in a chess match, so that one can make a move that's a better argument. But some people enjoy a good fight, too. When it's nonlethal fight and fair, I have nothing against it.JosieQ wrote: Valid point, and I can be very rational when arguing. But I don't see the point of it when someone's passive-aggressively insulting me, or insulting me outright. I can easily keep my temper when someone with wildly different worldviews doesn't agree with me, if they're civil about it. Because I'm not losing my temper so much as escalating by choice when someone's trying to be a dick as I don't agree with pandering to douchebags. I see people stay calm, and get insulted, and stay calm and debate, and get insulted, and stay calm, and it's just sad. It's like watching someone get slapped repeatedly and pretend its not happening. I'd rather, if you slap me, punch you in the face. To bystanders I look like a crazy, enraged psycho, like omg that reaction didn't fit the circumstances!! But it did. It's infinitely more honest. The hypocrite wanted a fight so why shouldn't I give it to them?
(Except that they don't want the fight I give them, really they didn't want to fight at all but just wanted to cowardly say shitty things to people and get away with it, meh I don't like playing that game.)
(Etc. a bit long so I cut it, I addressed the rest of what you said here in replies above out of order from remembering this part)JosieQ wrote:
That's still me and ohhh I actually DID! ...
I like to talk so I cause other people to talk when they're in the mood for it.JosieQ wrote:
This is a fantastic, fantastic thing you've just said. It seems like it should be obvious to people but it isn't. I constantly talk about this hypocrisy, how our society is all about "The children, the children, help the children! Oh what you're 18 today, fuck you got nothin' for you go die now." But when I try to express this, simpletons just take away "Oh so you hate kids." DX
Good post, Guest. Good read. I kinda didn't mean to say so much but you got me babbling. [o~o]