Raider5678

Even in countries with national health care, they don't typically cover this. They'll often prescribe pain medication instead. And in the few countries that do, patients often wait years, if not the rest of their life, for the surgery.

So you disagree with my premise that not all wars are moral and not all wars are immoral?

Because they weren't involved in the war at that time. They weren't involved when Poland was invaded. They weren't involved when France was invaded. They were involved when Austria was invaded. Now. Are you going to stop gish galloping around and actually answer my questions, or are you going to continue asking random questions that don't make sense, saying other random things to get out of actually giving a straight answer, and just otherwise using circumlocution?

Have you studied World war 2 history at all? This is utterly ignorant of all that actually happened prior to it. Austria and Czechoslovakia were both completely annexed by Germany and other surrounding powers. War still happened. Do you think the Allies just waited for one little infraction by Germany before declaring war? No. The one you quoted.

This scenario is equivalent to the ticking time bomb scenario where it's simply too unrealistic to give a good answer. That's the problem. It's not unrealistic to question the morality of the Allies actions in WW2, because it happened. It wouldn't be unrealistic to question the morality of potentially invading North Korea, for example. But it is unrealistic to assume that a perfect utopian nation would emerge. There's no information on the motives, the causes, or anything of the sort of this country. It's impossible to even speculate about the morality of it, because anything I say can be countered with a "What if this though?" and it'll lead me to be strawmanned into a position I don't want to hold(not by you.)

So you're going to continue to avoid the question. Gotcha.

So it is unrealistic to say there may be a scenario where one country attacks another? Seriously? I even used the example of Nazi Germany invading other countries. What would you have done in that situation? Was it wrong for America to invade Germany on D-Day?

You keep saying that as though it applies to every situation.

So, there is a man with a gun. Let's call him Russia. Russia is about to shoot another man. Let's call him Ukraine. There is another guy named America standing there. He's holding a gun. Russia aims the gun at Ukraine and goes to pull the trigger. How do you defend him? Similarly, imagine if it was countries. What do you do if another country begins to invade other countries(I.E. Nazi Germany invading other countries.)?

This doesn't even make any sense. Would you attempt to defend others even if you weren't at risk of dying?

These here. I feel that this is a prime point for being able to say that war in and of itself isn't morally wrong. War is fought for different reasons. I'd venture to say a war that if fought over purely gaining excess economic power is morally wrong. But at the same time, a nation that is on the brink of total starvation that starts a war to get land to grow food, which is an economic power, isn't necessarily morally wrong. But since both of these are an economic war, yet one can widely be viewed as immoral, and another is not, this is why I don't believe we should be assigning the morality to war itself. We can discuss the morality of motives because ultimately that is on the human side of things. War, on the other hand, is not. It's a situation that you can be in. To me, it's similar to saying drowning is an immoral thing because people die. It's one thing to be drowning because someone is holding you under water. It's a totally other thing to be drowning because you can't swim. Either way, it doesn't make sense to apply morality to the situation.

How can you say war is morally wrong though? Is it anyone who participates in the war? Only the attackers? Only the ones who ordered it? What specifically makes it immoral? Do you mean hunting for food? Animal control? Farming animals? I mean, I find killing animals purely for enjoyment rather distasteful, but it's very rarely the case in this modern day.

My bad, it was a mistake. I understand that it exists, but I meant in a physical context, as you mentioned.

Water is a physical object that can be touched, manipulated, created, destroyed, etc. Time, is an abstract concept of measurement. We cannot create it, touch it, manipulate it, create it, or destroy it. It's something we perceive, not something that exists. Take an inch for example. It's definition is "a unit of linear measure equal to one twelfth of a foot." And a foot is "a unit of linear measure equal to 12 inches." Both of them define each other. They're not in a physical or mechanical context. Yet we know what they are. It's the same thing. An inch can be measured by the amount of time it takes a laser to reflect off of a mirror and return to the emitter. An inch will be measured because we know the speed of light, and we know how long it should take for the laser to travel that far and come back. So, once the laser returns in that amount of time, you know you have an inch. A foot can be measured by 12 times that long. I'm assuming you'd agree that this is an "unmistakable" definition in a "physical or mechanical context." A second can be measured by 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two levels of the caesium atom. As a result, we have a physical definition of a second. It's a measurement.

Potentially. In the case of depression, however, depression affects women more, so I feel like if depression was a major driving factor then we'd see higher drug use in women. Or at least less of a disparity between male and female drug use.

It's already happening. Do you know that Ctrl + F function on your computer? That allows lawyers to scan thousands of papers millions of times faster than the average team of lawyers. So, instead of spending 12 hours a day scanning through documents looking for that one key piece of evidence, with a team of 15 expert lawyers........ it's now 1 lawyer using a computer. A vast majority of lawyer work is repetitive paperwork. The TV shows are great and all when they show trial lawyers, but that's actually a relatively rare thing in the world of law. Most of it is just paperwork, which is highly susceptible to automation.

My personal expected option: - Trump gets to 2020, pockets the millions he's raised for a reelection campaign, doesn't run, and walks away from politics forever.

What does it matter? The question wasn't about what I want or what is more effective.

It is a crime, but it needs to be proven. Also, this "open admission" would never hold up in the court of law. Whether it's actually happening or not, it takes quite a bit of a stretch to say that when Trump said Cohen is "threatened by the truth" he's actually admitting to threatening him.

Sweet. +1 to your other post by the way, it was reasonable and logical, and definitely makes sense. I didn't look at it like that before.

Anyways, I just realized how off topic I took this thread. For some reason, it felt as though the discussion was about the government shutdown more than the border wall. Anyways, I'm gonna stop before I get some of you guys in trouble.

Again man, it wasn't directed at you. Calm down. You don't. But what does public health and safety have to do with paying federal employees their paycheck? @zapatos We can both agree I didn't strawman you correct? Simple misunderstanding? You did, in fact, say "unacceptable."

Alright, I get that now. Why do you think it was unacceptable to the Democrats?(This isn't questioning whether or not it was unacceptable to the democrats, I'm asking why. The question can be taken two ways so I figured I'd ask.) It didn't give Trump his wall/fence. But it would reduce his ability to use federal workers as a bargaining chip. I feel like it should have been acceptable.

The GOP proposal was to pay workers their paychecks. You said they knew it was unacceptable. I want to know why it was unacceptable. If that's not what you meant, just say so.

It's not. But I want to know why you think it's unacceptable to pay people their paychecks before the government reopens. I think we'd both agree that the government should reopen. But if that's not going to happen any time soon, surely we can agree to pay them their paychecks? You have yet to explain how it's compromising on public health and security. Again, how is it sacrificing public health and safety if we pay the workers their paychecks? If anything, it'd increase public health and safety, as workers like TSA agents would be able to do their job properly. And why can't we vote to give workers their paychecks if we can't open the government? It's not sacrificing health and safety. It's actually increasing it. Relax buddy. It wasn't addressed at you. Your explanation was that it was rewarding bad behavior. I asked how. You didn't respond. So I'll ask again. How is it rewarding bad behavior?