Phi for All

I'm a fan of education. I don't agree with hiding knowledge. When my child was old enough to understand what we were saying, we told her that bottles and jars that weren't in the pantry or refrigerator were never for drinking or eating, that they most likely had solutions in them that would harm her. We never had any poisoning incidents. I know parents who tried to hide the chemicals in their house without explaining and when their children eventually found them they had no idea they were poisonous (no permanent damage occurred, no thanks to the parents). I can't even imagine trying to strike the word dinosaur from schools. Not teaching about slavery simply means that the next person who gets the idea of forcing someone to work for you will have no context to judge for themselves why it's wrong. Showing how the wrong way is wrong is every bit as important as showing why right is right. I also think identifying moral grey areas is important, if only to show why accepting responsibility for your actions is important. You should be able to break the speed limit for your own reasons as long as you're willing to accept the consequences your actions may bring about, whether it's a traffic ticket or a ten-car-pileup with injuries. I absolutely hate the thought that there are so many people out there whose morals revolve around their (steadfast? semi-solid? tenuous? wavering? critically compromised?) faith that a deity will punish them if they kill or steal from people.

I'm fairly liberal in my outlook about most things, but I don't look to science for gut feelings and intuitive leaps. I'd rather be considered hidebound and plodding and know that the explanations I accept are supported by sound methodology, rather than be thought of as a pioneer who hacks his way through the jungle of mystery swinging wildly with the machete of intuition and always wonder if I didn't miss the best trail back where the undergrowth was thickest.

To me, these two statements are spot on. I never assume mainstream science is "correct", it just usually has more evidence to support it. "Minority criticism" isn't automatically wrong, but I normally never see it supported even in a rudimentary sort of way, and certainly not like accepted theory is (accepted being different than "correct"). Respect is necessary for discussion as well, but I think when skeptics refuse to "take the leap" that many speculators ask them to, the resulting comments can seem disrespectful. It's not really about opinion at that point, it's more about taking more careful steps to make sure the ground you're walking on is firm. To me, that's why the methodology works, it requires you to remove as much bias as possible and build your arguments on sound foundations.

Bingo! Bye bye.

You wouldn't want a student to come across your idea in a section he trusted to help him with his Astronomy exam, would you?

! Moderator Note PrimeAxiom, civility is our #1 rule here, which you agreed to when you joined. Avoid attacking the person who makes an argument, and focus on attacking the argument.

I don't think it's the subjects that elicit the responses you mention. I think it's the way they're presented. If it's your opinion, or something you believe but have no evidence for, it needs to be stated that way. If you make your arguments sound like scientific theory, be prepared to provide evidence that supports them. And be prepared for others to bring counter evidence if they have it. It's not how "radical" your criticisms are, it's how they're supported.

Are you talking about poll votes?

Seriously, why are we discussing this with you then? You're arguing that the current US healthcare system is superior to anything from a foreign country. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to make any difference to you. I haven't really seen anyone but you defend the same points. You haven't shown why it's better to pay double, even though you can't show that the US system is twice as good. Even if you could get a concession that the US healthcare system was equal to the foreign systems, you're still left defending your right to pay twice as much for it.

I don't see how this is possible. The first bet is "I'll bet you that i have more money in my wallet than you have in yours." If man A has $2000, he wins man B's $1000. If man A has $1000, man B wins that money because he has $2000. How can the man with the lesser amount win everything when he loses the first bet?

I don't think the value it would bring can ever hope to exceed the troubles it would cause.

The first bet man A makes is that he has more money in his wallet than man B. The implied wager is that the winner gets to keep the loser's cash. The second bet is to switch wallets. The implied wager is that both men keep the cash in the other man's wallet. If one man has $1000 and the other man has $2000, in the first bet the winner (the man who had more money) gets all $3000. In the second bet, the winner is whoever had the lesser amount and traded for the higher amount. No matter who it is, the winner of the second bet ends up with $2000 but the loser gets $1000. The net loss is the same with either bet for the loser, but the net gain is better for the winner in the first bet.

You can stay in my ghosthut forever, Xittenn, but I have a no-dead people policy. I ALWAYS complain about crazy demon sex. I get a little jealous of all those extra appendages. And it can be damned uncomfortable when the appendage to orifice ratio is unbalanced. So I need someplace to go to lift my spirits, just a small haunt where I won't get spooked. That's why I boguht a ghosthut.

I didn't "twist" anything. Everything after the part I quoted was only the slippery slope analogy they used about cell phones being made mandatory. My point was that we shouldn't be thinking of healthcare in terms of emergency only. Effective healthcare needs to be preventative and needs to encompass the vast array of individual needs present in a major economy like the US. It truly grieves me to hear this. And it makes me more adamant than ever that we need to stop paying double for insurance that often fails us just when we need it most. Wow. I don't know what to say about your comparing the WHO to the NCPA. The WHO covers an extremely broad array of global health issues. The NCPA covers free market public policy, and only a fraction of their efforts revolve around healthcare, and all of that is focused on squashing policies that might hinder making a profit from the poor health of American citizens. I don't know what you do for a living Justin. Most of my career has been about figuring out how to market products and services to people. Believe me, turning free market business strategies loose on healthcare for humans ensures one thing, and one thing only: LOTS of customers paying LOTS of money for as little as you can possibly get away with giving them. That's business, but it shouldn't be healthcare. I absolutely love analogies but I have to stop using them. At a gut level, I think I use analogies because I don't have the confidence that those I'm conversing with will understand my points without them. And that's not right. The arguments should stand on their own. More often than not on a site like this, analogies don't cover the whole argument and thus confuse the issue. And they can be seen as strawmen, too. Smart people shouldn't need them, and I guess smarter people shouldn't use them.

I read exactly what was given to me. Without all the extraneous stuff, you're left with no clear decision at all. Man A first bets he has more money. This is a straightforward bet, assuming the winner gets to keep the cash from both wallets. But then he changes things by offering to swap wallets. Is man A betting that his wallet holds more cash than man B's? If this is true, why would he want to switch? And in this instance, the winner is only getting the difference between the two amounts of money. The bet has changed from it's original form.

I don't think I can do a better job of ridiculing that analogy than you've done just by posting it. I'll let it speak for itself. But this part that you liked, "Because health care is something we might all need some day in an emergency"? I'm very happy that you and your family enjoy such fantastic health that you only need health insurance for emergencies. I truly hope that no one you love has any health problems, but I want you to know that I'm completely willing to pay a nominal amount in taxes, with the risks spread out among millions of my fellow taxpayers, to make sure that your family, especially your kids, are covered by a single-payer insurance policy that won't deny them when they need it most. And I'm probably like you, I haven't had much to do with doctors and hospitals in my life, thank goodness. But to me, good health is such a basic necessity of modern life, like clean drinking water, roads, libraries and education, that I'm willing to do my part as an American to help all of us enjoy living and prospering in this great country. We can pull together or we can pull ourselves apart. Yes, they are. From their website, regarding their president, John C. Goodman: Does John sound impartial and objective to you?

Scattered thoguhts. Scattered tohugsth. Scattered shottugh. Scattered ghosthut. Thoughts about ghosthut. Scattered ones.

Does switching the wallets mean that now man A's wallet belongs to man B? If so, then switching completely changes the focus of the original bet. And if switching means man B no longer has access to the other things in his wallet besides money, then he shouldn't take the bet. He needs his ID. Also, man A specified "money", which is different than "cash". A platinum credit card or a bank debit card represents a lot of "money", technically. And riddles sometimes depend on technicalities.

Auto, home, even life insurance put a fixed dollar amount on what is being insured. Health insurance can't do that. How can we know what will happen to us health-wise? This is why I think health insurance should NOT be part of a private, market-based business model. There are way too many conflicts of interest there. So, people who disagree with you get rude comments instead of conversation? Are you feeling hateful about this community too?

I would like to know the exact methodology used to determine "the way the cookie crumbles".

I think I've heard this very cusp before.

Needless to say,

As iNow points out, this analogy is beyond flawed. The success enjoyed by other countries with national healthcare systems is not a fictional entertainment, it's a well-documented fact. And the point is not to "set our standards by the rest of the world", the point is that when you're having trouble with something, it's wise to look to others who've been successful and learn from them, see what they're doing right and adapt it to your own situation. We aren't too proud to admit we can learn from foreigners, are we? Is that the problem here, that as Americans we must do everything from scratch with no help from outsiders? If so, we are wasting one of the most valuable resources we've worked so hard for, the ability to pool our knowledge with the rest of the world to make us even better.

Some people have a talent that they aren't interested in cultivating using the combination iNow mentions above (although I agree with his list). For those who truly utilize their talent, I would add a fair amount of drive and determination to what he said. Natural ability combined with a desire to cultivate that ability don't necessarily go hand in hand. I often wonder if privilege doesn't dampen this kind of desire. How many musical prodigies had everything they needed at their disposal and how many had to expend a great deal of effort just to find someone to let them practice on their piano? I think desire is stronger when there is a struggle.

+1. Can I use this in my signature, please?