JustinW

Is this really about the desire to understand or is it more the desire to accept? In most conversations that I'm in that have a high number of people that oppose my view points, I don't feel that there is a need for my understanding, but rather a need for my acceptance of their view points. And while I know that I'm as guilty as anyone, about that in particular, I don't feel that it's necessary to call it something other than what it is. When people are exposed to alternate points of view, it doesn't necessarily mean that peoples view points will change. Some might, depending on their willingness for change, but that is a whole other subject. Generally when people dismiss a conversation for the reason that, "someone is not open to their point of view", I tend to think the real reason is because that person wasn't open to accepting their point of view as being right, rather than any attention being placed on information. Also: this reminds me of the thread about reality, "What's real, how does anybody know, etc...?" One of those could be's, but isn't provable. Everyone automatically listens to more of the information that supports their world view. And why shouldn't they? The greatest leaders in history have built upon their view of what the world should be. And did they get that view strictly from themselves or those that think like they did? They had to have heard other views that contradicted their own because most were highly educated. I guess what I'm thinking of here is that I see nothing wrong with someone having a firm world view, getting information from those who support that view, and not changing that view because someone else has a different one. It seems this Sanchez fella thinks that political polarization would be different depending on the type of media the masses are exposed to, but as iNow touched on with the polarization during the civil war, I think it is more about what the issue is and the view points of those involved. Although I can see where the information available might sway someone according to their pre-world-view, I don't think it is a deciding factor in subscribing to one view or another. Kinda like this example from Saryctos: Does anyone think that someone with an extreme liberal view is not getting the right balance of conservative understanding? Or visa versa? Do extreme animal lovers not go hunting enough? I mean, the idea is plausible to some degree, but I still can't see how it is a determining factor on the levels of ones extremism. Does that make any sense?

Jeskill, It's funny that others are just as hardheaded with their viewpoints but nno one seems to think debating with them is pointless. Name one solution proposed by Phi that didn't include government control of something. If there was a proposal of a free market solution or even a compounding comment on one, I must have missed. I would be glad if you would point at least one out for me so I could know if I'm as mistaken as you think I am. Why sure they do. Did you even read post 66? Some freedoms can be taken, but whether they should are not is highly debatable among the populace. It just so happens that no one wants to debate about it with someone who opposes their view points. Classy.

Athena, Sometimes this is where I get into it with others who have different thoughts on what rights are and where they come. Historically in the US our rights were defined as God given. The difference between the two is that a human right is only given by those which hold the power to give them (or take them away). A God given right (or natural right) are rights that every being is born with. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_given_rights . We are still in this argument to this very day. "Who gets the authority, and how much. What is our freedom and whether we should give it up and why." These are some of the most argued political philosophies of our times, and I think will continue to be so for the rest of our existance. Some have implied recently that freedom is a mystical thing and that it is acceptable to give it up a little at a time in place of comfort or security, and that it's the public's vigilance that keeps authority from erring. Historically, this has not worked. If the vigilance of the masses was effective in this way, then we would have never had reason to fight in those world wars. So while we give authority to some, I think our founder's vigilance was more focused on keeping the authority's power limited so that the errors of that authority are inturn limited. I think ewmon answered this quite well in the above post, where it was said that a group of people can come to a far better conclusion than one person could. And that a group of people that live similar lives can pass judgement far better than someone who only enjoys the finer things in life. This is the reason that I think a trial by jury is ethically the best course for justice that we are bound to get at this point in time.I also think that some people take the power of a democracy for granted. I have felt that some think that a democracy is a full proof way to avoid tyranny, all the while steering that same democracy in a direction that invites tyranny and abuse of power. Sorry for being a little off topic, my mind leads me in multiple directions. I think that wanting these types of forums to be publicly democratic is right in one way, but I think it is also wrong in another since they are privately owned. Let's take your house for example. Not just anyone is free to come and go, and say anything that they want to in your house, are they? Why heck no. That's your house and what you say goes. It's your private property, where you let in who you want to let in, and kick some out if they disrespect you. These forums are the same in that regard. Although this is one that I think pretty fair in it's guidelines, it's as privately owned as you owning your house, so doesn't fall into the rules of democracy that have to be adhered to by government. I'm also fairly certain that any bannishment is talked over and discussed with several different members of moderators before a decision is reached, so in that regard, is fairly democratic. Now in regards to defense of ones actions.... I can't claim to know if one gets a chance to defend against bannishment, but I would hope that would be the case, if only for the sake of fairness.

Questionposter, Sure, but the majority don't want to pay for it as it stands today. They might have if two things would have happened. 1- The public could have had time to study the bill before it was rammed through behind closed doors. 2- If the government didn't take it upon itself to penalize it's citizens for not buying a product.In my arguments on this issue I include alot of other things that I think are legitimate reasons for not liking this form of system, but I think this thing would have had alot more support had those two things been done. On the number one reason, it's the fact that when you see things like this happen in a democracy, 9 times out of 10 they turn out to be shady in one way or another. On the number 2 reason, this whole reform revolves around this mandate, which is against some very core principles that alot of Americans hold. So if number 2 doesn't stand up, then the whole thing gets shot down. I think those are the main two reasons for such opposition to the reform.

iNow, When you comment on a specific remark that I make, it doesn't quite imply a big picture response is necessary. My, "yeah buts", are usually followed by something that has either been left unsaid or is refutable with your well thought out remarks. Phi, What you call mystical, others (and I would say a majority) view as litteral. Just because you don't mind trading freedom for comfort/security (you know, that warm fuzzy feeling that helps you folks sleep better at night), doesn't mean that others should be just as willing. And you talk about burdening the rest of you....YOU never talk about getting rid of that burden. YOU just want to make that burden mandatory by law. How was it put in another thread.....Oh yeah, intimidation through the use of violence and imprisonment. It seems that you and big business have something in common Phi. Hunger for money. Who would've thought? Oh I get it. When people think of money in terms of profit it's bad, and freedom only matters if it's something you support, is that it? Is that the way of this new social movement? No principles that are set in stone? Just whatever's trendy at the time? Oh...wait...there is one, rock solid principle, I've seen that has pretty much been the statis quoe with this whole movement. It is the principle of government control always being the solution. If other parts of the world do so much better, then what the hell are you still doing here? Why not join those other FREE WORLD people if you like their kind of freedom better. Sounds just like a "free market" guy to me. Maybe you need to take a step back and decide what philosophy you politically ascribe to. One thread to the next seems a little jumpy. One instant profit is good (with restrictions). The next, the whole goddamn market is unethical pondscum taking advantage of the down-trodden poor folk. Give me a f***ing break. For some reason Marxism comes to mind. "Control the middle class by creating a crisis based on smaller problems", does that seem familiar? My gripe ain't about reform. It's about the solution outweighing the problem. I never said anything of the kind, and in fact have stated that reform is fine. Just not your kind. I see your kind of healthcare reform as a blaitant slap in the face to the freedom of, not just Americans, but people in general. You got one thing right though. Yep you definitely got that right. But let me let you in on a little secret that the underground isn't telling you. FREEDOM IS NOT MYSTICAL. Since the conversation has ended for you, I will not await your rebuttal. iNow, Oh yay. What about the rest of the programs? Anything on them? Does this in no way seem just like a political scheme to you? If fraud and embezzlement mattered to these polititions, don't you think that it wouldn't be happening in just this one area? Oh BTW, nice graph.

Athena, I too enjoy thoughtful discussion. In fact, I believe, it has made me who I am today. Though I'm FARRRR from perfect, I can remember the exact moment that a thoughtful discussion put my life on a path towards making something more of myself. I can truthfully say that without that discussion, at that time in my life, I would have ended up without the thirst for knowledge and understanding that I have today. I should take that further to say, that I would have been among the dreggs of society, as I see them today. I find it amazing how 1 simple conversation can influence a person's entire way of thinking in a way that changes them for the better. Truthfully I think it is because of the times, rather than historically. In the time of Jesus, if someone did you wrong, the following confrontation would have been more personal. This is why He said, "bring someone with you to confront this person." The 3rd person is the one who will see the problem logically. This is one reason I say blind/impersonal justice. Someone to look at the problem that has nothing to gain by the outcome of the argument. Too many times have we seen someone judged based upon their stature within society, rather than their actions as an equal citizen. Therefore, to my way of thinking, justice should be blind. Some of the simplest of questions are among the hardest to answer.I can see where society is becoming too impersonal, in that a person's character cannot be displayed on a sheet of paper, one misdeed should not define a person's life, and a signature should not outweigh a handshake. These are just some examples of where I think society has lost it's feel for personhood. I think this is a reason that I reclude myself to smaller communities. Almost every interaction made is more of a personal one and I think the community and the people in that community are stronger because of it. But I don't think that there is any one right answer to what kind of society we want. The bigger a society becomes the less personal it seems to be. The time it would take to personalize every decision made would far exceed one's life span. So we can only do what we can and hope that the human condition still reflects our decision making. Never you fear. We've got a saying down here that you may have already heard, but I feel it bears repeating. "It'll all come out in the wash" After it's all said and done with, things usually aren't as bad as they seem at first. Although any criminal offense looks bad on a report, this risisting arrest is only a misdemeanor that will probably be overlooked by most employers. And if the employer is the type that doesn't take the personal aspect of a situation into account, then she probably doesn't want to work for the weasley S.O.B. anyway.

JohnB, It makes a whole lot more sense to me now that you've explained it this way. You're saying that the PBS doesn't deny drugs because they cost too much, but rather deny the drugs that should be easily affordable in order to keep a surplus for those that are not? Some hefty competition in any arena. Yes, and I'd probably be one of them. I don't feel it necessary to give up on my beliefs in freedom just to save a buck. iNow, I didn't think you would've considered, "We know about Medicare fraud", a well-crafted argument that needed alot of reflection.

questionposter, And their freedom to make that money. Money doesn't equal equality. Just like any other system, but at least in a capitalistic democracy, the people have more control over what is being done and the opportunity to change it without the threat of being killed. How are you being taken advantage of? How are people here in the US being taken advantage of to a point that they feel the need to scream "equality"? Syria has an authoritarian government with a nasty little dictator who calls himself a president but so conveniently has no competition for leadership. The syrian people didn't have the opportunity that capitalism provides, so why use them as an example? All of these examples seem to have one thing in common. A DICTATOR. My whole point here was that capitalism provides the closest form of equality. And my reference to those who scream "equality", was for those here in the US who fail to see that fact. Is there some reason you think everyone should be rich? That's absurd. Capitalism is the opportunity to succeed based on the amount of effort put toward achieving success. Not everyone is going to be rich. A lazy person will probably never be rich. A person that doesn't make the proper choices will probably never be rich. A person that is satisfied with the statis quoe will probably never be rich (unless there statis quoe is already rich). But it is those who strive to become more than they are that find success. It's the opportunity TO succeed that is equal to everyone through capitalism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the best model there is for now.

iNow, Yeah but they didn't have to totally take over BEFORE they adressed these types of problems. Maybe if they woud have, we could have been on a better track to reduce spending. That was my point. People want to pass this off to government control without even adressing the problems first.

I too ran into an interesting article today that supports my take on fraud and how much it actually affects our spending and availability. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11504338-feds-unveil-allegations-of-450-million-in-medicare-fraud-schemes?lite And keep in mind that without even covering patient abuses this type of fraud alone is estimated to cost taxpayers upwards of 160 billion dollars a year.

Questionposter, post # Why do they deserve a certain standard of living? Just because they are alive? Capitalism presents an opportunity to gain a standard of living based on a persons willingness to succeed. Whereas communism or socialism, you just have to settle for what's given. Who's to say what's recieved will be equal to one's contribution? This was you're reply to Anvars equal living and normal distribution comment in post #4 Even if it does happen, how long would it stay that way? Nothing about the current poverty rates says that socialism or communism is better than capitalism. Or that capitalism causes more poverty. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line In post #9 Jeskill said this: Then in post #12 you said this Which wasn't in reply, but the part that I bolded seemed to me to be relevant to what Jeskill had commented on, in that it always seemed to me that it was a self-destructive behavior for someone not striving to utilize the opportunity that is equal to them through capitalism. It is just the feeling sorry for people that don't use this opportunity that most people scream "equality" about. Did that make any sense, or did I bungle it up with the mismatching quotes? And personally I think dimreepr nailed it in post number 7. Or at least it sounded good. Sorry I jumped in the conversation so late. I ment to comment several days ago but haven't had the time.

okay, but here's what you said that made me respond that way. And I felt it necessary to point out that private companies may still profit off of public roads. Yep, they do want to make a profit. But here's how I see a privately owned toll road. I see it much like a fairy. If you want to cross by that means, you're going to have to pay. If you don't want to pay, go around or find another way. I'm not sure what the big deal is about these toll roads. A company profits, and.... Why do you think it's unnecessarily? Is it just that a company profits off of something that you feel should be free? True, but...I believe it's easier to pass a law than it is to kick an incumbent. It takes quite alot to turn public opinion against, and working with a corporation to "free it up to make more jobs", is not going to insight the public outrage that would be needed. A politition can always spin the situation to their favor. At least to the point of holding office. So I see passing a law against corporations as needed is a whole lot easier than creating another government run institution. I would like to here an example of a corporation who has sent jobs overseas after their taxes and regulations were cut to specifically keep those jobs here. It would be one thing if they said one thing and did another, but it's something totally different if they got what they asked for and did it anyway. And political advocacy really depends on what you're advocating. Strengthening government control over the populace is not a good advocacy point in my opinion. And who's fault would that be? You always talk about not treating corporations like people, but it seems that you don't want them acting like corporations either. If we can't keep them from doing things that are a part of their very nature to do, then it's our own fault. How does that even compare. What two businesses does that announcement pit against eachother? Who does that help over another? I don't get the comparison.

Of course they are. Private companies work on and build roads all the time. Just because it's tax money that pays for it, doesn't mean that private companies do not profit from them. Also, where did this UNNECESSARILY come from? Who decides that? Then let me reiterate. You said this in post 62: I do. Because now you're effectively pitting a government backed, tax funded, entity against a private sector business. How is that not giving the government more power? How would that not affect everyone who is involved in that private sector business. And what's to happens once that government entity dominates that part of the market? Is it going to back off or is it going to move to another part of the market?Not to sound all "slippery slope" or "conspiracy theorist" here, but I can just imagine that this is how it starts. "Obviously the private sector doesn't do this well enough", "okay the government can do a better job, they can take over". On and on, until before you know it, we all are government employees. Sounds Great. You say we just need to remain vigilant to keep this from happening, but where is our vigilance where government is conserned. You claim they already pander to the corporations and visa versa. Why do you think our vigilance will be any different in any other area? I think people have started to believe that the government is ACTUALLY "We the People". When this could not be further from the truth. When people hear "We the People" used as explaining government they should automatically think "just a representative", and it is this vigilance that our founding fathers wanted us to maintain. That's why I don't really get this mantality of letting government run things. It seems absurd. But sure enough, little by little, it grows and grows. So why not tackle this problem head on? I think we have a better track record of passing new laws than fixing broken government institutions.I'm not saying to let the corporations govern themselves. WE already govern them, I say we need to do better at that. Like I said "picking and choosing". You now have government backed, tax funded, advertising for one company above another. Although it is indirect, it is still direct enough to distinguish. Let's say that one company makes a product that will last twice as long as it's competitors product. And although it lasts twice as long as it's competitors, the competitors product looks twice as good at half the cost with a catchier advertisement. Who's fault is it when the company, who's product lasts twice as long, goes under? It's the markets fault. It's what people want. Are you going to say that it's peoples freedom that ultimately stifles their freedom? Oh you got me now. I might as well spill the beans. I'm part of a secret commy group that has a new way of recruiting. We think, by preaching freedom that everyone will ultimately join the ranks of servitude and subjugation. Good plan right? It seems to be working across America as we speak.

There are two meanings to life. First is just plain old experience. If you experience nothing, then it couldn't be classified as a life. Second is procreation. Procreate so that others may experience as well. Ahhh, the cycle of life comes down to two basic points.

ewmon, I read an interesting book a while back called "To Hell and Back" by a Dr. Rawlings. It gave quite a few vivid accounts of trauma patient's near death experiences. I recall one about a patient that was flat lining from cardiac arrest. He was resusitated 4 or 5 times, and every time he came back, he was screaming that it burns. Still sends chills up my spine just thinking about it. Anyway, whether true or not, it was an interesting read.

Phi, Those that are being sold to private interests are being done so under the assumption that that company would pay for maintenance and repair. Also the toll that is applied is based on convenience for the motorists. If someone doesn't want to pay the toll they don't have to drive the road. So the district has cut costs by not having to pay for that roads maintenance and repair, while the public controls the price of the toll through their own demand for convenience. Sounds like a win win to me. Of course I'm the type that doesn't expect something for nothing. I'm sure alot of others would think that they should be able to drive that road for free. Hmmm... I'm going to have to think about this a little bit. Off the top of my head it would seem that the taking of this power wouldn't just hurt corporations, but everyone from the producing and manufacturing end, all the way down to the individual consumer. But now you're effectively going to let the government pick winners and losers in a FREE market? Now instead of parents and teachers teaching their children core values, we are going to allow the government policy do it for us? I can't agree with that at all.

Phi, Well you sure haven't been talking about giving polititions less power. Weren't you suggesting that it would be good to give government more power as long as the populace remained vigilant? I fully agree with this. I've always hated that polititions can get a slap on the hand, while a regular Joe gets prison time. And in fact, I would like to see somewhat harsher punishment come to those who hold office. (Depending upon the crime of course.) This is supposition based on the premmis that private companies would own them if government didn't. Who controled the roads before government started building highways? Were private companies out there squeezing the citezenry for being on them? I wonder whose second cousin that will be. Get my drift? Man, it's a wonder we ever survived. Phi, I read this: and had to chuckle. Who in that position wouldn't want that? I have a little issue with the way this is being argued. Is it not the consumers responsibility to learn how to differentiate between these things? Since the first market was created there has been swindlers, crooks, and those who would falsely equate price with value. I would have to say, that although these issues that you've laid down have an impact on sales, that it is the product itself that keeps it afloat in the market. If a product doesn't meet with the public standard of value compared to price payed, then that product should see sales stagnating in place of another more trust worthy product. Advertizing and the lack of education only go so far before reality takes over in the market. So in a sense we are just as free to make a bad decision as right one. The only thing that controling this type of thing would do is give someone else more control in order to take peoples freedom of making a wrong decision away. No one wants to make a wrong choice, but I would hate to see the freedom to do so taken away. Does that make any sense at all, or am I just rambling incoherently? (that happens sometimes) iNow, Then by your own sequence of thought here, you would effectively be deminishing EVERYONE'S freedom by making them pay for someone else by (like ecoli said) the threat of violence and imprisonment. Is that more or less correct? And I would also have to say that if you didn't have healthcare that THAT is already the option that you have chosen. So that freedom of option was already there. This is true if you can keep it limited. I would classify this sort of action right allong with the Food Administration or anything else that keeps harmful toxins from affecting the public. But I wouldn't use this scenario for all government intervention.

I really have no answer to this. It seems like a logical position to me. I'm all in favor of opening the market up, and I believe I support your position on the hemp issue. Touche. Your point is taken sir. At first it seemed a little out there that cannibus legalization was being held back by industry rather than political rhetoric. But after you laid it out it begins to make a little more sense.

Phi, Oh I agree. My point was to say "why give these types of people more control than absolutely necessary?". We know that it's easy to let the crooks in ,unknown until they're caught, so it would seem that giving those people more power would not be a good thing. Just because there is a middle man that takes that money from you and distributes it, doesn't mean that you don't already pay for it. So your argument is basicly that you don't have to arrange payment, that someone already does that for you, and that frees up your day to spend time on other things? This is the very concept that VIGILANCE is needed. Little by little control is given to someone else for the sake of comfort or security and it is that reason that people will eventually find themselves caught in the clutches of tyranny.

ecoli, I guess it was. Shows you how much I pay attention. I don't know how I looked at that wrong. Oh well. Phi, I don't think voting against the legalization of cannibus is all due to manipulation. You have to agree that there are problems that come with the legalizing of it. And those conscerns are legitimate. I don't personally think those conscerns outweigh the benifits, but I do recognize the position of those who would oppose. I think we probably already know the answer to that. ecoli, I think the whole manipulation theory here is speculative at best. Using this theory, everything can be chocked up to manipulation.

Phi, I don't know how vigilant the French are. It seems just in the short scan I just did that the French government is chock full of criminals. Everything from gun trafficking to bribery to alledged shady deals with foreign leaders to fund campaigns. It's okay to allow people like that to gain control as long as your vigilant about what they do for/to you? There's probably a reason that so high of a percentage of people show up at the polls. It's probably because that's the only way they can maintain at least a semblance of control. But I guess I'm speaking out of turn here. This was the whole point of my asking. I had a feeling the question was going to be hard to answer and when folks say that the government taking care of one thing frees you up to do other things, I think, is a disinginuous argument. ecoli, If you'll read back a little bit, I think you'll see where it fits in the conversation.

I have a question. How can a blackhole have more energy kenetic/potential than the star itself, at or after the time of supernova? Did it gain energy from a source other than the star? Or am I misunderstanding what types or amounts of energies that are envolved?

Man Phi, I'm glad you put the "so called" in there. I'd hate to be associated with only caring about money. And I guess it's more of a libertarian view than anything else. (politically that is) edit: Woops! Cross posted with ecoli.

Phi, Vigilance huh? A lot of people claim that the public in general are not smart enough to make choice decisions, but you seem to think that they can be vigilant enough not to let a government become tyrannical or detrimental to freedom? What's your take on that? Now that you're back, did you find that people in europe are any freer than people here in the US? Do they do more substantial things with their lives? Do they make more of themselves as a whole than the US does? You had me thinking you were talking about Texas for a minute.;)Except that I would have added waving at passing motorists, saying "yes maam", and generally not asking someone to do something that you are not willing to yourself. The list can go on, but I've tooted the Texas horn enough for one sitting.

Hello Phi, hope the trip went well. I mostly agree with you on this to a certain extent. What I was trying to get across was that not all of the charges based on differences are BS. I agree that they can get out of hand when justifying some charges, but a cost analysis should still apply when comparing gender, race, location, etc... Things like domestic violence, and I'm sure there are others, I think are going above and beyond a fair cost analysis. And it's these types of things that give these companies a bad name and spur along outrage throughout the public to give people an excuse to do away with the whole system. So I believe that these companies should look at differences when doing a cost analysis, (that's only good business), but I think they should be aware not to cross a line between good business and squeezing consumers. And I agree here too once I think about it. This is where free market competition should give the consumer more freedom. But how this certain area of the market has developed, the consumer has nowhere else to turn. This I believe is the biggest problem with our healthcare system. And don't get me wrong, even though I believe this is a big problem, I still don't agree with the changes that are trying to be made. I think we should open up the market to better benifit the consumer. We can do this by focusing on not just one area, but multiple areas at once that drive costs. No, as I explained above, I was commenting on the fact that it's not as cut and dry as you made it seem. A cost analysis needs to take every factor into consideration, but it is those that would take the high end and apply it across the board that are disingenuous. I know if I owned a business that I wouldn't focus on maximizing profit ABOVE quality of consumer relations. And I have a feeling that that is the exact reason that we are in the pickle that we're in these days. With the amount of conversations we've had over the past several months, I can't imagine your character as malicious. So it would have to be pretty harsh before I would consider anything you say as a personal attack. I can see how you could be confused on my take of these types of situations. It's not that I flip flop on these topics. It's that I'm not just an all or nothing kind of person. I will always stand up for free market capitalism. Does this mean that I can't think that certain things are wrong about it? NO. But it seems that any time I express some thoughts about something that is wrong with it, people say "Aha", or "you think one thing one minute then another thing the next". I don't see why you can't see the problems in a system without wanting to scrap the whole thing. Then people that want to replace this kind of system with another seem to totally ignore the things that are wrong with the system that they champion. It makes no kinda sense to me. And I did ask what gives. I also implied that it was a direct result of Obama's healthcare reform law, but no one seems to want to give an answer to that. I can see this reform hurting before it helps on a couple of different levels, but again, no one seems to give a damn about that either just as long as the end result is government control.