Joeseph Stack's Suicide Letter

[contactus]

ikieren you're seriously an idiot. stop asking for evidence. Give me "evidence" that you love your mother. Give me "evidence" of a superior being that 95% of the dumbass world believes in.

Finally, give me "evidence" that you don't have a giant pink dildo with purple dots shoved up your rectum right now.

Your country no matter where your dumbass is from is ran by whoever has the most money, period.

So give me EVIDENCE that i'm wrong. dumbass.

[Ikeren]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

[Bannedfornoreason]

Corporations control our government.

Health insurance should not cover a skinned knee or a cavity in your tooth.

Health insurance should cover things that *are unexpected and a catastrophic* the type of thing that would be a total freak accident.

As it is now, the government controls the prices on everything by having this strong grip on every doctor in the country. Everyone pays way too much for something they don't need and often times people pay for tons of shit that they don't want.

If doctors had to compete with each other not only would you get better care, but it would be cheaper. The beauty of free market capitalism in the health field is that there's no such thing as a Walmart of healthcare. There is only one Dr. Richards or Dr. Brown.

Why do those who have power and money push for universal health care? Because your taxes will go to meaningless, crappy health care. None of your money will be tracked, and the bulk of it wont even be used on health care. They simply justify the taxes by saying "don't worry we got your back" Meanwhile they line their pockets and further invest in the destruction of your country.

When's the last time you died or had a catastrophic car accident? It's like buying life insurance at age 23.

[contactus]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

What the fuck makes you think the medical industry has the most money? Please use better keywords in your google searches.

[Ikeren]

If the hypothesis is that money has power, then the drug companies should have sufficient power, unless someone else with more money was pushing this policy through. Since the point of your argument is that people are more or less powerless, it can't be them. It is unlikely some other major financial power (banks, oil companies, who else? Gun, alcohol, media, cigarettes to an extent...) pushed this through.

So either you have: Some major financial power deliberately hitting drug companies (internal conflict) or you have politicians that aren't following the money = absolute power hypothesis.

And why do people keep getting banned? I'm confused.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The differences between a constitutional republic and a representative democracy are subtle enough for the purpose of discussing relative powers of banks to government, the distinction is not massive.

"Representative Democracy" is, by the very definitions of those two words, an oxymoron. It, along with "American Democracy" were invented to distract sheep from the real goal of replacing actual slavery with consumer slavery. It allows people to feel like they have power to cause real change, but in fact the only elements of the system malleable by citizens are those which are selected for us. For instance, try and vote us out of Iraq.

"Representative Democracy" and "American Democracy" are actually two euphamisms for our unique system of military/government/media/corporate authority over people. If you look at JUST the governmental aspect, it can be described most correctly as a "constitutional republic," but to thus ignore the other major power centers of this country (the bombs [military - this includes paramilitary organizations {e.g. Blackwater}], media influence, & money, respectively) would be sticking your head in the sand in a major way.

[IRS]

But Ikeren needs "Evidence"

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by IRS [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But Ikeren needs "Evidence"

Some truths are held to be self-evident.

[Ikeren]

No. Representative democracy is a system to be contrasted with direct democracy. Direct democracy is where everyone votes on every issue. This being unweildly in large democratic or semi-democratic nations, most of them have switched to direct democracy, where the people elect a leader by popular vote (or, in the US case, a system of electing people to elect a leader). Indirect democracies are not less democracies.

Hypothetically, real change could happen within the system, though I agree with you that it is unlikely. I would argue, however, that it is not a result of the government system itself, but the result of the people working in that government system, the conventions that arose around it, and the media.

The issue of Iraq is interesting because there are material conditions. No leader would disengage a war---any war, if they thought it was going to lead to severe counter-attacks. Which political leaders have repeatedly said they believe (whether they do or not is impossible to know).

Representative Democracy exists in a lot of countries other than the US, that have similar trouble with corporate media influences on their people and their government without the military-industrial complex influncing the government as well (Canada, Australia, some EU states that have very minimal militaries).

I feel like we mostly agree that
1) The media is a major problem.
2) The current incarnations of corporate capitalism are a major problem.
3) The current political structure of many democratic nations are a problem.
4) The interactions of these things are a problem.
5) The military-complex is a problem in the nations with it (The US, obviously).

I feel like the point at which we disagree on is the material capability of a good government. *If people were sufficiently educated and aware of what was going on around them, I think real change could come, either by revolution or by simple pressure on political candidates, that realize things have to change.

I think another major difference on where we stand is I think the best way to convince people is reasonable, academic argument, working with ideas they already accept; ie, working within the paradigm that this system has set up (like Noam Chomsky does). Alternative theorists don't do that; and that's my complaint. The same goal, but I'm under the impression that the methods of conspiracy theorists often undermine that goal, not support it.

For example, see the line that says '*If people' up above? Imagine that line finished..."If people broke free from the shackles of corrupt society that have imprisoned them so long and rise up and seize the rotting flesh of totallitarian america and rend it from its bones! Voltaire Those who kill shall be put to death unless they murder in large numbers to sound of trumpets"...think about how much less coherent I'd sound to people who don't already believe me?

[Sword]

And your list of small potatoes are made possible by *stealing* peoples property and stepping all over their god given rights ( Life, liberty, property)

seriously, 1. the media is a major problem?

If that's your first argument you don't know what's really going on at all.

ps. still waiting on EVIDENCE that i'm wrong.