Mind-Bending Irony and Justice Incarnate

[Razdeline]

Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WHO CARES? SITTING HERE ON A FORUM BITCHING ABOUT SHIT NO ONE CARES ABOUT WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. STOP CRYING AND LIVE YOUR FUCKING LIFE, STOP WORRYING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, THANKS! /caps off.

Sadly even when people bitch IRL nothing changes either. That's how bad of a state of social decline we are in.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WHO CARES? SITTING HERE ON A FORUM BITCHING ABOUT SHIT NO ONE CARES ABOUT WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. STOP CRYING AND LIVE YOUR FUCKING LIFE, STOP WORRYING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, THANKS! /caps off.

I disagree with this completely. Culture influences social policy to an extreme degree. Ideas are to be preserved, presented, and shared amongst the citizens in a multitude of forums. Every single person "in the fight" so to speak adds that much more to the aggregate that is our culture.

Yes, some battles (read: on the internet) are virtually fruitless, but you never know who might be reading.

[arcanebrain]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said at the time it was reviewing the group's petition but stressed that the drinks were still safe. An FDA spokesman said a person would have to drink "well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents".

Quit reading so much into alarmist headlines. If you believed every news article you read, you wouldn't be able to eat or drink ANYTHING safely. That takes care of your first link, as to the second:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...e-not-so-fast/

And the third? I'll admit I didn't read the entire thing. But it smacks of anti-science naturopathic bullshit. The vast (like almost all of them) majority of scientists and doctors agree that vaccines save lives and are usually harmless (barring allergic reactions). Oh, by the way, the author of that article which makes stupid claims and backs nothing up with solid evidence? Is a CHIROPRACTOR and a NUTRITIONIST who publishes in "holistic periodicals." You know what's code for? A fucking quack. The article is full of gross misunderstandings. The guy doesn't even understand herd immunity, for crying out loud.

[Lucky]

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

Quit reading so much into alarmist headlines. If you believed every news article you read, you wouldn't be able to eat or drink ANYTHING safely. That takes care of your first link, as to the second:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...e-not-so-fast/

And the third? I'll admit I didn't read the entire thing. But it smacks of anti-science naturopathic bullshit. The vast (like almost all of them) majority of scientists and doctors agree that vaccines save lives and are usually harmless (barring allergic reactions). Oh, by the way, the author of that article which makes stupid claims and backs nothing up with solid evidence? Is a CHIROPRACTOR and a NUTRITIONIST who publishes in "holistic periodicals." You know what's code for? A fucking quack. The article is full of gross misunderstandings. The guy doesn't even understand herd immunity, for crying out loud.

You clearly don't understand how cancer develops. They shoot up the rats 1000 times to make the process happen in a short period of time. Basically for cancer to develop:

• You need the gene that controls self destruction for malfunctioning cells to be damaged.
• You need the gene that requires, for a cell to replicate, that it is touching the correct cells.
• AND
• You need the gene that tells a cell when it SHOULD grow to be stuck on "always on".

Drinking coke and hording down GMO foods for some 20 odd years will do the trick to kill your pancreas, kidneys, liver, stomach, esophagus... you name a cancer you have a vastly higher chance.

Also, vaccines so safe bros

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ztiAN9k584?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ztiAN9k584?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Ele]

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

Also, vaccines so safe bros

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ztiAN9k584?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ztiAN9k584?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Don't peddle the Desiree Jennings story as a warning against vaccines; it was a psychogenic condition not a neurological condition/disease caused by the vaccine she received.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...plot-thickens/

Not that her selected form of "treatment" was of benefit to her, but she has improved and Inside Edition did a reexamination of their story and showed Ms. Jennings was fine.

******** width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GD1BAxVnFdc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

******** width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wwlRwGQl5x4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Ele]

Don't fail me again Youtube.

******** width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GD1BAxVnFdc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

******** width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wwlRwGQl5x4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Daldolma]

Vaccines clearly cause autism and cancer but big government and big corporations are too invested to cut back. Coca Cola is intended to cause addiction and known to cause cancer but is still peddled and supported by the military industrial complex. Stop being so naive, read a book.

[Ephirith]

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

Vaccines clearly cause autism and cancer but big government and big corporations are too invested to cut back. Coca Cola is intended to cause addiction and known to cause cancer but is still peddled and supported by the military industrial complex. Stop being so naive, read a book.

Don't forget the contrails bro.

And what's with the rainbows in our sprinklers? Big government and liberal media trying to poison us with their homosexuality. It's time to wake up people.

[Frieza_Prexus]

But then, oh fuck! Joshua contracted lymphoma and he can't pay his medical expenses. I'm battling an overwhelming urge to say:

"Damn Joshua if you wanted medical treatment you should have worked harder and made more money, or gotten yourself a job with better benefits."

I just can't bring myself to do it through facebook. Nonetheless it brings me great joy knowing this scum is withering away with cancer and he can't afford medical treatment.

You're morally outraged that someone doesn't believe in your view of economics, yet you're happy when the man contracts cancer. Am I the only one seeing a complete lack of moral consistency here?

If I, for example, opposed federal flood insurance, do you believe that it would be morally just when my house floods? Would you take pleasure in this? If so, I think you need to take a hard look at your moral compass.

Libertarianism and objectivism are different shades of the same color. This is a worldview that is obsessed with rational 'self-interest'. Charity is NOT a tenant of libertarianism, it is a footnote that they only allow because it's not managed by the government. Say what you will about libertarianism, it's the bastard hellspawn son of Ayn Rand-- who spent her entire life harping on handouts only to get lung cancer and cash checks from the government to pay for her treatments.

True, some people are concerned only with maximizing their own personal interests. However, to say that altruism is poorly accounted for is ignorant at best. The capitalistic model explicitly recognizes that money will flow where people want it to. This might be hard to understand, but more than a few people want to help others. It is demonstrable fact that private interests tend to have less shrinkage and overhead than public entities. All things being equal, private charity then tends to be more efficient than government service. Also, there is the whole notion that it should be voluntary as opposed to mandatory.

Further, you used Ayn Rand as an example to illustrate your point. In taking government services, it is certainly commendable to abstain, but not morally obligatory. Decrying the wisdom of a policy does not preclude utilization of a policy that exists. If, for example, I felt fire protection was unnecessary in our society, morality would not demand I never call a fire truck. So long as I have contributed to the existence of such a service, through taxes or whatever means, I have a vested right and interest in that particular service.

If the government is so terrible then why not work on making it more efficient instead of just scrapping the whole thing?

We have the government because we need to do things the free market can't do effectively on its own. No matter what, the free market can never be proactive, only reactive. It doesn't act with vision or calculation, it's little more than an anarchic force of nature.

Government tends to be inefficient primarily because it was designed that way. First, there are ethical and constitutional arguments as to what is within the proper sphere of federal power. Secondly, it tends to be more efficient to break services down to the lowest level at which they can be offered. For example, do we want federal home owners associations or zoning laws for our small cities? Of course not. The federal system is too far removed from the consequences of the decision to have a deeper understanding than the locals do.

I agree that some services are very much within the federal domain. No one but the most ardent and philosophically strident will argue otherwise.

Everything objectivism stands for says, "Damn Joshua if you wanted medical treatment you should have worked harder and made more money, or gotten yourself a job with better benefits.", and that's the system you and the other randroids want to achieve. That, instead of a system that encourages the general well-being of fellow human beings. Oh shit, some lazy ass deadbeat welfare queen might get some health treatment. But how many deserving individuals like Joshua would also get treatment they otherwise wouldn't have had?

No. The ideal outcome would be that health insurance would have been affordable for this individual without the need for free market distortion and government intervention.

If someone plans poorly and does not take care of themselves, yes, they very likely will die sooner. This is a tragedy and a terrible consequence, but the consequence is of the individual's own making. If I, for example, engaged in very poor eating habits and have a heart attack would my death be any more or less tragic than someone who got cancer?

You submit that we must provide treatment for an individual who willingly chose not to plan for this event, do you equally propose that we regulate an individual's diet and other health concerns?

It is true that, right now, some people lack the means to plan ahead. Insurance is very very expensive. I submit that the answer is not to provide this scarce commodity through the government, but to remove the government as a major player. This will bring down costs through less fraud and by allowing insurance to compete by selling over state lines.

This is a similar situation to social security. We have a terrible savings rate in this country. You can be quite certain that without SS people would take retirement planning far more seriously.

Yes, I readily admit that there is a POTENTIAL problem where, say, enough of the population is still acting foolishly and a large amount of people end up becoming a ward of the state in their old age due to poor planning. In that case government intervention is possibly a solution.

Just because the government can, doesn't mean it should. The least invasive solutions should always be explored first.

I think, in general, people are willing to rally under the banner of government intervention when a prestige-problem or some glamorous (for want of a better term) issue rears its head. I suspect that most people will NOT accept forcing a fat person to stop overeating even if they're 95% likely to die from heart failure within 2 years. Yet, many are willing to rally the feds over an issue like cancer for someone who chose not to plan ahead where the situation and its mortality rate might be exactly the same as above.

We have already embraced the notion of actions have consequences. Why do we seek to alleviate the consequences in one area, yet we are happy to let them occur in others?

All this does is encourage poor planning.

[Ephirith]

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

You're morally outraged that someone doesn't believe in your view of economics, yet you're happy when the man contracts cancer.... ...I think you need to take a hard look at your moral compass.

He lost any sympathy from me when he became an activist against government healthcare for ideological reasons founded on personal responsibility- yet he still expected other people to help him when he realized he was fucked.

You're right to question my morality though, I think when I wrote this post I was just kind of ignoring what was right and let my emotions run wild. No, I shouldn't be happy about his cancer. But I do think the whole situation reflects poorly on these objectivists.

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

The capitalistic model explicitly recognizes that money will flow where people want it to... ...All things being equal, private charity then tends to be more efficient than government service.

I don't find your view of private charities compelling. Yes, they are more efficient, but that is irrelevant. They would never have some meaningful, beneficial, systematic effect when they are solely based on the whim of individuals who open their wallets for whatever is getting all the publicity lately.

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

In taking government services, it is certainly commendable to abstain, but not morally obligatory. Decrying the wisdom of a policy does not preclude utilization of a policy that exists.

There has been some discussion on this. Cancer treatments are expensive and I'm not positive Rand had the money she needed. It certainly makes sense under her intellectual paradigm to spend your life saying "Fuck social security", and then proceed to draw social security and medical checks because, "self-interest blah blah". In this specific example it's murky because she paid into the system against her will. But as the leader of a movement that says "I'm sorry you got cancer. You should have done better in life and made more money. I don't owe you anything", I think it would have been more meaningful of her to be an example of her ideology. Instead she took one last steaming shit on us dull little sheep and keeled over.

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

This is a tragedy and a terrible consequence, but the consequence is of the individual's own making. If I, for example, engaged in very poor eating habits and have a heart attack would my death be any more or less tragic than someone who got cancer? You submit that we must provide treatment for an individual who willingly chose not to plan for this event, do you equally propose that we regulate an individual's diet and other health concerns?

I have an atypical view when it comes to healthcare. It's too much to explain completely but I don't think people with self-inflicted health conditions like smokers and binge-eating fatasses should have the same coverage as somebody who takes responsibility for their health. In that situation I am all for saying, "Sorry, but this is the result of your own poor choices and you can't expect us to pay for it". In terms of lymphoma, and taking responsibility for having adequate savings, that's a different issue. Self-destructive behavior is negligent. I don't think a 20-something year old lymphoma victim not having $200,000 savings is negligent.

I believe some things simply should not function as a part of the free market, mainly systems meant for people's general welfare and safety, such as healthcare and environmental regulations/pollution. The idea of free market environmental tort law acting as pollution/toxic waste regulation, for example, would be fucking hilarious... if it weren't so terrifying that people actually believe it would work.