Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
There is no such thing as a right given to us citizens by the constitution. In fact, the some of the founders were (rightly, I think) leery that the first ten amendments would give people the false idea that the constitution created the rights of citizens.
I never touched on the notion that rights originate from the Constitution. Even if I explicitly said rights are preserved by the Constitution, it wouldn't change the fact voting is one of those rights.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
I never said those other things were unimportant. I said they were irrelevant to the upcoming election.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
All I can say is I disagree with that philosophy being applied so absolutely. Do you have the same objection to the fields of modern science?
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Uninsured and can't pay for your visit, who pays? As long as there is no coercion involved, the people paying for uninshured people are doing so voluntarily based upon their own free choice between the options available to them.
Unguaranteed charity? Yikes.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
This is also bad because even if it were possible to find some human somewhere that could always make the perfect decision for other people, if only they had the necessary information... well, there is no way to *get* the information necessary. In fact, even the people making their own free choices who LIVE in their situations and try to examine things deeply do not have all of the information.
As far as management goes, how is this significantly different from a private insurance company?
I've said it before, I'm more comfortable knowing my health isn't something to be profited from, and I'm glad the ACA instituted such policies that prevent such previously private industry practices as denying pre-existing conditions, eliminating lifetime expenditures, and denying coverage.
Tort reform is certainly an interesting topic, although I do not have a strong opinion on it.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
I posted that, with my sources.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Nothing I posted explicitly says nor means otherwise that I have "dismissed all statistics" on the basis that "some are unreliable."
I already stated it above, but I'll say it again, in order for any process to show that an article of knowledge is true that process must be able to produce truth.
Inductions based upon human sensory observation as a process can not reveal truth. Further, the unaided human mind (and I don't think the human mind is the physical brain) can not reveal truth.
Please provide an example of an acceptable statistic. This sounds like some sort of argument from ignorance, god of the gaps reasoning.
Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
I am not making a claim. I did not say showing ID was absolutely wrong. My argument stems from the exploitation of the disparity in this country between those possessing ID and those who do not:
Claim: no one should ever have to show ID for anything.
Claim: everyone should have to show ID for certain things.
You seem to have my position confused with the prior; my position is a rejection of the latter.
Edited by process, 06 October 2012 - 05:55 PM.