466 replies to this topic

[process]

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:

That the the other things are supposedly not relevant to the upcoming election does nothing to change the fact that you are applying your standards in a hypocritical way. Your standard that asking for photo id incurs some sort of overwhelming burden on whatever "class" of people applies equally to the other situations mentioned.

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:

You are quoting statistics; there is absolutely no reason that is accessible to the humanity unaided by revelation to ever state that any statistic is true and not false, because of the fact that ANY article of knowledge that one wishes to say is "true" MUST be produced by a process that is capable of producing truth. Inferences based upon human sensory observation fail the test of epistemology. The fallacies are demonstrable, and in fact, I even linked to many of them in an earlier post.

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:

It would have helped greatly if you had have posted this in the first place.

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:

Gettting the power of the government involved destroys the ability of people to make their own choices freely and puts the people under the power of government goons whos own interests most of the time will not align with the interests of the people who are put under their power.

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:

"Worth preventing potentially millions..." Where is it that I've posted this? ... Why is it you keep inventing these things I've never posted and attributing them to me?

I posted that, with my sources.

Pht, on 06 October 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

You seem to have a pretty bad habit of assuming things you can't know from what's actually been posted.

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:

That would only be true if you had not have made the positive argument that requring photo id to vote is wrong.

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.

[Pht]

process, on 06 October 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

I didn't really think you were proposing that our rights came from the constitution; I just addressed it because the way it was written, someone might get the wrong idea about it.

Quote

I never said those other things were unimportant. I said they were irrelevant to the upcoming election.

How does this address the fact that you've only been selectively applying the argument?

For goodness sakes, all you would have to do is to say that it is a problem everywhere it applies. What you've been doing - selective application - seeems to imply that you don't really care that people might have trouble getting things done because of the id requirement elsewhere. You only seem to care about the election, not that people have to get IDs and that this might cause them trouble.

Quote

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?

I don't see how anyone can meaningfully disagree; in order to do so, one has to say they have no problem saying that they think something is true based upon a process that can't reveal truth. ... one might as well think Queequeg tossing bones on the deck of the pequod had a valid way of finding truth too...

Yes, the problem crops up everywere it applies. What passes for science nowadays can't find truth either. Sure, it gives the apperance of being useful; we seem to have produced many things with it... but that doesn't mean it's a valid way to find truth.

Quote

Unguaranteed charity? Yikes.

We either have people freely engaging in charity or no charity at all; it is impossible for the government to do charity, because they simply do not know what is best for each individual. Inevitably, government welfare amounts to handing out a check, and for quite a few people, this is actually destructive to them. Besides which, government "garuanteed" welfare, because it puts everyone into the system, regardless of whatever situation, only succeeds in bringing everyone down to a lower level.

Charity is only possible between individuals who know each other pretty well; otherwise, you don't have charity, you have a handout.

Quote

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.

Management? There is very little management of individuals; beyond the government prosecuting against already committed behaviors like fraud, theft, etc. The basic gist of it is that people should be free to make whatever morally correct choices they decide to.

Why are you more comfortable with a system that must, by it's nature, force people to do things they have no interest in doing?

As far as badly behaving private entities; government entities behave just as badly, if not more because they have access to the power of the state and tax monies that they get regardless of their behavior. At least with private entities in a society where the government keeps people from doing the things I've mentioned you have a real chance of finding a working alternative, or at worst, making an alternative (real monopolies are only possible with the help of the government).

Tort reform I view as a band-aid. What we really have to fix are the ideas pushed in our law colleges and such.

Quote

I posted that, with my sources.

Ah, my bad. Missed that one!

In reply; I'm not arguing that there is significan voter impersonation fraud. I simply do not agree that putting the photo id safeguards in place will cause the hardships that people say will happen, for the reason that many, many, many other places require just as much if not more id from not only the same classes of people but everyone, and this problem is not being complained about in those places.

It cannot be a problem when voting and not a problem in all of these other places where the exact same requirements are in place. Something about the whole argument stinks.

Quote

Please provide an example of an acceptable statistic. This sounds like some sort of argument from ignorance, god of the gaps reasoning.

It is not a god of the gaps argument or an argument based upon ignorance. When we carefully ask of these processes "how do you know?" we quickly learn they are full of fallacies (all swans i've seen are white, therefore every swan is white, after this, because of this, etc, etc). Nobody seems to really question these things in our society.

I accept that statistics are peoples opinions, but I don't accept that they can give us any knowable truth.

Quote

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.

So you haven't been makign the argument that requring people to show photo id to vote will cause hardship for minorities, the poor, etc?

[Akaryu]

the best part is the both of em want the presidency because it pays well and not because someone has to do it. to many and by to many i mean all politicians choose to run for there positions as a career not because its a job that needs to be done for the greater good of the nation and they feel they are the right man or woman for the job. but because they see the paychecks and run for the dollar signs not the well being of people who vote them in. its just about how much or how well they deny it.

[Pht]

I'm not voting for romney (or obama) ... but the idea that he wants it for the paycheck ...

It's probably a pay-CUT for him.

Edited by Pht, 01 November 2012 - 11:55 AM.

[Hayashi]

But he loves Big Bird!

[Rejarial Galatan]

guys, this election proved to me one very scary fact. We were very willing to flush america down the tubes. Sorry to say it, but, the republican plan is one of financial ruin, pure and simple. No way can we afford to remove universal healthcare, while, I admit its worded funky, but its a step in the right direction. How? It makes it so no health insurance company can turn a person down because of preexisting health conditions like heart disease or diabetes, and grants us all the same chance for proper medical care.

Secondly, it told me, we are willing to try again a financial plan that failed to work the first time under the BUSH admin. Deregulate the banks and guess what? They make the same loans they did before, only had Romney won, no bail out would follow up to save middle america, and our national credit ranking would fail, and we would usher in chaos. Sorry but, right now, Obama is what we need. Before Obama took office the DJIA was at 14000 and change, after the crash happened, it fell to 6000 and change, a 8000 point fall. In less than 4 YEARS time, it reached nearly 14000 again, we started seeing economic growth.