don't worry, they'll still be fat.

bloody commies ruining the country

hai ther you got now the same avatar

:-<

http://www.foopics.com/get/56d14f891750db68a612b4757a3faad1/0

:-DDD

ur mom saying that u should go sleep earlier today 18yo boy

ok, sorry

np and dont rage anymore when u losing !
np

kk

Finally USA is joining the first world.

They'd have to abolish the death penalty and adopt the metric system first. ;)

that will never happen, even in sports matches they "invert" the order of the home team and the visitor team, which is ridiculous either HAHAHAHA

you mean communism?

Because unemployed americans in need of a hospital clearly shouldn't be allowed that privledge.

im just saying.. we could do without them :/

problem is:

it's the rich Americans in banks, enterprises and governments we should be worried abot the most :[

That's like saying that only CERTAIN people are entitled to tap water. That's not fair, everyone is entitled to water.

not americans

=\

"everyone is entitled to water"
everyone is entitled to food, too
imo all "civilised" countries are not civilised at all, unless there will be food and houses for people without asking money for it, so people can live without having to work just to exist, on the other hand in a really civilised country work should be paid more to permit to those who work to buy extra-stuff, about 99% of the work as it is is just static work, which don't imply any development in new directions, inventions or stuff like that, so work shoul be an option but with many many benefits, man is leaving prehistoric times still

You are Romanian, you don't know anything about tap water.

that's why I did not say about water
but the water falling from the sky is great anyway
allah akbar!

I think human nature and nature in general contradict the concept of egalitarianism. It's not going to happen. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer.

But I agree with Gillz that everyone is entitled to a bill of good health. Unlike food and clean water, medical bills can cost a lot. Not to mention that paying for a huge expense like that can be the difference between life and death.

I see your point, but I was not thinking at egalitarism exactly, more like this: let's say about 75% of the population don't have a job but even so they don't have to take care about their basic needs for survival (and when I say basic needs, think to some decent conditions here, though), and the rest of 25% of the population are the guys who have a job, economy is in their hands and their earnings are starting from 500,000$---->up/year, the second group (25%) -the numbers here, especially -is arguable possible to be true, but my main point is not about the 25% of this hypothetical society but abt the rest of 75%
for example imo population throw away too many things that could be used much longer, and if you remove this habit you will conclude that much of the work that is being done all over the world is plenty useless
in this hypothetical case most people would not have a real job but would have all kind of "extra" activities -whatever, playing games, reading more, spending more time on studying arts or jessica biel, etc, and there would be market and competition too, only it would not regard the poor, or ordinary man, but the man who want to have extra stuff, well it would lead maybe to some form of sophisticated totalitarism inside capitalism, with companies leading the world, dunno -like now is that much different lol -but the good thing would be that standard work would not be considered the best a man can do -these times if you are not working somewhere people envy you if you have much money, else they consider you a parasite; the cancer of these so called modern times is working is a really cult, and it is so because the basic needs for survive push people to go and work anywhere, most people take tempory jobs, saying that one day they will do/work on what they like, but in the end they will realise their were getting old and their dreams will never get real. so imo a working society is a society who is producing loosers more than a "lazy" society, if population is forced to work, instead doing it for its own satisfaction. in order to sustain the neccessarily work, some would say that without work we would all starve to death, well in reality man have much more power, so usually the work of a few people is enough to sustain the life of a few hundred if not thousand -talking about that kind of work which is necessarily to sustain the civilisation.
I dunno what would be the best way to remove the absolute need of work in order to survive, and I am pretty sure becks will agree with most I said here [sarcasm], I only know that people who work only because else they would starve to death and would not have where to live, are living in a primitive world, the only thing which saves the deceptiveness by removing the attention and distorting the power or reception, is technology

Man, it's so hard to to follow your post :/

Also, paragraphs and shorter sentences.


Also, I agree and don't agree.

=))

That's a very nice dream, but don't forget there's nothing else than pure, unrestricted, capitalism in relations between countries, so if the country doesn't give it all to compete against the other countries it falls behind and the system of good living you describe becomes unsustainable. The only way something like that could ever happen is when the country is self-sustainable, and the only self-sustainable country is the planet earth itself. In the meantime, the individuals are forced to act as workforce for the country so it can keep the pace of the other countries.

why? civilization/culture/society whatever you call it isnt quite intended by nature or w/e. Because in life you're not entitled to anything, you have to survive. We are still using the same old brain/genes w/e from back in the day. Something "civilized" is way too advanced for humans.

no.. just merely passed congress

One house of Congress. Still has to get through the Senate, which is unlikely.

yeah, hence the no.

Saying "it's passed congress" is incorrect, though. When a bill "passes Congress" that means it's passed through both houses, not just one.

Why is it unlikely? The democrats has the majority there?

Democratic Party 58
Republican Party 40
Independent 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

forgot the exact numbers at the moment.
But I think I remember that the democrats need at least 60 votes in favor, however, the independents are supposed to go with the republicans on this one and Ted Kennedy's seat is vacant until next years.

My memory could betray me though, so you might wanna google it.

I would imagine Obama having it sorted with the statements he made last night.

They don't always vote along party lines. Not every Democrat wants what's in the bill, so several of them will potentially vote no.

wow.... so you dont have party solidarity over there?

Whats the point in having a two party system then? (i couldnt imagine having it myself, i like options)

It isn't necessarily about party solidarity, but could b/c their constituents have said they don't want their Senators/Representatives voting for the bill-in-question.

That, and some Congressmen just like to be dicks.

???

they generally do, but on more important issues with high media attention some politicians start thinking about their reelection and therefore what the people in their state want. Which was the reasoning of the one republican who you voted for the bill.

However, I have the impression that conservatives (not only in the US) have the tendency to stick together more, than their more liberal counterparts. My theory is that that is due to power issues, both from the higher ranking people in the party punishing more to keep their members in line and the individual caring a bit more about actually having their position than their actual opinion. Conversely, you could say that the liberals are more stubborn and insist on their opinion even though it gains them nothing and might even be counter-productive to their party. Just my biased opinion though :)

Relax, everyone. I'm sure the Republicans will squash this just like they did in 1994.
So calm down. We'll go back to having sub-standard health care but still trumpet our own horn as soon as we can.
Until then, BUY MORE.

Thank you.

hooray \o/

\:D/

Yes, people should only have healthcare if they're working under someone else. This doesn't give employers an edge to treat their workers however they want because they know free healthcare is such a huge incentive to be employed full time under a corporation.

God America fails though. The cheapest thing is to invest in prevention. Once I become dictator, I will ban all soda, aspartame, and fast food. Watch the average IQ and life expectancy go up.

Its people like you that makes America look silly to the rest of the world.

The current military budget in the united states is $515.4 billions.

imagine how much healthcare, education and other crap you could get for that.

Grats to America for finally getting western standard healthcare.

not yet.

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

But otoh, getting America to loosen it's grip on the world's testicles is step #1 to getting taken over by China.

I thought that china took over usa long time ago :P

Not yet.

and cuba wasn't really considered "west" last i checked.

sarcasm?

Yeah, I probably should have been less subtle.

Higher IQ in the minions is the last thing a dictator wants, did you skip those Dictator 101s?

If they have higher IQs they will realize why I am perfectly suited for role of dictator.

Also: ...Demiurge is that you?

That question leads me to seriously question your fitness to dictate. Viva la Revolución!

I am with you comrade!

And remember kids:

Murder people with glasses first, they are smarter.

What about the sneaky buggers with contacts?

nah, they don't look smarter so they aren't.

Well sir, I believe I will remove my glasses before the death squads come.
Good day to you!

Everyone should have health care just for being people.

Do you realize how many resources this would require?

Not alot actually.

Resources over health, I simply love american way of thinking :P

Um "health" isn't just some abstract concept that comes from no where. You need ways to fund nurses, doctors, surgeons, hospitals, equipment, medicine production, etc. I think the notion that every single person in the world is entitled to free world class healthcare is naive and idealistic.

Well a lot of nations are able to provide basic free healthcare. For me it is something obvious as it was always like that where I grew up, and I cant even imagine that you wont be helped if you are currently unemployed or got no money to cover it. This just sounds scary, like postapocaliptic or Orwell scary.

Well most places in the world are not like Western Europe or Canada. It works out in those countries because they have a level of homogeneity and structured trade offs/incentives to contribute to said society.

So health care won't work in the US because there aren't enough white people? Are you the yank version of jamerio?

We don't have free health care in the US, so I obviously can't use it as an example in my argument.

Sure we do. Medicare works great. The current healthcare bill should probably have just been titled "Medicare for all". Around 65% of the US wants a public option anyway.

"Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public...ption.html

I was referring to free health care for those under 65 (aka most of the country) as well.

I am correct.

yep.

*points out something irrelevant to your point which you never argued against anyway*

Yes, I am correct now too. \o/

No, you are wrong. The US already has universal health care that's affordable and works correctly for those over 65. When I pointed this out, you put your head in the sand.

Do you need some ointment for your butthurt? You're a semantics-wanking idiot if you seriously think that I am unaware that Medicaid exists in a country I've been living in my whole life. When I said "we don't have free healthcare" I meant that we don't have free healthcare for everyone here. You can't say that your country generally has free healthcare if only those 65+ are eligible for it.

Well clearly you don't know the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Most of your teabagger buddies don't even understand that it's government run.

Whoops, obvious typo. Actually if ia used Medicaid in his argument instead, he would have had actually had somewhat of a point. Shame on him.

The "LOLST00PIDAMERIKAN" ad homs don't exactly make eurofags as progressive and ~enlightened~ as they think themselves to be. Clearly I know more than all of you.

Yes clearly you know more than anyone.

"The "LOLST00PIDAMERIKAN" ad homs don't exactly make eurofags as progressive and ~enlightened~ as they think themselves to be."

You should get to know stunt, I think you two could really get along, he's always retardedly contradicting himself in the same sentence too.

Plus you're both fat.

Lol where did I contradict myself? I never said *I* was "progressive". I said that certain eurofags are trying to be, and failing. Learn logic sweetie.

No you just think they're trying to be because you understand how much more intelligent they are, it's an inferiority complex most americans have :(

Also it's good you admit you aren't progressive, basically you're saying if it was left up to you we'd all still be shitting outside.

Take care sweetie ;)

Um. This is just sad. Where did I say I *wasn't* progressive again? You really, really need to learn some logic. Reading comprehension would help you too.

Sucks to be you, sweetie. :-*

It's called implication, god you're dumb, I guess the subtleties of the language escape you.

Inferring on your part != admission on mine. God you're dumb. I guess the subtleties of both logic and language escape you.

K this is like arguing with a woman on thesaurus.com (pretty sure that's literally what's happening) so I'm just gonna stop.

You can go ahead and make your victory post now using all the asterisks you like but I'll still have 1 extra (permanent) penis than you.

Actually, this is like arguing with a sexist stubborn idiot who's too butthurt and defensive to admit the simple fact that he made a reading comprehension mistake.

I don't need to make a "victory post" because there's nothing particularly hard or extraordinary about defeating an illogical moron like you. Dime a dozen.

:D

Hi~ I'm Sniper and I'm a professional troll. I'm not so much of a professional gamer, although I do play, Age of Emps, Day of Defeat, CounterStrike Source, and (duh!) Starcraft recreationally.

I'm also a lolita weeaboo faggot.

Why are all people who refer to themselves as "trolls" never actually trolls and just retarded???

Why do you take everything so seriously when you have been mercilessly defeated by a troll? It's times like these you should quit while you're ahead...err, not ahead. You know what I mean. :)

epic lulz is epic

Thought you said you were going to stop replying? :o

I meant stop writing more than a few sentences... Learn some reading comprehension sweetie??????

OUNAGE (Ask gillz what that means)

You never said that, so who am I to assume you actually meant more beyond what you wrote, sweetie? Those logic skills sure are pesky.

You aren't smart enough to write more than a few sentences anyway, so your explanation itself is also false.

OUNAGE!!

I didn't specify what I was going to stop at all, your reading comprehension is bad. For someone who is apparently trying to be a troll you're really bad at it aren't you ??

You know a troll is supposed to annoy people, not look like an idiot, right?

ounage à trois

Stop means stop completely unless to say otherwise. Maybe you should pick words that actually mean what you'd like them to mean? And get some ah... writing skills now?

Who said I was "trying to be a troll"? Just because I am a troll doesn't mean I'm trolling 100% of the time. Still stuck on that reading comp huh? Are you really that depleted of your little snarks? It's really sad, you should go outside and make some friends.

ounage times a billion million1! XD

Stop completely? Like what, you mean die??? You can't make assumptions based on context or it's bad reading comprehension according to you, remember? ;)

I don't think you are trolling though but I know you'll pretend you are to try and get yourself out of this embarrassing situation ;)

Also those "ad homs" make you look desperate sweetie, telling me I should go outside and get friends ;)

;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Stop completely? Like what, you mean die???

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. But again, you didn't "stop writing more than a few sentences" since that's what you were always doing in this thread. So you fail in more ways than I can count at this point.

Lol the only person this is embarassing for is yourself. You were mercilessly defeated in an argument over logic and reading comprehension, and you react by defensively by beating your chest like a dumb ape and hope no one notices how bitter and stupid you are.

I wasn't making "ad homs", just speaking the truth. :3 You sure like to project too, because the only desperate one here is youu~~

XD XD XD XD XD

Suggesting it would be a good idea for me to die? Looks like I hit a nerve ;)

You reek of desperation, I'm guessing you're a fat depressed girl who spends most of her time drawing furry comics on deviantart (which contain you, except you're a fox and are inexplicably thinner)

I doubt it's a girl. It's some fat loser thinking he can get nerds to hit on him over the internet.

Again, just shows that you take things waaaay too seriously. :P

I can actually appreciate some Japanese furry art, but the fandom is way too out there for me. Accusing someone of being a furfag is like the new gay lol. I don't see why you're so obsessed with my being fat either (another America stereotype?). Talk about grasping for straws.

"I can actually appreciate some Japanese furry art"

I'm just going to assume that was bait (because after all, you are a "professional troll lol") because otherwise I clearly hit the nail on the head ;)

I don't know why you're so annoyed (as evidenced by your previous posts saying it would be a good idea for me to die) but good call on accusing me of taking things too seriously, you've made me look a right fool.

Oh come on, I'm sure there are some furry artists that even you would love. Don't deny it.

I don't see why you're obsessing over that. I wasn't "annoyed", it was just a convenient joke to make because you basically aligned yourself for it. The fact that you keep talking about it shows that you're the one who takes things too seriously.

Well I guess you're saying retarded shit to try and appear trollish now so I'm going to declare myself the victor.

King of ESR as per usual.

It's a shame that you think my jovial nature is me trying to be "trollish". You're like one of those loners that no one was ever kind to, so the second someone acts nice, you have no clue how to behave.

Lol, I think you lost the argument the second you started trying to make yourself more ~popular~ by jumping into silly e-arguments that you were doomed to lose, you little attention whore. :P

I don't like to feel proud about winning arguments against kids though, so I don't consider myself a victor. Just...obviously right. You'll grow up someday.

Don't insult ESR like that. :o

King

of

ESR.

wassup now

More like Loser of Logic but w/e.

Sexist? This is sexist:

Shut up you stupid fucking cunt. Get back in the kitchen where you belong you dirty fucking slut. Why aren't you done ironing my shirt you useless cumbucket. Now go make me a sandwich before I slap you in your cuntface.


Now you whine about sexism.

No, that's misogynistic. There's a key difference, love.

Yeah more whining.

At least I get my words right.

That's your opinion. Doesn't count for much.

Neither does yours, seeing as how you fail at English.

Fail at English? Are you daft? Go troll somewhere else.

Sure, just buy yourself a dictionary sometime.

Nope. Well according to the dictionary sexism means:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Clearly my post was a case of 2.

You fail.

Well misogyny is the hatred of women, and can be seen as an extreme view of sexism. You can be sexist without being misogynistic (ie, "like arguing with a woman" or "boys are all smelly"). Pointing out sexism doesn't mean you're saying it's as extreme as misogyny.

I don't hate women. Just idiots. You fall into that category.

I never said you hated women. The passage you posted obviously was just intended to make a point. And I'm saying that your point failed.

That you are an annoying whining turd? That was my point. I seem to have hit a bulls eye with it.

It was a sexist remark, whether you like it or not. I don't understand why you're so whiny about me calling a black sheep black. And if I was that annoying of a turd, you would have stopped commenting a long time ago, so obviously there's something else you're compensating for.

the retarded thing is, that you started referring to people as Eurofags and that they were butthurt.

And then pull out the sexist remark when someone makes an anatomically correct obversation.


So here it is loud and clear and definately sexist:

Many women are whiny bitches.


(This is also not about our own discussion, which I think stayed on course well enough.)

Yes, because by calling them eurofags, I am clearly saying something negative about homosexuals (idk, is this what you don't like about the word?).

The ironic thing is that you "progressive" eurofags like to whine about classism and racism, but when it comes to sexism, you all turn into defensive bucktown hillbillies. I wonder why that is.

There was obviously something more than anatomical precision in Liam's comment. "Like arguing with a woman on x site" = there's something that a man would do differently in a given argument, which yes, is sexist.

There's also nothing terribly sexist or hxc about your ~truth~ statement, sorry to say. If I said many men are whiny bitches (as evidenced by this post), that wouldn't be very sexist, yet it's true. Thus we deduce that many people are whiny bitches yaaaay.

fags has been a deragatory term for homosexuals for a long time. That you try to make it look like it isn't says that you don't have a problem using insults based on sexual orientation yourself.

There was obviously something more than anatomical precision in Liam's comment. "Like arguing with a woman on x site" = there's something that a man would do differently in a given argument, which yes, is sexist.

wrong, in the very first place it is a anatomical comparison. Which you led on by giving yourself a nick with "chick" in it, declaring you are female . He is a guy, you declare you a female.
If someone here took the nick "blondeman" people here would probably tell him that black hair so superior. If he wants he can be offended, but it does make him look stupid.

So yeah, if you think having a penis is superior well then you can take it as a exist insult. But only if you really want to.

but yeah, thanks for clarifying that you apply other standards to your own use or insults than you are willing to give others.
=> whiny bitch.

fags has been a deragatory term for homosexuals for a long time. That you try to make it look like it isn't says that you don't have a problem using insults based on sexual orientation yourself.

That's because I don't have a problem with it. The meanings of words change all the time and just because x people use it to refer to homosexuals, doesn't mean I am. I don't know if you watch/know of South Park at all, but they had a pretty good episode about that.

wrong, in the very first place it is a anatomical comparison. Which you led on by giving yourself a nick with "chick" in it, declaring you are female . He is a guy, you declare you a female.

No, he's referring to a hypothetical female on thesaurus.com. We're not on thesaurus.com so why else would he use that site?

Regardless, giving yourself a name with "chick" or "dude" in it is only an invitation to be nagged about it by idiots who have nothing else in their arguments. That's why I don't get why you think I'm so ~offended~. It's just another "lol stupid" in his argument as sexism is nothing to be proud of, and it's just plain unintelligent/nonsensical.

So yeah, if you think having a penis is superior well then you can take it as a exist insult. But only if you really want to.

I wouldn't take it as an insult. I'd take it as just another sign that shows just how dumb that person is. Like I said, it hurts their credibility in the eyes of smart people. It's like if I called a black opponent a dumb nigger and expect it not to make *me* look like a one-toothed country bigot.

You have done nothing but whine in this thread. I just amuse myself by trolling annoying people on ESR. You most certainly fall into that category. Especially when you started whining about sexism. Fuck off you stupid Sarah Palin wannabe.

You know, the ironic thing about you complaining about my "whining" is that you felt inclined to start an ongoing 10+ comment argument with me simply over my stating that something sexist is sexist, which had nothing to do with you to begin with.

I can't begin to imagine why you continue to be so bothered by it, but I'm inclined to think that you have some sort of resentment issues against some hated straw-feminist that doesn't actually exist.

Dude, don't pretend that you're trolling. You're not me, 'kay? I know trolling when I see it and all I see from you are sloppy uneducated arguments and goalpost moving. Trolls don't admit that they're trolling either. Jesus.

Uh...Sarah Palin is an anti-abortion conservative. She's not very feminist/sexism-aware at all, last time I checked. Check your sources next time lol.

tl;dr version: You're whining. And wrong.

What the fuck are you even talking about anymore. It's like the female version of jamerio has shown up on esr. Full of paranoid victimhood and whining.



It's because Sarah Palin constantly whines about sexism. I thought she was your role model.

Oh sorry, I guess that was too complicated and retrospective for you. I'll try to keep it short and monosyllabic. It's funny you keep finding things to whine about though. Your parents probably didn't give you much attention growing up.

And sorry again, but I've never heard her whine about sexism. Just that women shouldn't get abortions (and then her daughter ended up pregnant rofl). Old news is old though. She fell off the face of the earth millions of years ago. Get with the times, Europe!

Just keeping in the realm of reality would be nice. Your rambling whiny posts just don't make much sense. They seem to mostly consist of lame personal attacks. Like I said you are female jamerio. Give the amateur psychology a rest little lady.

*sigh* You really need to find a new word. Pick up a thesaurus along with that dictionary.

If something really doesn't make sense, I'll be more than happy to explain it to you as least condescendingly as I can.

I'm sorry that you think I've only been personally attacking you, but that's probably mostly due to the fact that you started the argument with me by being hostile, so I reciprocate with every comment.

I don't know who this Jamerio is, but I doubt he's as smart as me, because no one is.

Why learn a new word? Whining fits perfectly with your whole ESR character. You have been on ESR since 2008 and don't know who jamerio is? Maybe you should stop attention whoring for a while and explore the rest of the site.

Also you don't come off as smart. Just as some crazy chick that found her way here from facebook.

You're still whining. It's not very constructive.

I made my account in 2008, but I've only been somewhat active on it this month.

ESR is featured on Facebook?? Do tell!


Anyway, I really want to play QL now so I'm going to log off for tonight. Don't worry, I'm not ignoring you. <3

Ok daryl whatever you say.

Whining doesn't become you.

His English is better than yours.

My dick is bigger than yours.

I don't have one :(

I KNEW IT!

I have two

what's the point if neither one gets hard?

FUCK!

hahaa calling me fat? LIAM CALLING SOMEONE FAT?

OIC you're just contradicting you're own self. Cuz we all know Im not fat :P

Duuude I'm trying to get you some pussy bro just go with it

If i want pussy, I'll go pick some off the tree in the backyard.

Actually, loads of places in the world have free health care, such as Japan, India, China, Brazil, Argentina, Ethiopia(!!!), Nigeria, etc. (I think I covered most of the world there)

Of course, the free health care varies in quality due to funding and regulation, but in all these countries you will have access to private health care too.

Yes, and those are all relatively homogeneous cultures. Thank you for contributing to my point.

what does that have to do with anything?

also, mothball a few of your 11active(14 planned) aircraft carriers and im sure itll be easily affordable too...

Nigeria and India (hello caste system) are not homogenous.

but they're all the same color~

Sowjet Russians and Americans were also the same color.

...No.

So blacks and whites can't have free health care together? In Sweden we have an 18% foreign population( counted as either first generation immigrants, or children of two first generation immigrants). We have free health care... Plenty of colours to go around here.

yes, we know, you also have pretty much everything else :)

Apparently the only nonhomogeneous country in whole world is USA :P

I would say that the US is one of the least homogeneous, yes. Hence the crime rates, class divisions, etc.

you think you have class division because there's black people around?

ahahahaha Nigeria, Ethiopia, Argentina homogeneous, fuck by that standard the whole world is homogeneous.

It is not as expensive as you think. Covering everyone does not mean actually paying for a brain surgery for everyone, just for the ones who need it. What you cannot afford is paying 20 middlemen before the doctor and that is exactly what happens in US.

That's true and of course there needs to be some serious reform in the US. However, saying that it's easy for everyone in the world to have access to free healthcare is ludicrous. Most places have enough trouble getting things like food and clean water for their populations, and you're worried about getting them access to brain surgery?

"However, saying that it's easy for everyone in the world to have access to free healthcare is ludicrous."

Whoever started talking about that?

However, every industrialized country should be easily able to afford it. Countries like Cuba can!

And the US as many said is already spending more money on Health Care than most other countries. So it was never a question whether you can afford it.
I have no fucking idea how people fell for those false information from republicans and lobbyists.
If you get a "socialistic" (lols) system like most other industrial states, you will pay less not more.

"However, saying that it's easy for everyone in the world to have access to free healthcare is ludicrous."

Whoever started talking about that?

Um linkoo did.

Everyone should have health care just for being people.

Everyone. As in, everyone in the world, ever.

I never argued that the US specifically can't or shouldn't have to afford healthcare for it's citizens. I just said that it's not as easy as, "Just give free world class healthcare to everyone!" As I mentioned in another comment, many places have trouble not killing each other and getting enough food/water. Your socialist ideals on healthcare are unpragmatic and counterproductive once you realize not every country is first world like yours.

and you just took the liberty to add the little word "free".


As for the health care systems in the first world. Sure, there have to be some adjustments but other than that it will work. And so far noone has ever made a convincing argument why it wouldn't, especially not the idiots who call "socialist" as if that was some sort of argument. It's all just bullshit rhetorics and scare tactics, and people are falling for it.

Let it be. They are the richest country in the world. No need of any other argument. If they don't have it is cause they don't want to, the rest are excuses.

It is just funny how they react to socialism word. I mean even in nations that got deeply wounded by it, there are socialists in parliments. It is completly normal that all options got voice so right decisions can be made. Yet in USA, where people mainly seen it in movies, if you would proclame yourself a socialist then most likely you would be found suicide victim who stabbed himself 14 times with kitchen knife :P

Yes, let's make more strawmen and put words in my mouth that I never implied. It's not so much that you're preaching to the choir but you seem to just enjoy listening to yourself reiterate things you've gone over a million times, regardless of what actual argument I'm making.

you put words in linkoo's mouth!

But I guess you didn't wanna talk about it this time around. Nor can you be arsed to explain why you think it should be called socialist. Nono, you just say "it can't be done" without giving a proper reason and declare everyone else is failing at giving arguments.

good job.

I quoted something he said word for word. It's in comment #25. Are you blind?

Um I can't talk to someone who literally does not read or comprehend what's put in front of his face.

Nor can you be arsed to explain why you think it should be called socialist.

You say that like socialist is a dirty word. :) I think it's pretty obvious that universalized healthcare is a socialist concept. If you need me to explain that, you have problems.

you just say "it can't be done" without giving a proper reason and declare everyone else is failing at giving arguments.

There you go making strawmen again. I never said "it can't be done." I said that it's not easy and we don't KNOW if it's possible. I don't see anyone explaining why it's so easy anyway.

I quoted something he said word for word. It's in comment #25. Are you blind?

Are you joking???

I quoted you on your own line from comment #76, where you innocently put in a "free", changing the entire meaning.
Then afterwards you quote linkoo, and say that the lines are the same. Which they really really aren't.



And no, I do not see socialist as a dirty word.

It is simply not the correct term. There are many different variations of health care systems in different countries. Many times people are allowed to chose their insurance, insurances that are private and competing companies. You know, capitalism.

So, again, please explain to me why it is so obvious that it is "socialist". I'm really curious.

I don't understand. How did I "innocently put in a "free"" when I was only ever talking about free health care? What exactly does this contradict?

Are you saying that linkoo was referring to both free and unfree healthcare? If you're entitled to something (as his comment implies with "should"), then it is assumed to be free by virtue of being human, just like human rights, free speech, etc. So yah, I would say they are.

So, again, please explain to me why it is so obvious that it is "socialist". I'm really curious.

But I'm still talking about free healthcare. If it's free, everyone has access to the same resources regardless of money, class, etc. So it's socialist.

"I don't understand. How did I "innocently put in a "free"" when I was only ever talking about free health care? What exactly does this contradict?"

linkoo didn't say anything about free in his comment. And you replied to that, so at that point you were not talking about free health care, but health care in general.

And health care isn't free! Most people pay for it monthly.
It would be like saying my appartment is free, because I don't have to pay for it when I sleep there. Only once a month.

About socialist:

1) Semantics: It's the adjective to socialism, which is pretty much the opposite of capitalism. A capitalistic government can't be socialist at the same time. So at best you could only say it is "similar to socialism" or "a socialistic approach" or something. But not "it's socialist"´, when it is paid for with money earned through capitistic means and based on a capitalistic structure (paid employees, private education, etc)

2) more importantly: Health care in general is NOT like what you described.
I was the one who brought up the term first: "If you get a "socialistic" (lols) system like most other industrial states".
Obviously I am referring to existing systems. Which Americans have called "socialist". You can't disagree with that and later claim that you were talking about some theoretical system!
The existing systems are not free! I pay monthly for them and for example here in Germany there are several different private companies that offer such an insurance. The have to offer basic benefits, but on top of that they offer different extras and up until a year ago they had different rates as well. Which obviously lead to competition.
Now tell me: Are competing private companies a sign of capitalism or of socialism?

linkoo didn't say anything about free in his comment.

He doesn't have to explicitly say it. If someone is entitled to something, it is free.

And health care isn't free! Most people pay for it monthly.

Of course there's no such thing as free. Now you're switched to taking on literal meanings. I'm talking about welfare states where it comes out of taxes of those who work, and those who don't work still get care without having to pay up. If you have to pay $200/month as a bill no matter what your employment, then that is not free healthcare.

Now tell me: Are competing private companies a sign of capitalism or of socialism?

That is a capitalist concept. I know where you're going with your loaded question though. Competing private companies can exist in a socialist society so long as those not working/taking part in said private insurances can still get free aid. Of course whether an entire society is capitalist or socialist is not always binary. "Free" healthcare however is a socialist concept.

He doesn't have to explicitly say it. If someone is entitled to something, it is free.

That is your interpretation and I disagree.

First of all, you are again trying to alter what he said.
He said "should have" not "entitled".
If I pay, for my health care I HAVE it. It does not have to be free.

Second, even if he had said "entitled" that does not mean it should be completely free of charge.

If I said everyone should be entitled to water it can mean that everyone shold get the chance to get water for a reasonable price, or that everyone should get enough water free of charge as he need to survive or that everyone should get as much water as he wants for free.


And you seriously need to look up socialism because helping the poor and disadvantaged is NOT a main concept of socialism not is it unique to it. Many different types of government have such a system.

To be honest, I think you are mixing up social and socialist.


Conclusion: Imo you really need to look at words and their meaning more carefully.


Going on vacation now, so you're be spared from further replies ;)

So in conclusion, you really need to be more precise in reading an writing.

He said "should have" not "entitled".
If I pay, for my health care I HAVE it. It does not have to be free.

How am I altering what he said any more than you are? You're also ignoring the "just for being people" part as well, which strongly implies the entitlement. The only thing you need in order to have healthcare, is to be human, according to what he said. There's nothing about income, status, or class. The fact that you pay money for yours is irrelevant.

Second, even if he had said "entitled" that does not mean it should be completely free of charge.

Yes it does. That's what entitled means. You already have the "title" for it. It's yours. Now you just need to take it.

If you said everyone is entitled to water simply by virtue of being human, it means that each person already has the title of water ownership. It's theirs. They can take however much of it they want.

And you seriously need to look up socialism because helping the poor and disadvantaged is NOT a main concept of socialism not is it unique to it.

I never said it was the MAIN concept, nor that it was unique to it. But it is a pretty strong tenement that greatly separates it from other systems such as capitalism.

To be honest, I think you are mixing up social and socialist.

No, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

Conclusion: imo you really need to stop being so semantics-wanky and stubborn. Because even if you try to play the dictionary game with me, you'll still lose because not only do you not know the definitions of things yourself, but most of your argument is based on putting words in my mouth.

If linkoo feels that I'm putting words in his mouth, or deriving meaning he never intended, he's free to argue his case. But for now, I still hold that "everyone should have X for being human" is a statement of entitlement.

Going on vacation now, so you're be spared from further replies ;)

Okay, happy vacation! ^_~

I entitled to live in my appartment.
I still have to pay rent.

You're a moron.

Lol aww did you spend your vacation thinking about that feeling all proud of yourself? Sorry, but you still fail.

You're not entitled to live in your apartment by virtue of being human (which is what linkoo said about healthcare). You're entitled to live there because you signed a contract and uphold it's conditions. Jesus.

"Free" healthcare however is a social concept.

Fixed!

I actually think it *is* being done. In every society, even the most primitive one, help and social cooperation is there by definition. Amount and nuance of medical help is part of the tuning process within that particular society, "universal morals" notwithstanding.

yes, looking at the result you have a point.
But this discussion is more about taking a systematic approach.

I think lack of universal healthcare goes hand in hand with class segregation, high income differences, slavery, corporate exploitation and all the other crap that is inherent to the system within United States and its success. I would be more interesting in seeing an Act Utilitarian discussion on this subject as opposed to one based on a single persons morality. The current discussion doesn't quite touch 'systematic approach'.

what about education? place to live? food? and while we at it - boat, house in mountains, private jet and swimming pool?

im most civilized countries we actually do provide free education, food and housing...

Just for the sakes of knowing, how much does the average health insurance cost?

over 9000 dollars

wow, thats expensive, is that over a year?

over a lightyear

1 finger 10 000$, 2 fingers 60 000$. or how was it?

No idea what the average is, but right now I pay about $150/month. I'm sure my company pays quite a bit more.

Wow, im glad i live in the UK where i pay fuck all :-)

you guys don't pay for health care? how does that work?

I'm foreign and even I don't pay. NHS <3 They fixed my teeth!

(To be fair though, I pay a lot of National Insurance!)

teeth fixed in uk? cmon you could at least try a bit harder to hide your lies :<

Best effort service :>

it was a miracle
the moment he opened esr site from uk, his teeth showed up stronger than ever

I think it's amazing that we haven't even begun to think about including dental care in overall health care in the US. Dental care here is such a luxury.

when did they fix your teeth?

NHS dentists have not been free for a long while now, and the majority of practices are private.

only under specific circumstances do you not get billed :)

and as a result, well paid NHS dentists (85k~) are now earning 150-250k~ for the exact same work. :(

Few months ago, I was charged for the initial checkup, but the following appointments I paid nothing for, which was two fillings and an extraction, but I think the guy felt a bit guilty because he fucked up a bit with the extraction, so maybe he didn't charge because of that.

The initial appointment was like £20 or something.

£17.50 I think

just going off of memory, not been to the dentist in a long time :p

don't trust him, he has white fangs

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

"Denmark defies much conventional wisdom that you cannot have jobs, growth and sound government finances while imposing high taxes and running a big welfare state."

LOL AMERICANS

"The mindset of most Danes is: How can I get more out of the system?" she says. "The system doesn't make you competitive. You cannot always do what (job) you want to do. It's not going to bring you a high life. It's a security system."

no thanks

"a lot" ... thats hardly a statement to say "no thanks" to.

And by saying No thanks, what exactly do you dislike?

he is saying:

Want to do the job you like (understandable)
Earn more money than others
Bitches and cars

you can do whatever you want? you can take whatever education you want?

If you cant find a job however, you will be forced into work after 4 years of unemployment, since the state can't pay for you doing nothing forever.

while in the US, you are free to starve after 12 weeks. much be'a

MUST MOVE NOAW

BUT US PEOPLE CAN CHOSE TO STARVE !!!

STUPID DANES DON'T HAVE THAT CHOICE; FUCKING LOSERS!!!!

Hmm, no idea where this is going. I don't know Denmark or its politics and policies. It is a place of interest though :)

I was just paraphrasing in a lighthearted and possibly comical manner what that other guy said.

for me, with that kind of system comes stagnation, and it will turn against danish people at some point

As it has every time in the past!

Wait... no...

some people are always ambitious.

This danish system provides a foundation for everyone, allowing more people access to the opportunities to succeed, innovate and bring benefits to the country. Its still a capitalist society, but one with a heavy focus on bringing equality of opportunity and a high basic standard of living.

or you can follow the american model where there is huge, and increasing inequality of income and opportunity, decreasing inflation adjusted earnings and alot of other problems.

Lets face it, alot of the appeal of the american way boils down to propaganda...

the funning thing is that woman actually the one who wants to get more out of the system.

She want the same privileges, but at higher income and less taxes. She just doesn't give a fuck about people with families and low paid workers only about herself.

And believe me, as a manager in the energy sector she would have earned quite a lot even after 50% taxes.

So she is just greedy.

That would never work here. :/

The homogeneity really is their backbone. They're fucked once immigrants from Africa and whatnot come over to take advantage of all the free shit. Just like Holland.

Excuse me? So you think that any immigrants from poorer countries such as Africa will completely mess up a country because they are uncivilized or some other shit like that? You disgust me.

This is quite funny when you look at UK and France, how they are importing any workers they can, especialy from their old colonies in Africa and Asia. Then you look at small island of Iceland which is currently speaking polish :P Even in Poland for years we had a lot of incoming traffic from east (it is always from east to west, so guess portuguese are drowing in ocean:P). But well there may not be a lot of imigrants in nordic countries, probably cause they are scared of polar bears :P

Of course. Every immigrant. Ever. Without exceptions.

"They're fucked once immigrants from Africa and whatnot come over to take advantage"
why specifically from Africa? Do they have genes (or culture) that predispose them to leaching? The immigrants you speak of are a minority from any given pool of immigrants. There will always be ppl who unfairly take advantage. From bankers paying themselves millions in bonuses with tax payer's money to immigrants whose intention is to take from the society they've moved to without intending to pay anything back by working and paying taxes. Immigration issues are not a reason to stop the implementation of universal healthcare. It's not about holding anyone back either; it's making sure that ppl don't fucken die from merely not being seen by health professionals, as is the case in your country. The government here in the UK doesn't stop anyone from flying high. In fact by making sure that ppl are healthy, the state is both enabling and ensuring a person's ability to work (and enjoy their life!). 1 in 10 ppl in the USA are unemployed, a place where there is every incentive to work, and no incentive to not work. Where the stick isn't working you give the carrot, not find a bigger stick.

why specifically from Africa? Do they have genes (or culture) that predispose them to leaching?

Many immigrants to Western Europe come from various (often war torn) African countries. Wasn't there a boatload of Ethiopians that showed up in Spain?

The problem with immigrants who have little choice but to escape is that they have trouble assimilating quickly enough and finding work in the new country, specifically those from wacko Islamic places like Somalia where they're torn between accepting a society that doesn't treat them like shit and abandoning everything they've been told.

Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East also reproduce more than anyone, so if they're not working and their kids aren't working, then we're going to have a problem.

It's no secret that war in Africa is often fanned by the west, both directly and indirectly. The very least the west could do is provide refuge to ppl it has endangered. Regarding assimilation (I really think this is a tangential subject to healthcare) usually it's difficult to expect it from the immigrants themselves, but you can expect it from their children, i.e assimilation is a short term problem that will iron itself out. Governments can help the assimilation process by staggering immigration and sharing the burden between them.

I'm sure Africa was a glimmering pacifist egalitarian utopia before we Europeans messed it all up by putting guns in their hands.

Regardless, I don't believe that "the west" owes anyone anything for things it may or may not have "caused" (like it's really that black and white). And if you really want to see that sense of justice carried out, it seems unfair that America has taken part in most of the strife there, and yet immigrants seem to love coming to relatively peaceful countries like Holland.

Actually, according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it's not uncommon for families to go generations there with little to know assimilation from the children, and that's partially due to the fact that welfare states bend over backwards to give them special Islamic schools and mosques.

I agree that the biggest profiteers in war (as you rightly pointed out "America has taken part in most of the strife there") should shoulder most of the refugee burden. I also agree that governments shouldn't help immigrant communities to stay insular

Probably the same way like in rest of europe. Only former east block nations got big problems running it due to legacy of their old systems, yet it runs and no one will ever want to get rid of it.

we fight to keep it, feel free to keep your corporate cleptocracy

wow.


just. wow.

That's actually pretty cheap. :<

and people over here raged madly about having to pay 10€ in 4 months.

Euros are spoiled. :P

the gov't over here in Czech passed a law saying you have to pay ~ 1 EUR for each time you visit the doctor. it would not pay for all that much, main reason would be reducing the amount of unnecessary visits (read 'Nudge' to catch the drift) Massive rage ensued and to sum it up: 'fuck you robber barons, you privatised and stole everything but education and healthcare and they will stay free because they are a human right'

3 months!!!!

Oh and I pay roughly 500 € per month (on half me, one half my employer). But I can actually live with that, seeing that if had unemployed wife and kids, the amount would stay the same and they would all be covered, even if they had a strange disease and the medical bill was a million per year.

so you are making big bucks? CAPITALISTIC PIG! :D

no, I am making Euros and apparantly we are all socialist over here.

du bist ein rostfleck auf dem schwert des sozialismus! <;

but are you sure about 500 euros a month for health care? that is pretty much, enough for you to be able to go private

i misread, thought you meant 500€ being your half of the equation

yeah, I could have written that better :/

12 bucks

at the moment me and my employers each pay a bit over 7% of my salary each month (same for all normal employees).
But their is talk of reforming the system again. Also if I get a big raise (until I make over 50000 a year) I can go for a private insurance and pay a lot less as long as I am young, healthy, single and childless.

"pay a lot less as long as I am young, healthy, single and childless"
AND brainless -private insurance put the "as long as you are brainless" option out, so it would be a lose-lose situation in your case =(

I have no fucking idea what you are trying to say.

what's the matter, did they close the shop next to your door, where you used to buy your daily candy, that you lost your smart replies, or the relationship you was getting into is getting too harsh?

The problem is your English sucks. Try using babelfish you retard.

hahaha [+]

please excuse him, he's just a romanian peasant

his english is ok, it's just his brain that's scrambled.

haha yeah, it used to be both but his English has clearly improved to a level where he is able to say what he wants to say in English, it just doesn't make sense.

kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out

FUCK YEAH! Wi-Five!

reboot that motherfucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Xl5dSRtIA

The problem with universal healthcare, as we’ve seen in the UK, is that it’s often used as an apparatus for state oppression.

Protosschick sarcastically talks of banning decadence – as he correctly points out, prevention is much cheaper – and in the name of cutting costs and getting good value surely the government can justify banning the excesses of life? That would be current labour logic… millions and millions spent on propaganda campaigns, increasingly oppressive laws slowly eroding individual sovereignty, rent a quote “experts” coming out against drink laying the groundworks for the next onslaught.

It’s a simple choice – either we place no restriction on the cost or cause of healthcare - horse riding to E taking, or we accept that I, as a taxpayer, have the right to dictate and control your life. Don’t eat that. Don’t drink that. Don’t smoke that. No risks. No excitement. No life.

I’m all for a national health service – just accept that its cost is endless and the risks near insurmountable.

I think the restrictions in the US are just as bad as any other western country, I really doubt having a national service will change what is already oppressive.

Oh by the way, I think that in some ways the UK has more lenient laws than the US, for example the drinking age is lower, and cannabis was until recently a Class C drug.

It was only Class C for about it year.

if you would, give me some examples of how a state run health service is oppressive/gives rise to state oppression.

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/alcohol-concern3.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/p/peandschoolsport/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/02/scot...-proposals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7944334.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2263574.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8159813.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3502053.stm

etc etc

Also the cost.

And that's ignoring the most obvious answer, being that taxes are compulsory at pain of imprisonment :p

RON PAUL!

I never said it was a bad thing, don't make assumptions ^^

You just sounded like a paultard for a moment there.

I'll address your links in a haphazard fashion so bear with me. you've provided a list of links showing government action against the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and fattening foods. This is your vision of oppression? What has the ban on smoking in public places got to do with universal health care? Or the NHS? It was banned in california long before britain. Scottish culture is very enamoured with alcohol (that's the nicest way i can say it) and the government wanted to curtail excessive drinking habits by introducing a minimum price for alcohol? sounds like an experimental plan, let's see how it effects the incidences of public drunkenness before we start getting our copies of 1984 out. A tax on excessively fatty foods in a country with widespread obesity sounds like common sense to me. Food corporations make enormous profits from cheapening our food supply by loading foods with fat, salt and sugar (very cheap commodities) and the government wants to mitigate this act of capitalism (that is screwing up people's health) and you call it oppression? They're playing the role of referee in this capitalist system, but not oppressing. It's a poor choice of words and very misleading

One of the main reasonings given for these moves is to reduce the cost to the NHS, so I would consider it relevant to the NHS. Furthermore I wouldn't be so quick to accept your premise of a 'problem' in consuming drugs, drinking alcohol or eating fatty food - is there a perfect life we should all be leading? - and should you accept the premise that there is a problem, I wouldn't necessarily consider bans the appropriate course of action.

And yes, I do find the notion that one person can unduly impose their will on another oppressive - do you not?

Read up on your On Liberty.

"One of the main reasonings given for these moves is to reduce the cost to the NHS". So in addition to helping ppl become physically healthier the government can save tax payer’s money too? Well this is ethically and financially the right thing to do! Granted, I suspect the cost motivations are far more powerful than any ethical considerations (as a consequence of capitalism) but u don't rock the boat on a win-win scenario over principal.

"Furthermore I wouldn't be so quick to accept your premise of a 'problem' in consuming drugs, drinking alcohol or eating fatty food" These are not a problem in and of themselves; it's abuse of these things that leads to wider societal problems, and since we have widespread obesity I'd say we have a problem. Since Scotland spends £4m annually just policing the drunk and disorderly/incapable I’d say we have a problem.

"is there a perfect life we should all be leading?" that's almost a rhetorical question and serves only to cloud the issue of government intervention on alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.

"I wouldn't necessarily consider bans the appropriate course of action." I don't believe a ban would be in place if cigarettes only affected the smoker smoking.

"I do find the notion that one person can unduly impose their will on another oppressive" Depends wholly and entirely on the context. Do you feel oppressed at work if the manager tells you what to do?

"Read up on your On Liberty." Nothing specific? No more reading material? I've got u and protoss patronising me now. So cute

EDIT: more info on the cost (£18bn worth!) of dealing with the consequences of drinking in England and Wales reported by the BBC

So in addition to helping ppl become physically healthier the government can save tax payer’s money too? Well this is ethically and financially the right thing to do!

Yes, thanks for reemphasising my original point - state provided health services can be used as an oppressive apparatus of state control.

What if I don't want to give up smoking, cut down drinking or eat healthier? What next? You've two options - either you artificially raise the price of these items (tax) forcing a person into poverty (I’m guessing you’re fairly left wing – so surely this option is absolutely reprehensible to you, artificially restricting an item of luxury to the rich?) - or you criminalise and imprison then. Do both these options sit comfortably with you?

These are not a problem in and of themselves; it's abuse of these things that leads to wider societal problems, and since we have widespread obesity I'd say we have a problem. Since Scotland spends £4m annually just policing the drunk and disorderly/incapable I’d say we have a problem.

Obesity is only a ‘problem’ if you're looking to interfere and control people's lives (you can’t argue lack of knowledge is a factor here), or worry about cost pressures on state services (again reemphasising the original point).

Laterly on alcohol – is that a problem of drink or a problem of excess? Don't penalise the majority because of the minority – and certainly not through compulsion. Again you mention cost – and again I ask, so what?

that's almost a rhetorical question and serves only to cloud the issue of government intervention on alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.

Of course it's intentionally facetious and rhetorical but it remains entirely relevant and especially pertinent.

In doing these things you're looking to impose your idea of how we should all be living our lives. In doing this, surely you have an appreciation of what the perfect life is? And if so, why stop at raising taxes when you could control them entirely to ensure they behave as good citizens? It clouds nothing – it’s exactly the point we should be considering when looking at this “is this worth the reduction in individual sovereignty?”

And we've not even moved on to considering why certain risky activities, such as drugs, are illegal, whilst other risky activities, such as extreme sports etc remain legal. Or why only smokers and drinkers are expected to pay a premium on the damage caused by their past time and not others - should footballers pay a premium as they’re at greater risk of ligament, muscle or other physical injury?

"I wouldn't necessarily consider bans the appropriate course of action." I don't believe a ban would be in place if cigarettes only affected the smoker smoking.

The evidence from campaign groups at the time doesn’t really support you –neither does current policy / pressure groups that’re lobbying to ban smoking entirely.

"I do find the notion that one person can unduly impose their will on another oppressive" Depends wholly and entirely on the context. Do you feel oppressed at work if the manager tells you what to do?

The manager can’t imprison me (sorry ini!) if I don’t do as he says – I choose to work there, the same is not true of the state. That’s always the context.

Every activity of the state imposes on personal liberty – and as such every intrusion should be considered with great hesitation and only given up after great consideration.

"What if I don't want to give up smoking, cut down drinking or eat healthier? What next? You've two options - either you artificially raise the price of these items (tax) forcing a person into poverty (I’m guessing you’re fairly left wing – so surely this option is absolutely reprehensible to you, artificially restricting an item of luxury to the rich?) - or you criminalise and imprison then. Do both these options sit comfortably with you?"

what? you're a complete idiot. smoking and alcohol are hardly life sustaining resources. they are and should be considered LUXURY. so if you want luxury, pay for it. simple as that.

you gonna delete this one too?

Okay allow me to explain in less adversarial terms – as said several times to you in pm, and as said in my original reply to you, the use of “poverty” is clearly errant and massively tautological. But, when considered in the context of the entirety of the post, it’s clear the point that was being conveyed – so jumping up and down on the use of one word as if you’re making some profound point is completely pointless and classic internet – which is why I should’ve just ignored your original post, rather than explain to you resulting as it always would – hence not wanting to fill the public fora with this dribble.

But as it’s an important issue to you - allow me to apologies for using errant language in my post and to clarify once and for all the correct intent was to covey a sense of “poorer”. Having consulted with my speech writers we’ve agreed on this terminology for the paragraph:

"What if I don't want to give up smoking, cut down drinking or eat healthier? What next? You've two options - either you artificially raise the price of these items (tax) making a person poorer through force (I’m guessing you’re fairly left wing – so surely this option is absolutely reprehensible to you, artificially restricting an item of luxury to the rich?) - or you criminalise and imprison them.”

I hope this is satisfactory.

And yes I am a massive wanker.

ok so the government is raising the prices on cigs and booze and giving us free healthcare, which is of course totally evil for it restricts the freedom of precious little individuals that we are. is that your big point?

So in addition to helping ppl become physically healthier the government can save tax payer’s money too? Well this is ethically and financially the right thing to do!
“Yes, thanks for reemphasising my original point - state provided health services can be used as an oppressive apparatus of state control”
But that's not oppression! Oppression is synonymous with the concept of injustice. Helping ppl to become physically healthier is about as just a cause as I can think of.

“What if I don't want to give up smoking, cut down drinking or eat healthier?"
More power to u. just don't whine if u find u don't have the money to continue abusing yourself in the manner in which you would have liked it to continue. Nobody has ears for that.

"You've two options - either you artificially raise the price of these items (tax) forcing a person into poverty (I’m guessing you’re fairly left wing – so surely this option is absolutely reprehensible to you, artificially restricting an item of luxury to the rich?)"
People usually tend to stay away from shit that is both unnecessary and hurting their pocket. I wouldn't have sympathy for a person who drinks away their finances, so no, in this instance it isn't reprehensible to me; especially since I don't stay on the right or left of political issues. Stay true to the conversation and don't worry about my political affiliations.

"or you criminalise and imprison then"
Who's talking about criminalisation & imprisonment? Did the government pass legislation overnight that means we end up in a cell over gorging ourselves on cigs and cheeseburgers? They could supplement higher taxes on these products with other measures. It needn't be all about taxation, but it's an option.

“Obesity is only a ‘problem’ if you're looking to interfere and control people's lives (you can’t argue lack of knowledge is a factor here), or worry about cost pressures on state services (again reemphasising the original point)”
You think ppl who are clinically obese wish to be that way? You don’t think it can be the place of the NHS to help said person with their affliction? Surely the cost considerations should be secondary to health considerations but in this case and many others, they go hand in hand. A healthy individual is better for both the individual and the state.

“In doing these things you're looking to impose your idea of how we should all be living our lives. In doing this, surely you have an appreciation of what the perfect life is?”
I am not prescribing a “perfect way of life”. We’re talking about harmful abuse of alcohol/tobacco/fatty foods. Where we’re talking about biology, we can say that there is a definite right or wrong, true or false; and obesity is a definite wrong. Alcohol abuse is a definite wrong

“And if so, why stop at raising taxes when you could control them entirely to ensure they behave as good citizens"
It’s about guiding behaviour, not totalitarianism. Nobody's taking your cigs and alcohol away from you, just be prepared to pay more tax on it. You'll visit the doctor more most likely so it's just a case of you paying for yourself through extra tax on your favourite vices.

”And we've not even moved on to considering why certain risky activities, such as drugs, are illegal, whilst other risky activities, such as extreme sports etc remain legal" Are you serious? You're honestly equating an active life with recreational use of dangerous substances? Jesus Christ.

"Or why only smokers and drinkers are expected to pay a premium on the damage caused by their past time and not others - should footballers pay a premium as they’re at greater risk of ligament, muscle or other physical injury?”
You're doing it again! See previous

I don't believe a ban would be in place if cigarettes only affected the smoker smoking
“The evidence from campaign groups at the time doesn’t really support you –neither does current policy / pressure groups that’re lobbying to ban smoking entirely”
It’s a worthy point regardless of the existence of any pressure groups. These pressure groups aren’t in government & don't have final say over legislation.

"The manager can’t imprison me (sorry ini!) if I don’t do as he says – I choose to work there, the same is not true of the state. That’s always the context"
Again, nobody is going to imprison you for abusing legal drugs. If you are genuinely unhappy with the government you could move to another country. People do it all the time, and I'm not just talking about 3rd world to 1st world.

“Every activity of the state imposes on personal liberty – and as such every intrusion should be considered with great hesitation and only given up after great consideration”
This principle is obviously something everyone would agree to, but your idea of oppression is rather taut.

But that's not oppression! Oppression is synonymous with the concept of injustice.

The compulsion is oppressive – you might not like the terminology - or you might believe that this level of oppression is acceptable as you believe it’s in a persons best interest – but that doesn’t change the reality of what it is.

Helping ppl to become physically healthier is about as just a cause as I can think of

But you’re not “helping”, you’re looking to force. There’s many means to help people; be it education, charities, voluntary groups – there needn’t be government involvement.

More power to u. just don't whine if u find u don't have the money to continue abusing yourself in the manner in which you would have liked it to continue. Nobody has ears for that.

Will you consider the point for even one second? You’re reading but you’re not understanding.

People usually tend to stay away from shit that is both unnecessary and hurting their pocket. I wouldn't have sympathy for a person who drinks away their finances, so no, in this instance it isn't reprehensible to me; especially since I don't stay on the right or left of political issues. Stay true to the conversation and don't worry about my political affiliations.

The point being who are you, I or the state to judge what is necessary and what is not.

The only reason it’s hurting their pocket is that the state is imposing a sin tax on the activity.

And you’ve completely missed the point on wealth – it’s not about drinking away your finances, it’s about equality of access. There’s many reports that suggest a glass of red wine per day can be of benefit – who are we to artificially price out the low paid worker because you don’t believe they can be trusted to behave?

Who's talking about criminalisation & imprisonment? Did the government pass legislation overnight that means we end up in a cell over gorging ourselves on cigs and cheeseburgers? They could supplement higher taxes on these products with other measures. It needn't be all about taxation, but it's an option.

You are. That’s how the state collects taxes (again I’m making no judgment on whether this is right or wrong ini :v ). There’s that or illegality – i.e. Cannabis etc, leading to imprisonment.

You think ppl who are clinically obese wish to be that way? You don’t think it can be the place of the NHS to help said person with their affliction? Surely the cost considerations should be secondary to health considerations but in this case and many others, they go hand in hand. A healthy individual is better for both the individual and the state.

I don’t know – I’d make no judgment on their lifestyle. It’s not a lifestyle I’d wish to lead and should they seek help, and should the NHS be in existence, I’d want it to be offered. But equally I wouldn’t wish to impose my ideals on their lives – I don’t believe I’ve found the perfect formula for life. Offering help is very different to forcing a person to attend, or pricing them out of an activity.

By the sounds of your postings it’d seem that you’d support a private healthcare system – one in which people with pre-existing conditions, or risky lifestyles, pay a premium? Surely that’d create your virtuous cycle without the compulsion element of pricing?

The later point relating to cost, see my two earlier posts.

I am not prescribing a “perfect way of life”. We’re talking about harmful abuse of alcohol/tobacco/fatty foods. Where we’re talking about biology, we can say that there is a definite right or wrong, true or false; and obesity is a definite wrong. Alcohol abuse is a definite wrong

These measures don’t only effect those that’re abusing these products, they effect everyone.

I love my facetious analogies me – ginger person commits a crime, we wouldn’t advocate locking up all ginger people? (though we probably should – they be repulsive). Yes that’s a poor example but it’s similar thinking to raising the price of a product because a minority abuse it – especially when there’s already laws in place (i.e. a landlord can’t serve someone obviously drunk / age limit to prevent abuse amongst the young).

It’s about guiding behaviour, not totalitarianism. Nobody's taking your cigs and alcohol away from you, just be prepared to pay more tax on it. You'll visit the doctor more most likely so it's just a case of you paying for yourself through extra tax on your favourite vices.

Again you’re failing to appreciate that you’re guiding nothing, you’re compelling – forcing, at pain of imprisonment.

Raising the price of these items does take access of these things to certain people away from them – due to you (I use “you” to characterize people of this viewpoint, obviously it’s not you personally) prescribing your subjective beliefs on them.

As for paying for yourself – there’s no certainty in life, nor biology – if, as you suggest, it’s right that you pay extra as you’re likely to cost more you’re in effect paying for the risk (there’s no cast iron guarantee you’ll get lung cancer from smoking, it’s much more likely but not a certainty) – which brings me back to the point of the footballer, the extreme sports man, the racing driver – anyone that takes an unnecessary risk. Why do you not believe these people should pay extra to pay for their risky behaviour?

Are you serious? You're honestly equating an active life with recreational use of dangerous substances? Jesus Christ.

Not at all – I’m equating one activity involving risk with another. Obviously there’s risks and benefits to both – I’m merely asking why you’ve this hypocritical stigma applied to certain risks, and not others?

Alter your way of thinking and you’ll be able to understand the premise more easily – think of the activities as risks.

You're doing it again! See previous

It’s relevant – see above.

Again, nobody is going to imprison you for abusing legal drugs.

Try making moonshine then get back to me =)

If you are genuinely unhappy with the government you could move to another country. People do it all the time, and I'm not just talking about 3rd world to 1st world

This is a democracy – I’d rather argue the point and look to influence others to my point of view!

"The compulsion is oppressive – you might not like the terminology - or you might believe that this level of oppression is acceptable as you believe it’s in a persons best interest – but that doesn’t change the reality of what it is"
If you're talking about punitive taxation, then sure it's coercive. There is nothing wrong with the government's aim in this instance, only it's methods.

"But you’re not “helping”, you’re looking to force. There’s many means to help people; be it education, charities, voluntary groups – there needn’t be government involvement"

I stated in my previous post that taxation needn't be the only measure. It just means the government has to get more helpful & creative rather than find a bigger stick. You eulogise education, denounce government involvement, but conveniently forget that the majority of formal education is administered by the government via the department for education.

“What if I don't want to give up smoking, cut down drinking or eat healthier?" "Will you consider the point for even one second?" What do u want to happen? I suppose if they complain of health issues and their GP advises them to cut down on tobacco/alcohol/fatty foods it's up to our hero to take the doctor's advise seriously. Maybe the GP could introduce them to other ppl who've made necessary lifestyle changes successfully. It might be my lack of creativity here, but other than advise them and have regular consultations there's nothing I can think of other than punitive measures in the event that persuasion doesn't work. At this point it's up to the individual and the ppl around him/her that need to help the subject change.

"The point being who are you, I or the state to judge what is necessary and what is not" The government is elected by the ppl to govern as honestly and as best that it can; it's mandated to do so by the ppl; we lend it authority....man

"The only reason it’s hurting their pocket is that the state is imposing a sin tax on the activity"
I wouldn't say it's the only reason, as u put it. There is another reason; they're giving their money away willingly. So you don't mind if for example a person gets depressed and hits the bottle (free will, right) so long as the government doesn't (unwillingly) exacerbate the situation with the punitive tax? See that isn't very sympathetic either. You're holding your principle above the wellbeing of said person, if I understand u correctly.

"There’s many reports that suggest a glass of red wine per day can be of benefit" That's thanks to antioxidants. Antioxidants are found abundantly in many different food sources, like fruit/vegetables/green tea. It's rather like telling a person that they need to continue to eat white bread every day since it has fibre. There are far better sources of both

"who are we to artificially price out the low paid worker because you don’t believe they can be trusted to behave?" again, I don't have a fervent belief in punitive taxation, I just haven't spent the time to formulate an elaborate plan to help ppl of all socioeconomic backgrounds to make the right choices. Perhaps I'm not capable, but then neither is the government, sadly.

Who's talking about criminalisation & imprisonment?
"You are. That’s how the state collects taxes"
That's not how the state collects alcohol and tobacco duty. It's obviously done at the point of sale as far as the customer is concerned.

"There’s that or illegality – i.e. Cannabis etc, leading to imprisonment"
The cannabis laws in this country are a running joke; Especially since u have total idiots like Jacqui smith disregarding the opinion of ppl infinitely more qualified than her. I agree with you on that particular substance.

"Offering help is very different to forcing a person to attend, or pricing them out of an activity" Of course, but what comes after persuasion?

"By the sounds of your postings it’d seem that you’d support a private healthcare system"
Not at all. Just because I think it right, that smokers pay more into the treasury via tobacco duty, doesn't mean I hate the NHS. I'm all for it.

Are you serious? You're honestly equating an active life with recreational use of dangerous substances? Jesus Christ
"Not at all – I’m equating one activity involving risk with another. Obviously there’s risks and benefits to both – I’m merely asking why you’ve this hypocritical stigma applied to certain risks, and not others?" I don't know if you're being intentionally disingenuous, but playing football, or engaging in most other physical activities/sports is no more a risk than getting in to your car to go to the shops. More than that, there is a massive catalogue of medical evidence eulogising the benefits of physical activity. No such benefits for alcohol/tobacco/fatty foods. The risk/reward ratio is rather poor if you care about objectivity.

If you are genuinely unhappy with the government you could move to another country. People do it all the time, and I'm not just talking about 3rd world to 1st world
"This is a democracy – I’d rather argue the point and look to influence others to my point of view!" Earlier u said u had no choice about the state, now it's a malleable democracy? =) I brought up emigration because u implied that u had a choice regarding place of work, but no choice about the state. I reminded u that u do. That's all

If you're talking about punitive taxation, then sure it's coercive. There is nothing wrong with the government's aim in this instance, only it's methods.

I’m afraid you can’t separate the two :)

I stated in my previous post that taxation needn't be the only measure. It just means the government has to get more helpful & creative rather than find a bigger stick.

Great – see the original post for relevancy.

You eulogise education, denounce government involvement, but conveniently forget that the majority of formal education is administered by the government via the department for education.

I don’t consider that relevant to the discussion at hand.

What do u want to happen? I suppose if they complain of health issues and their GP advises them to cut down on tobacco/alcohol/fatty foods it's up to our hero to take the doctor's advise seriously.

If they so chose – if they don’t, and they’ve been informed of the consequences by their GP – then they’ll face those consequences. Again you’re ignoring the point that we have no formula for the perfect life, the perfect body – why do you believe you know better than another person on how they should lead their life?

Your concern for people’s health seems very great – is it not a logical conclusion from this that the government should prescribe a daily diet to each person, and compel them to partake in a mandatory amount of exercise each day? Surely that’s a better system than pricing out the poor?

Or do you just hate the fatties? What about anorexics? People with inherited illnesses? Cancer patients? Horse riders?

Can you see the absurdity of it when you try and make one section of society pay a premium for the NHS? Cost simply can’t be used fairly.

Maybe the GP could introduce them to other ppl who've made necessary lifestyle changes successfully. It might be my lack of creativity here, but other than advise them and have regular consultations there's nothing I can think of other than punitive measures in the event that persuasion doesn't work.

That final sentence is actually quite terrifying – it’s shocking that you’ve been reared to think this way.

The government is elected by the ppl to govern as honestly and as best that it can; it's mandated to do so by the ppl; we lend it authority....man

They’re mandated to provide policing, schooling, public services – not to mandate what we can and cannot be trusted to consume.

I wouldn't say it's the only reason, as u put it. There is another reason; they're giving their money away willingly.

Wah?

So you don't mind if for example a person gets depressed and hits the bottle (free will, right) so long as the government doesn't (unwillingly) exacerbate the situation with the punitive tax?

The government is very willing and very aware of the punitive measures =)

How does artificially increasing the price of a product stop them getting depressed? It’s not really relevant.

I don’t see how I, or the state, cant prevent it – nor is it desirable to seek mind control.

See that isn't very sympathetic either. You're holding your principle above the wellbeing of said person, if I understand u correctly.

The principle is very important, but I’m not. If we’re back to facetious arguments – if said person has hit the bottle and become an alcoholic the artificial increase in price reduces the cash available for other things (be sure to note that this isn’t the point being made, just an example).

The greater question is whether you honestly believe the state can prevent alcoholism, depression, sexual assault or any number of things? You’re in for a massive epiphany when you realise how powerless the state really is when influencing these things – and if you want it to prevent such problems of human nature if need become much much more intrusive. You need only look at recent cases of child abuse – the state sanctioned these people to look after young children. You see how wrong the state was?

That's thanks to antioxidants. Antioxidants are found abundantly in many different food sources, like fruit/vegetables/green tea. It's rather like telling a person that they need to continue to eat white bread every day since it has fibre. There are far better sources of both

Jeeeeeeesus address the point not the lazy example – why do you want to make it so that only the rich can enjoy alcohol?

Can the poor not be trusted to drink in moderation? Are the poor not worthy of alcohol?

again, I don't have a fervent belief in punitive taxation, I just haven't spent the time to formulate an elaborate plan to help ppl of all socioeconomic backgrounds to make the right choices. Perhaps I'm not capable, but then neither is the government, sadly.

Then why the hell have you made me spend the last few days explaining this shit to you, and why question the original point?

That's not how the state collects alcohol and tobacco duty. It's obviously done at the point of sale as far as the customer is concerned.

Not addressing the moonshine point? Fairynuff – try and avoid VAT and see where it gets you.

The cannabis laws in this country are a running joke; Especially since u have total idiots like Jacqui smith disregarding the opinion of ppl infinitely more qualified than her. I agree with you on that particular substance.

Yes great, good. But again you’ve completely misunderstood the point being made and instead focused on the example. The point being the illegality.

Of course, but what comes after persuasion?

Nothing.

Not at all. Just because I think it right, that smokers pay more into the treasury via tobacco duty, doesn't mean I hate the NHS. I'm all for it.

If you’re all for it then you should accept the founding principle of the NHS being free to all at the point of service.

I don't know if you're being intentionally disingenuous, but playing football, or engaging in most other physical activities/sports is no more a risk than getting in to your car to go to the shops.

Yes, exactly, that’s the point. There’s risks in everything. Smoking is a risk. Drinking alcohol is a risk. Doing drugs is a risk. Riding a horse is a risk. Crossing the street is a risk. Why do you want to place a hypocritical social stigma on one risk and not another?

How are we quantifying risk? If X activity carries a risk of greater than X we should tax it? Ban it?

You’ve either ignorantly or willfully ignored the point being made. I understand this has been bred into you so it’s hard to look at things with an open mind but it’s important that you do. It’s fine to accept and ignore the hypocrisy, but you’ve to accept the hypocrisy is there.

Why do we make certain people pay for the risk in their activities and not others? That’s all I’m asking.

More than that, there is a massive catalogue of medical evidence eulogising the benefits of physical activity. No such benefits for alcohol/tobacco/fatty foods. The risk/reward ratio is rather poor if you care about objectivity.

Yes great but you’ve been saying we should impose taxes on activities to achieve two things; reduce the risk behavior and make them pay for their risks.

Of course sport has benefits – it also carries risk. Why shouldn’t they pay a premium on these risks?

And you’re mad if you don’t think there’s great reward to doing drugs =)

I brought up emigration because u implied that u had a choice regarding place of work, but no choice about the state. I reminded u that u do. That's all

Again you’ve entirely missed the point – it really is terrifying that an entire generation of kids have been brainwashed in this way.

Please think on the points being made. The point is one of force, coercion – this is not something my employer holds. He cannot lock me up if I don’t do as he says.

"is it not a logical conclusion from this that the government should prescribe a daily diet to each person, and compel them to partake in a mandatory amount of exercise each day?"

no it's not and you're an idiot.

I would vote for reslox!

Didnt read the last couple of walls of text, but if you cant see how different playing football - where you might hurt yourself and possibly other voluntary participants - and alcohol - which probably is the #1 cause of suffering in the western world - then you are probably blinded by your idea of how opressed you are.

You've entirely and absolutely missed the point - maybe you should read the posts?

Quick paraphrase:

We place a sin tax on alcohol due to the risk (the language is important here) involved - we're using risk as there's no guarantee that consuming alcohol will result in X, it just becomes more likely, the risk increases. Irrespective of the positives of alcohol and the myriad of possibilities on the scale, from no harm to death - we tax the risk - as by doing this activity, the likelihood / risk of them needing to utlise the NHS increases.

The point being there's also many other activities that carry a similar level of risk. Remember, we're talking about people paying a premium on unnecessary self inflicted risk (see why the language is important?). If it is a point of cost / paying for risk then you'd agree all activities that carry a similar or greater risk to alcohol need a sin tax placed on them as they're more likely to require the use of the NHS? You've to understand the benefits of exercise in this analogy are completely irrelevant.

I appreciate it's not the easiest concept to grasp given the constant conditioning you've received - but it's the reality of what's happening.

If you're merely looking to take a moral standpoint on alcohol then the cost to the NHS etc is completely irrelevant.

oh look, another person missed your point. maybe if you learned to actually make one instead of writing walls of pretentious crap they wouldn't miss it?

What you should look at is the risk towards others, how many assualts/rapes etc are heavily influenced by alcohol?

Anyway, wont be back until next week, bb.

If you're talking about punitive taxation, then sure it's coercive. There is nothing wrong with the government's aim in this instance, only it's methods
"I’m afraid you can’t separate the two :)"

People often judge an action by asking if the end justifies the means. This is because people can and do identify the difference, and separate the two. Your inclination on this doesn't matter.

You eulogise education, denounce government involvement, but conveniently forget that the majority of formal education is administered by the government via the department for education.
"I don’t consider that relevant to the discussion at hand"

I was trying to get you to see that government involvement (a thing u wanted less/none of) and education (something u wanted more of) are intertwined much of the time in our society. If I advise you on how best to treat your own body then I am involving myself in your affairs.

I suppose if they complain of health issues and their GP advises them to cut down on tobacco/alcohol/fatty foods it's up to our hero to take the doctor's advise seriously
"If they so chose – if they don’t, and they’ve been informed of the consequences by their GP – then they’ll face those consequences. Again you’re ignoring the point that we have no formula for the perfect life, the perfect body – why do you believe you know better than another person on how they should lead their life?"

We have a wealth of information available on how best to maintain and treat the body. If this information is dispensed and it's ignored so what? I advocated the punitive tax because the aim is worthy, not necessarily because I'm enamoured with the tactic itself. You point out that punitive tax is oppressive, and it is, but u say nothing of the oppression of corporations. There are tens of millions of pounds spent year upon year in this country on fast food and alcohol advertisements, which successfully convince ppl to consume foods that aren't much good for them. Advertisers are far more effective & influential than the government at winning minds. Certain corporations are causing and profiteering from this obesity and alcohol problem. I find that to be a million times more abhorrent than tobacco and alcohol duty. The government tries to counteract this through DfE, NHS and other departments, and when that doesn't work they start clutching at straws with the punitive taxation and you're soo very quick to talk about how oppressive this is, all the while ignoring the oppressive corporations. I'm not saying it's necessary to fight fire with fire all the time, but I am on the government's side, in the sense that my wishes are much the same as the government's and far removed from the corporation's (don't take this to mean I think punitive taxation is a silver bullet for all abusive consumption).

"Your concern for people’s health seems very great – is it not a logical conclusion from this that the government should prescribe a daily diet to each person, and compel them to partake in a mandatory amount of exercise each day? Surely that’s a better system than pricing out the poor?"

Regarding education, why wouldn't I advocate the dispensation of helpful information? Regarding your facetious ideas on getting ppl to partake in a (mandatory? wtf?) exercise regime, please stop trying to paint me in to communist corner. It's weak. It's very Bill O' Reilly

"Or do you just hate the fatties? What about anorexics? People with inherited illnesses? Cancer patients? Horse riders?"

U got it! I recognise now that it was just blind hatred of fatties leading me to debate on ESR. What about (as u mention) inherited illnesses etc? Are you suggesting I wouldn't want the NHS to treat them? On what flimsy idea do u base that (ill disguised) assertion?

"Can you see the absurdity of it when you try and make one section of society pay a premium for the NHS? Cost simply can’t be used fairly"

Yes it can. Smoking related illness costs the NHS £5bn annually. This annual £5bn has to be sourced from somewhere, and if tobacco tax can account for some of that money, then I strongly advocate it. It makes sense that a group of ppl who choose to be more burdensome (purely out of recreation) pay extra in to the treasury for additional (much needed) health service funding. Now you could point to a minority of smokers who never visit their GP over their smoking habits; and I would say, well if you show me a piece of paper that says the government should offer tobacco tax rebates for smokers who don't visit their GPs over smoking related illnesses, then I would sign it.

It might be my lack of creativity here, but other than advise them and have regular consultations there's nothing I can think of other than punitive measures in the event that persuasion doesn't work
"That final sentence is actually quite terrifying – it’s shocking that you’ve been reared to think this way"

Well by this point you'd have read about how tobacco taxation (an example of a punitive measure) could be fair/fairer. It's shocking how sedated you are in the face of corporatist oppression. Coercion is very occasionally a necessity. From a father coercing their 18 year old (who is legally and physically an adult) to get off the effing xbox after their 10th straight hour on it, to a boss telling a subordinate what to do within the workplace; and if u don't like it get the feck out and exercise your right to work elsewhere; but if you genuinely feel your boss is wrong then u can affect change by going over your boss's head, which in itself is a coercive act. Truth is far more important than feelings; yes even the feeling of supposed oppression.

The government [...] we lend it authority....man
"They’re mandated to provide policing, schooling, public services – not to mandate what we can and cannot be trusted to consume"
It's interesting to note that punitive taxation helps to counterbalance the cost of alcohol and tobacco abuse on the NHS and police. I'd like it if u showed me a punitive tax on consumption that didn't have any justification of any kind. In the absence of justification then of course I'd be on your side. Until then..

So you don't mind if for example a person gets depressed and hits the bottle (free will, right) so long as the government doesn't (unwillingly) exacerbate the situation with the punitive tax?
"The government is very willing and very aware of the punitive measures
How does artificially increasing the price of a product stop them getting depressed? It’s not really relevant. "

You thought I was suggesting that taxation can prevent depression? Really? You deliberately misconstrue. You're saying it's fine for a person to drown their sorrows in alcohol (free will) so long as the government isn't trying to deter them with alcohol duty because u deem it "oppressive". If I physically push you (an oppressive act) in order to get u out of the way of an oncoming truck, it's justified. Yes u can turn around and say "hey fuck you, I was trying to commit suicide" but that doesn't invalidate my "oppressive" action. You can stroll down the road and achieve success at another junction, but if u don't attempt it again then the world's a slighter better place, and that's what I'm holding out for. Alcohol duty is only really affecting the finances of ppl who are either in poverty or working class and buying gallons of alcohol over the course of a year. Yes it's a deterrent for the poor only, and that doesn't sit well with me either, BUT, one small glass of cheap red wine a day is not going to relegate anyone to poverty. If an alcoholic chooses to ignore everyone around them (friends/family/health professionals) then they're now really free to drink to oblivion. It's impossible to take away a person's volition to self destruct, but even so (and rather oddly) you're defending the volition when it was never really in jeopardy.

"I don’t see how I, or the state, cant prevent it – nor is it desirable to seek mind control."
Mind control? Jesus Christ. Not going to entertain this

"if said person has hit the bottle and become an alcoholic the artificial increase in price reduces the cash available for other things (be sure to note that this isn’t the point being made, just an example)"

It would really be a win for alcohol duty if said alcoholic decided that finances were more important than booze. Call me an optimist.

"The greater question is whether you honestly believe the state can prevent alcoholism, depression, sexual assault or any number of things?"

oh wow. wtf @ my apparent belief in state prevention of sexual assault or depression. It's communist corner again. Yeah I profess daily my love of chairman Mao. The whole time I was talking about mitigation of alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods abuse. Do not extrapolate to other random manifestations of human frailty.

Antioxidants are found abundantly in many different food sources, like fruit/vegetables/green tea. It's rather like telling a person that they need to continue to eat white bread every day since it has fibre. There are far better sources of both
"Jeeeeeeesus address the point not the lazy example – why do you want to make it so that only the rich can enjoy alcohol?"

Alcohol duty is in effect here, and it has not in any conceivable way limited alcohol consumption (regardless of socioeconomic background) for moderate drinkers. Therefore your point is rather moot.

That's not how the state collects alcohol and tobacco duty. It's obviously done at the point of sale as far as the customer is concerned"Not addressing the moonshine point?"

knocking up your own distillery with the express intention of circumventing licensing laws has nothing to with your original assertion that "pain of imprisonment" is held oppressively over the drinker's head. U dodge taxes in any facet of commercial life and you're "at pain of imprisonment" since you're tax dodging. You can't go to prison for abusing legal drugs though, so we can stop with the "pain of imprisonment" shit since you're side tracking the argument.

The cannabis laws in this country are a running joke; Especially since u have total idiots like Jacqui smith disregarding the opinion of ppl infinitely more qualified than her. I agree with you on that particular substance
"Yes great, good. But again you’ve completely misunderstood the point being made and instead focused on the example. The point being the illegality"

I think you've missed the point since I did allude to the fact that I think cannabis should be legal. We can apply the "pain of imprisonment" (daft term) here. Absolutely it's oppressive. I say for the second time, we're in agreement on cannabis. Don't hug me.

Not at all. Just because I think it right, that smokers pay more into the treasury via tobacco duty, doesn't mean I hate the NHS. I'm all for it.
"If you’re all for it then you should accept the founding principle of the NHS being free to all at the point of service"

It's not free, it's just free at the point of service. Alcohol and tobacco duty doesn't change the fact that it's still free at the point of service

I don't know if you're being intentionally disingenuous, but playing football, or engaging in most other physical activities/sports is no more a risk than getting in to your car to go to the shops.
"Yes, exactly, that’s the point. There’s risks in everything." "Why do you want to place a hypocritical social stigma on one risk and not another?"

It's not hypocrisy since physical activity cannot be equated with abuse of legal or illegal drugs. I'm going to let this one lie, since I'm convinced that everybody else can see the distinction.

"The point is one of force, coercion – this is not something my employer holds. He cannot lock me up if I don’t do as he says."

Why do u say that your employer cannot coerce, then attempt to prove your point by reminding me that he can't imprison you? Imprisonment is the only manifestation of coercion? What about getting sacked? Couldn't an employer hold that over a worker's head? That doesn't constitute coercion to u? There are a myriad of ways in which an employer can coerce.

You love a big post i know u do

Fuck I cannot be arsed to type another essay (especially as you keep taking the fucking examples as the thrust of the point – jesus, we’re talking principles nobody gives a fuck how much alcohol costs the NHS, that’s entirely not the point – also, it’s not the fucking NHS or the governments money, it costs them nothing).

I’ve never once said government intervention is bad, or that I think we should have none -I’ve merely explained how universal healthcare inevitably leads to oppression. I’ve also voiced objections to people, the state or otherwise, looking to coercively dictate how another person leads their life.

To have any semblance of honesty in your ideas you must have consistency – this is something you’re fundamentally lacking and entirely ignoring.

The point is a very simple one – either you’re taxing in order to prevent a risk (risk of injury resulting in a cost to the NHS) or you’re making a moral judgement and looking to oppressively impose your morals on others.

If you believe government should actively seek to minimise risk, consequently reducing the cost to the NHS, through taxation or otherwise, you must surely seek similar measures against any and all activities carrying a similar risk? Given the above factors this is the only logical conclusion, the only fair and consistent conclusion. This is the point being made.

(We’ll pull one quote as an example of this; you said “What about (as u mention) inherited illnesses etc? Are you suggesting I wouldn't want the NHS to treat them? On what flimsy idea do u base that (ill disguised) assertion?” – you’re onto slightly sketchier grounds here as the risk created by an inherited illness doesn’t involve choice – the general point being a person with such an illness carries a greater risk of requiring medical treatment, and, as such, as with those that consume alcohol, you must believe should pay a premium? – a better example is anyone that consumes anything remotely decadent – anything that isn’t required to exist)

Given that we don’t do this, you’re looking to make a moral judgement on alcohol, invalidating the argument of cost.

It makes sense that a group of ppl who choose to be more burdensome (purely out of recreation) pay extra in to the treasury for additional (much needed) health service funding

Yes, thank you – you’ve finally come round to agreeing with my point on sport, driving a car, eating too much, eating too little – everything involving risk.

You’ve again missed the point on coercion – only the state can [legally] imprison you.

You can't go to prison for abusing legal drugs though, so we can stop with the "pain of imprisonment" shit since you're side tracking the argument.

Jeez brush up on your comprehension skills. We’re discussing punitive oppressive sin taxes – to avoid said taxes will result in imprisonment, comprende?

It's not hypocrisy since physical activity cannot be equated with abuse of legal or illegal drugs. I'm going to let this one lie, since I'm convinced that everybody else can see the distinction.

You clearly can’t =) you’ve been reared to think one way, the state is always right. It’s okay you grow out of it, everyone does.

Why do u say that your employer cannot coerce, then attempt to prove your point by reminding me that he can't imprison you? Imprisonment is the only manifestation of coercion?

Choice, dear, choice. Wibble on semantics all you like, the point is very clear.

But you’ve basically summed up why your view is worthless, you believe in control, you don’t believe in individual sovereignty, you believe the end always justifies the means – you think you’ve devised the perfect formula for life and want to force everyone else to abide by it.

Oh look, your utter retardness got me again.

Eek aggressive when I post from work :f

You've hardly raised any arguments that weren't already in your previous posts. You've shown no real understanding (or willingness to) of the points raised, but instead decided to tell me where I stand, through extremely clumsy extrapolation & simplistic assumption. I am actually a bit disappointed to sign out of the "debate" in this way; your obstinacy shows you're not really interested in debate, but imposing your will. Rather ironic considering that's what you've accused me of wanting to do all along

You've shown no real understanding (or willingness to) of the points raised

It's exactly because you've missed the point that I've had to restate things - in every single post you've made you've entirely and absolutely missed the point.

Simplistic doesn't necessitate bad, it is simple.

fuck sake not another one missing your point. maybe because... wait for it... YOU HAD NONE TO BEGIN WITH YAYYY

The original post is factually correct :) the rest is internet blub with him flying off of tangets that'd quickly be shut down in real debate, hop on coms and I'll happily explain it to you.

oh please, do write another essay with no point. if that doesn't work, you can always delete my posts.

They’re mandated to provide policing, schooling, public services – not to mandate what we can and cannot be trusted to consume.

Way to go on having no idea how this country works. The MPs are elected to run every aspect of the nation and have full authority to micro manage our lives if they choose.

If you believe government should actively seek to minimise risk, consequently reducing the cost to the NHS, through taxation or otherwise, you must surely seek similar measures against any and all activities carrying a similar risk? Given the above factors this is the only logical conclusion, the only fair and consistent conclusion. This is the point being made.

Dur, I don't think anyone would disagree and it is the reality of the situation anyway.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Foods cost the NHS way more than pretty much any other lifestyle choice (Things that aren't chosen obviously shouldn't be included in this discussion).

Your chances of getting liver disease drinking water or lung cancer breathing clean air are minimal. People getting injured playing sports (even extreme sports) is peanuts in comparison, not only do they cause less problems but the problems they cause are far cheaper.

you don’t believe in individual sovereignty

Individual Sovereignty within the rules set by society. The good of society is always more important than Individual Sovereignty.

?

We need to put restrictions on corporations, not citizens. Make the drinking age something reasonable again, but all advertising needs to be reduced to equally obnoxious text ads or something.

And democracy without education is like giving loaded guns to retards.

Is protosschick stunt's girlfriend or something?

Oh fuck I just made that joke and it looks like you beat me to it.

Well I apologize for having your idea before you. :D

hahahahahaha thanks for deleting my posts Nellie you pathetic idiot.

massive retort retard.

these are the ones he deleted:

Re: so health bill passed?! (No comments)
(Deleted Journal:)
Posted by tourist @ 17:09 GMT, 12 November 2009 - iMsg, Del, Edit, History, Mark
no I was commenting your "forcing a person into powerty by raising taxes on cigs and alcohol" part.

Re: so health bill passed?! (No comments)
(Deleted Journal:)
Posted by tourist @ 21:18 GMT, 12 November 2009 - iMsg, Del, Edit, History, Mark
you haven't explained how government raising taxes on cigs and boozer will drive us into poverty.

- - - - -

Apart from I deleted neither...

well, technically you did.

intentionally or not. you could have easily told him why his posts were missing, which would lead me to believe you actually did

ah well, stupid shit.

Stupid shit is you posting this here trying to troll when it's been clearly explained days ago.

I didn't moderate his posts.

nothing had been explained here. You thought you didn't delete his posts while in fact you did.

Everyone can make mistakes, but it's important how you deal with it.

I want it to be noted my post below was typed before I saw this :v

then he had the audacity to say:

By -nepal- Nellie '
Just for the record - I haven't deleted / moderated any of tourists posts in the 'health bill' thread - I did delete one of my posts which tourist had replied to but any user can delete their own posts?

let alone that he deleted my posts with no reason, but lying about it deserves instant demotion from user admin to BANNED.

y Unset Aaron +++ - Reply to #49
wait, apologies

well, if the post of yours had two replies off of him that is anyway.

if an admin deletes a post then all replies go with it.

I cannot be bothered to check the structure of what was posted but that was probably the case. the only thing to be dubious about is why he didn't tell you that was the case (he knew it was) and thought it more amusing to claim you had deleted your own posts.

he should have nuked his post or edited to blank. or in light of this, re-activate his original post, then edit it leaving your replies intact.

the end result is the same, he deleted my posts and lied about it.

this is true.

well in a way you are right, but technically it's not lying if you don't know it better.

and he said he mixed the esr system up with xfire, where deleting posts works pretty much like nuking here.

dunno about you but I tend to believe him, because it would have been one of the dumbest lies ever ...

"dunno about you but I tend to believe him"

why am I not surprised?

because you are unable to objectively evaluate the situation without letting you opinion about me influence you and/or because you were unable to interprete nellie'S statement which aaron quoted correctly.


He said he deleted his own post, unaware that with it, subsequent replies would be deleted as well. Why would someone intentionally make himself look stupid like that?

Everyone with a clear mind can see that. But apparantly you're much too busy to see evil forces at work and yourself as a victim of a abuse who's fighting back.

public defender becks letting them get away on a technicality. however, if enough people say otherwise public defender becks will change his opinion. as usual.

Policeman tourist shooting people for not seeing a traffic sign.
Wouldn't even matter is they weren't speeding. HE SAW IT WITH HIS OWN EYES!!!


The big difference between us is that I use reason and can almost always say why I did what. I also have the ability to change my opinion when new evidence and facts arise.
A trait that obviously is completely unknown and mysterious to you.

You on the other hand only rely on the power of your own conviction. And as many say: idiocy.

my "idiocy" tends to be correct, mysteriously. but hey I'm sure your good faith works just as good.

lol.

how did that walter things turn out? I mean except for almost everyone making fun of you?

see how public opinion sways you? it's sad really.

Yeah, it really swayed me.

I said I didn't think he cheats in the beginning, then I continued to say I think he didn't cheat some more, then my opionion really changed and I said I think he doesn't cheat.

Even with yuka, I kept my mind open (you still haven't found a quote where I said otherwise, I we both know you tried) and waited, while you were ready to jump right away.

It's hilarious how you think the ability to decide fast and stay with your opinion forever makes you right somehow. And that everyone who can reassess the situation based on new knowledge must be wrong.


I guess if you play poker you decide th worth your hand and don't let something as trivial as a flop, turn or river sway your opinion. So, if you bet you don't fold no matter what the odds, because of pride or whatever.
Obviously, sometimes you will still win because you hold the nuts, and sometimes you will fold right in the beginning.


tl;dr: lol, moron

see that's the difference, you take public opinion as yours and I don't. if I ever do take someone's opinion into account, I make sure it's the expert opinion.

nope, you would only take that expert's opinion if he agrees with you. if he doesn't you'll ignore it.

Don't you wonder why none of the top players agreed with you when you gave us those wonderful youtube videos?
Maybe even fox has the ability to change his mind, that you find so disturbing.

oh

yes, that is fazz posting. (and being wrong about the "He'll never show up").

But , please enlighten me, where does he write something like "Yes, that is a wallhack".

no idea. now feel free to quote him where he says "tourist you idiot, there's not enough proof, yuka doesn't cheat".

good to see you are spending all this time looking for comment and that's all you can come up with.

a (half) joking statement that also leaves the option that walter is just really, really good with rail on hub.


will that be all or do you want to keep failing?

and as much as you may wish for it, you had nothing to do with finding out yuka was a cheat.
All you did was write comments here.

So, if there would be such a post it would be adressed to CAREEM.

you can write another post if it makes you feel better.

good for you.

Fine you win, I made the mistake of engaging with the troll and as ever playing at their level makes you end up looking an idiot. Ironically the original was deleted to avoid going off on a tangent, but here we are – guess it was inevitable, forgot the calibre of trolls on here.

I apologise for unintentionally deleting your comment Tourist, it was collateral that went with my post as I didn’t realise normal users couldn’t delete their own posts, unlike elsewhere. I also didn’t realise admins could “re-activate” comments – you see, Aaron, that’s why the post was made in the admin forum, had you, or anyone else in there, wanted to, they could’ve made me aware that you could do this, or done it themselves. What did you do instead Aaron?

The timestamps on the above post with the picture are before I realised the posts you were talking of could’ve been the two that were replies to my deleted post, then, having checked the admin log, posted in the admin forum for clarities sake. Now knowing that it’s not the MO around here to delete comments with replies on, I left it up there. “Lying” is a harsh interpretation, “unintentionally misled” =] Had you asked earlier I would’ve happily explained.

Everyone happy – can we cuddle?

Health care is oppressive bitches (you can accept the truth of the point and not give a fuck, but the truth remains the same).

you abused admin rights in a discussion and deserve to be stripped of them. had you any arguments from the beginning you wouldn't have to retort to pathetic shit like deleting posts and lying about it. now you're having to apologize to the same people you call trolls. cute

You’re insatiable hun =)

tis how I roll

funny things is that I wrote to him that an apology is in order for making a mistake.

And you know I won't stop at calling you a troll ;)

Look at the timestamps of the post... as tourist would say, you're a "massive retard" aaron.

eh?

what part of 'can't be fuckedto check the structure' do you not understand?

secondly, he deleted those posts you took a picture of, after you deleted the original post, so I fail to understand how the time stamps mean anything. unless you're referring the discussion in that shitty admin thread and the time you posted that image, but even then you must have seen the post of his that was deleted by your actions.

it doesn't matter, you still indirectly deleted his post which you could have fixed when you found out that was the case.

let's do a bit of objective analysis(not the becks kind)

facts:
1. he deleted my posts (directly or indirectly, fact is they are deleted)
2. he denied deleting them

this leaves us two possible options:

1. he did it on purpose, which means he abused his admin rights when I made him look like an idiot in a discussion
2. he deleted his post out of ignorance, meaning he's a muppet who's not capable of understanding basic site functionality

in both cases, he's not someone who should be a user admin. agreed?

I think of all the admin, only 3 or 4 should be an admin.

Nellie isn't one of them, but that's me. the cunt in me is inclined to agree, yet I don't make large polls or do bets due to the stupidity of the system. :(

then again posts and files get approved slowly as it is.

true.

it's another aspect of the site I do not understand. considering it was a quick fix to stop daryl spamming the site.

It's funny he whines of admin abuse then does the below...

Re: so health bill passed?! (No comments)
(Deleted Journal:)
Posted by Nellie @ 16:11 GMT, 19 November 2009 - iMsg, Del, Edit, History, Mark
You're entitled to your opinion, the admin channel wasn't exactly receptive to your name last night.

no, it never is. yet, aside 3 or 4 they're all stupid cunts, so what can one do?

hi, no need to delete or edit your posts.

USA #1, fuck people who can't get health care. Nature says we need to survive and only the strongest survive not some weak ass niggas. Nuff said right there.


I'm glad I can get the best health care in the world right here in America. Because I earn it. Here in America we are great people with great and super intelligent minds. Europe must be envious of our great people. AS you see they can never shut up about USA. Love reading through all these comments and looking at how envious euros wish they could be great Americans. As you can see, we don't give a shit about your country of europe. Who gives a fuck about something 2nd 3rd best. We live the good life of freedom. You are slaves. So you feel the need to chat about everything you wish you had in euroland that America has. Yeaah. Maybe one day we will fuck all your daughters and you can have some half great people in your country too.

yeah we a slaves to intelligence and smart choices.

You go ahead and enjoy your "freedom"

sup nigga? i see you are still fat m8

epic troll post