|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses?
#14108201 - 03/12/11 10:32 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The other topic asking this question just turned into a debate about welfare and the culture of the wild west, but I think this example gets to the crux of the issue of socialized health care, so I'm asking it again.
If you support the police and the army but don't support public health care, what is the key difference?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14108214 - 03/12/11 10:39 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
habit/familiarity.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,049
Last seen: 34 minutes, 55 seconds
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14108245 - 03/12/11 10:47 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The govt. protects the nation from foreign threats, when idividuals become ill it is very rarely a threat to the nation and when it is a threat, it already does to some extent protect the populace through the work of the CDC.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14108414 - 03/12/11 11:21 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
how exactly dos public health care protect me from anything?
how do the police or the military protect me for that matter...
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14108867 - 03/12/11 12:49 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
public health would protect you by using medicine to treat illness. say you get pneumonia, healthcare would protect you by giving you antibiotics. pretty simple.
if you don't support public police and armies, my question isn't really directed at you, however in theory the existence of police dissuades thugs from taking your property and/or harming you, and armies dissuade foreign nations from taking your property and/or harming you and/or enslaving you...
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14110389 - 03/12/11 06:18 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: If you support the police and the army but don't support public health care, what is the key difference?
I don't think it's really a matter of there being a key difference, I just think it's a matter of us not having enough money to fund it due to the fact that we're spending tons of our money on the police and the armed forces, which are more important.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14110793 - 03/12/11 07:26 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: The other topic asking this question just turned into a debate about welfare and the culture of the wild west, but I think this example gets to the crux of the issue of socialized health care, so I'm asking it again.
If you support the police and the army but don't support public health care, what is the key difference?
In the US, the federal government has the power to form police units and military units under the constitution. It does not have this authority with regards to healthcare. Further, the government may not take property without due process of law, and in constitutional fasion. This tends to be the problem. Rather than objecting to healthcare, the the objection and legal problem is the confiscation of wealth. That it is to be used for healthcare is incidental.
Practically: The military is to protect the soveirgnty of the nation, to ensure it continues and protects its rights and hopefully the rights of the people therein. The police enforce the laws, ideally, and carry them out.
Both of these are state functions for the benefit of the state. This is not similar to healthcare.
Further, vacteria and viruses don't infringe upon anyone's rights, at least by most accounts- unless you accept some moral right against non-sentient forces incapable of observing such nor of moral choice.
You have no right to police protection, military protection, nor health care in the US. That the government provides all three or otherwise facilitates the delivery of such, does not matter.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14110892 - 03/12/11 07:41 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Rather than objecting to healthcare, the the objection and legal problem is the confiscation of wealth. That it is to be used for healthcare is incidental.
If someone objects to the confiscation of wealth, wouldn't they also be opposed to all taxes? What are taxes besides confiscation of wealth?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14111289 - 03/12/11 08:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: public health would protect you by using medicine to treat illness. say you get pneumonia, healthcare would protect you by giving you antibiotics. pretty simple.
so in other words it's just like the cops, after you're sick they'll give you something, after you're robbed the cops show up... can I ask how that's protecting me if the bad shit has already happened?
Quote:
if you don't support public police and armies, my question isn't really directed at you, however in theory the existence of police dissuades thugs from taking your property and/or harming you, and armies dissuade foreign nations from taking your property and/or harming you and/or enslaving you...
I was robbed 5 times when I moved to this town I'm in now, it's not a high crime area, I had livestock shot on 2 separate occasions, again, this isnt a high crime area and since I'd just moved here it's not as though anyone had a vendetta, they just saw an opportunity to commit a crime, can I ask how the police protected me?
one day I see a strange truck drive up my other driveway and start toward a mobile home I was storing stuff in, I hopped in my truck, drove up there and walked the 5 men that went into the place down to the road where I held them at gun point until the police arrived... how did the police protect me?
the US has 300mil civilians and 600 million guns, what army will invade? with the bulk of US military overseas, how are they actually protecting the citizens?
do you understand what protection is? protection is prevention, it's not trying to clean up a mess after the fact, the US had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing, was america protected then?
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14111449 - 03/12/11 09:11 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Rights are for pussies. Nobody has a right to the fruits of their labor.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#14111587 - 03/12/11 09:37 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
iluvfungi



Registered: 06/17/09
Posts: 1,488
Loc: Oakland, CA USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14129558 - 03/16/11 08:42 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: how exactly dos public health care protect me from anything?
how do the police or the military protect me for that matter...
You indirectly are protected by both the police and the military. Without them total chaos would irrupt. Personally if police didn't exist I'd go on a mass murder spree, brutally murdering as many people as I could.
Hey, maybe eventually I'd hunt you down and kill you. That would be my life mission if it wasn't illegal. You should personally perhaps be grateful. I'm sure many others would join the blood fest in the event military and police didn't exist. This is strictly confirmed by older civilizations whom used to kill each other for no real reason other then just to kill themselves.
Don't you feel that in your DNA? You were born to die, what matters if it was today or in 100 years? That is the glory of this life, to live or die, as long as it was in the name of some supposed honor it was worthwhile.
In the event of no order, I suppose the mission would be to kill everyone else. Honestly I've always wanted to kill someone. I think it has to be such a great thrill. I would have loved to join the military, but I was an only son and did too many drugs in my teens to have the guts to go.
But that doesn't mean that if the world goes to complete chaos someday I won't kill someone. Aren't you just fascinated by the concept of taking someones life in front of your eyes? They blow it up in the movies all the time.
Everyone is always afraid of me in real life, most likely because they know I would kill them, without any remorse for something trivial if they pushed it. I don't want it ever to happen, but if it does, no hesitation. I've learned my lesson in going easy in a battle. If someone wants to fight me, it's to the fucking death. Either kill me, because I will kill you.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: iluvfungi]
#14129609 - 03/16/11 08:55 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Therapy.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14130254 - 03/16/11 11:38 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Will self-inflicted diseases like heart disease and certain forms of cancer be excluded from public-funded healthcare then?
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14131185 - 03/16/11 01:57 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: public health would protect you by using medicine to treat illness. say you get pneumonia, healthcare would protect you by giving you antibiotics. pretty simple.
so in other words it's just like the cops, after you're sick they'll give you something, after you're robbed the cops show up... can I ask how that's protecting me if the bad shit has already happened?
the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave. Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.
If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.
Quote:
I was robbed 5 times when I moved to this town I'm in now, it's not a high crime area, I had livestock shot on 2 separate occasions, again, this isnt a high crime area and since I'd just moved here it's not as though anyone had a vendetta, they just saw an opportunity to commit a crime, can I ask how the police protected me?
one day I see a strange truck drive up my other driveway and start toward a mobile home I was storing stuff in, I hopped in my truck, drove up there and walked the 5 men that went into the place down to the road where I held them at gun point until the police arrived... how did the police protect me?
the US has 300mil civilians and 600 million guns, what army will invade? with the bulk of US military overseas, how are they actually protecting the citizens?
do you understand what protection is? protection is prevention, it's not trying to clean up a mess after the fact, the US had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing, was america protected then?
It seems like you're thinking that either the police prevent all crime or no crime. I can't help but think your just looking to argue, because the basic theory of police and the justice system is not just that it punishes people but that it deters people. Not 100%, but some unmeasurable percentage. This is a very basic idea fundamental to our social contract.
2nd to this IMO is the police taking out career criminals and psychopaths. A serial killer may get 20 people before the police catch him, but when they catch him #21, 22, 23.... are all protected.
So if you have been protected by the deterrent of police or the arrest of a psychopath, there is no evidence, for you can't prove that you went unharmed on a particular day because of the deterrent.
The only way to accurately measure the effectiveness of the police would be to make two earths, one with an America with police and one with and America without.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: pothead_bob]
#14136301 - 03/17/11 11:33 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pothead_bob said: Will self-inflicted diseases like heart disease and certain forms of cancer be excluded from public-funded healthcare then?
^^This.
What about sports injuries, injuries from being dumb, and injuries that result from breaking laws (even stupid laws like j-walking). Once the state has an interest in your health, they have an interest in preventing you from hurting yourself, which means they have an interest in keeping you out of risky scenarios. And they just happen to have coercive power to attempt to modify your behavior accordingly...
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14136834 - 03/17/11 01:37 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14136878 - 03/17/11 01:43 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?
Who has objected to doctors coming to your aid?
This kind of construction seems a dishonest question: it excludes the objectionable content from discussion.
I've noticed and commented frequently upon the tendancy of people to speak of the services provided exclusively when speaking of a government program. Generally this seems to betray support for the program or the power. It seems a dishonest tactic to employ this style of question: as if someone has a problem with state having doctors come to your aid. When has that ever been objected to? If it isn't then why would you even address it as if it was controversial?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: iluvfungi]
#14137008 - 03/17/11 02:16 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iluvfungi said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: how exactly dos public health care protect me from anything?
how do the police or the military protect me for that matter...
You indirectly are protected by both the police and the military. Without them total chaos would irrupt. Personally if police didn't exist I'd go on a mass murder spree, brutally murdering as many people as I could.
Hey, maybe eventually I'd hunt you down and kill you.
I guess you're unaware, I welcome the chaos and violence, it's what makes me thrive
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14137014 - 03/17/11 02:18 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: ...it's what makes me thrive
That, and meff. 
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14137036 - 03/17/11 02:22 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave. Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.
If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.
I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards, never took the antibiotics, seems that my own body builds antibodies that fight off the bacteria that cause things like pneumonia just as I provide my own protection while the police are nothing more than a sanitation department
Quote:
It seems like you're thinking that either the police prevent all crime or no crime. I can't help but think your just looking to argue
no, I'm simply stating that the police dont provide protection and are under no obligation to do so, private security forces are more willing as are armed civilians, why would we need yet another trillion dollar dysfunction of government
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14137071 - 03/17/11 02:29 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?
The situations are not analogous. The former involves at least 2 people with agency and an aggressor, while the latter involves only one person (myself). Presumably, I should be able to walk into that dark alleyway and the police are there to ensure that all public spaces are, in fact, accessible to the public. Obviously it doesn't really work like that, but in principle that's the idea. I have every right to injure myself, however the public is in no way obligated to fix me when I do, nor do they really benefit from it in any way.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14137195 - 03/17/11 02:55 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?
Who has objected to doctors coming to your aid?
This kind of construction seems a dishonest question: it excludes the objectionable content from discussion.
I've noticed and commented frequently upon the tendancy of people to speak of the services provided exclusively when speaking of a government program. Generally this seems to betray support for the program or the power. It seems a dishonest tactic to employ this style of question: as if someone has a problem with state having doctors come to your aid. When has that ever been objected to? If it isn't then why would you even address it as if it was controversial?
I'm not sure where you are coming from. Plenty of people object to publicly funded health care.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14137605 - 03/17/11 04:22 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?
Who has objected to doctors coming to your aid?
This kind of construction seems a dishonest question: it excludes the objectionable content from discussion.
I've noticed and commented frequently upon the tendancy of people to speak of the services provided exclusively when speaking of a government program. Generally this seems to betray support for the program or the power. It seems a dishonest tactic to employ this style of question: as if someone has a problem with state having doctors come to your aid. When has that ever been objected to? If it isn't then why would you even address it as if it was controversial?
I'm not sure where you are coming from. Plenty of people object to publicly funded health care.
Well let's see if we can resolve this confusion:
Previously you implied that the state sending doctors to assist people was controversial. I replied that this is not a controversial practice and that to speak of the pros and cons of the state sending doctors to assist people is to ignore the controversy surrounding public healthcare alltogether- dishonestly framing it as some objection to people recieving medical treatment, or the state providing dispatching services, when that isn't it at all.
Now you express confusion as to my position and state in apparent rebuttal that plenty of people oppose publically funded healthcare No connection between this fact and the putative controversy over the state sending doctors to assist people has been drawn by you, and it is therefore unclear why you make this declaration as if its relevance was self evident.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14141274 - 03/18/11 02:04 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have no idea what you're talking about. Is it not clear from the context that I am talking about doctors whose salary is paid by the state? It seems you think that when I say 'state sending doctors' that I am talking about the states motivation to send the doctor, rather than the state paying the doctors salary. But that is not the case.
I thought it would be clear from the context, interesting that rather than give the benefit of doubt you assume I am using sinnister tactics to win some argument.
In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation. If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care. Its sad that you are so quick to assume that I am trying to prove some point when I am trying to use analogy to create contrast to highlight differences in thought. My goal is to explore with you this unknown.
When I ask a question its not to set you up, its because I want to know what you think because I respect other people's thoughts and I wish to ponder them in an attempt to understand the world. I understand this point of view is rare in the discussion of politics; I highly recommend it.
Edited by Freedom (03/18/11 02:07 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14141277 - 03/18/11 02:05 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation.

-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14142018 - 03/18/11 08:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Freedom said: In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation.



|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom] 2
#14144027 - 03/18/11 04:13 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.
and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14144848 - 03/18/11 06:53 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave. Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.
If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.
I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards...
Then how did you know you had pneumonia? Don't you need to have your lungs x-rayed in order to be diagnosed with it?
Pneumonia - Wikipedia
Quote:
Diagnostic tools include x-rays and examination of the sputum.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14145029 - 03/18/11 07:26 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
He diagnosed and cured it with his brain, bro.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14145115 - 03/18/11 07:43 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave. Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.
If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.
I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards...
Then how did you know you had pneumonia? Don't you need to have your lungs x-rayed in order to be diagnosed with it?
Pneumonia - Wikipedia
Quote:
Diagnostic tools include x-rays and examination of the sputum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputum
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14145127 - 03/18/11 07:44 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Oh.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14145172 - 03/18/11 07:51 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
and there's 2 ways in which to get a sample, one is to cough up a bunch of phlegm, the other is to stab your lung with a 16ga 3 inch spinal needle and suck the crap out with a syringe
treatment includes bed rest, OJ and a puppy dog for company
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14145199 - 03/18/11 07:56 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: ...the other is to stab your lung with a 16ga 3 inch spinal needle and suck the crap out with a syringe
I'm assuming this is the route you took?
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: treatment includes bed rest, OJ and a puppy dog for company
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14147472 - 03/19/11 08:47 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.
and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative
If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14147706 - 03/19/11 10:02 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I did not cure myself of pneumonia, my body healed it's self in a couple of weeks, interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication, I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a week, I see no advantage to medications for myself and apparently most americans dont either since it's a small percentage that have those regular doctard visits
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14147721 - 03/19/11 10:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: ...interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication, I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a week...
Can you provide any articles which suggest that treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as not treating it at all?
PS--strep throat sucks ass.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
angel18
Stranger


Registered: 03/19/11
Posts: 17
Loc: canada
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14149088 - 03/19/11 03:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Poid Can you Provide any articles the which suggest That Treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as Treating it note at all?
PS - strep throat sucks ass
it could have been interpreted not to cure but rather to reduce pain.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14149185 - 03/19/11 03:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I had a sore throat that lasted longer than it should have if it wasn't Mono (several weeks), but I tested negative for mono. The doctors kept giving me different antibiotics, and all they did was cause an allergic reaction and made me break out.
Finally, I decided to just stop taking my antibiotics and started taking Loratadine.. I started getting better almost immediately. I don't really know if it was the Loratadine that did it, but that's my "I are doing medisenz bettar than doctardzzzz" story.
Footnote: later I discovered that I had an abscessed tooth, which may have been related, maybe.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
#14149529 - 03/19/11 05:18 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.
and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative
If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
Please back up your premise that "medicine preventing death in some cases" is relevant to the health care debate in the US or that debate and the question of state police protection.
You seem to make the implicit argument that police save lives and that medicine does as well, and that unless implemented, the US healthcare system will let people die due to not having medicine: a consequence alleged to be due to the lack of implementing public health care reform proposals.
This seems like a straw man argument to me, as I don't recall anyone arguing to let people die, and you've so far not established this to be the conequence of not implementing the healthcare proposals. Untill you establish this connection, your argument seems entirely rested on suppositions.
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: ...interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication, I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a week...
Can you provide any articles which suggest that treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as not treating it at all?
PS--strep throat sucks ass. 
Kind of the wrong question: those complaining about strep-throat-mimicking symptoms have marginal improvements in a relatively small proportion of cases upon recieving first line antibiotics as compared to treatment as if it were a virus (hydration and rest). If you actually know strep is the causitive organism, then you have information that the primary care doctor doesn't neccesarily have, and thus the disposition of this case is dissimilar to that most commonly encountered.
The argument is that big brother should not use antibiotics as it may lead to resistance and the benefits in the typical case of strep-like symptoms are too infrequent and marginal for the normal individual to be worth the risk to the larger population.
I have a big problem with paternalism in medicine (preventing people from buying drugs without government-agent permission, recieving their preferred treatment, decisions made without their input or awareness/preference being obtained). The argument regarding antibiotic resistance (as well as compulsory vaccination by law) seems to have some problems along these lines that are morally troubling.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14149706 - 03/19/11 05:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.
and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative
If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
Please back up your premise that "medicine preventing death in some cases" is relevant to the health care debate in the US or that debate and the question of state police protection.
You seem to make the implicit argument that police save lives and that medicine does as well, and that unless implemented, the US healthcare system will let people die due to not having medicine: a consequence alleged to be due to the lack of implementing public health care reform proposals.
This seems like a straw man argument to me, as I don't recall anyone arguing to let people die, and you've so far not established this to be the conequence of not implementing the healthcare proposals. Untill you establish this connection, your argument seems entirely rested on suppositions.
My main point is not to make an argument, its to compare and contrast publicly funded law enforcement with publicly funded health care.
Generalizing, I think it is fair to say that those on the right support publicly funded law enforcement but not publicly funded health care. I think it is an interesting comparison since both have similar goals that can be generalized to protecting our well being.
I am not attempting to imply that publicly funded health care or law enforcement is good or bad. I'm asking those who favor one but not the other to explain the difference. I ask this in good faith, believing that there are some interesting and thought provoking reasons.
ChuangTzu's reply was interesting and thought provoking. He brought up the thought that health issues are often preventable by the individual, so there is an element of individual responsibility while crime is usually not preventable by the individual, or at least to a much lesser degree. I suppose that's where Pris' take on it would be, where the individual should be responsible for his/her own safety and carry a weapon.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14150387 - 03/19/11 08:00 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Your purpose has nothing to do with the validity of the comparison you've made, which I challenge. You've not defended the comparision yet have not withdrawn it- instead discussing side issues.
Why?
Whether you have an argument or not that you intend to address, or whatever purpose you may have, the fact that the comparisons you've drawn must be probative to be of any import, is plain.
Now either back up the premises underlying your comparison that I've challenged or withdraw it. Asides exploring your motivation are irrelevant.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14150524 - 03/19/11 08:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ok back up, what is your beef with comparing publicly funded law enforcement to publicly funded health care?
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14152138 - 03/20/11 02:37 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
My beef is with your argument, which for the third time I will now ask you to defend and substantiate or withdraw. You raised the issue of people dieing due to a lack of medication in the context of your discussion of the merits of reforming US healthcare policy to provide for the public payment of healthcare. I challenge this premise, which you liken to death from criminal elements that are arguably stopped by the police. Basically, I doubt people are dieing due to acute lack of treatment, drugs, being available to them, as you suggest- likening it to the person confronted by an assailant who is rescued by the police and saved. Whatever my particular problem with the analogy or argument as a whole is not particularly relevant- at least you've not shown it to be so.
As for the defects in your comparison generaly: I'd say the fact that the police enforce laws as directed by the state and for the state's benefit makes the charitable nature of their work somewhat suspect. You offer their function as a service to the people, but as Prisoner rightly states: you have no right to police protection even where they operate in the US. Further, the police work at the pleasure of the state and for duties the state assigns rather than for the people. If the interests of the state and the people coincide in a particular case that does not detract from this point (in my experience, the public's interest is almost always contrary to the police, as most people I know have not benefited from police intervention to their knowledge but have been harmed by such- myself included. That my interests weren't served and neither were the interests of the community in their fulfillment of their harmful duties was of no concern to them as this is not the master they serve). The police are, plainly, in existance to carry out executive orders. This is not a humanitarian or publically helpful function, necessarily. They are, rather, the state's apparatus for executing control. This is not similar to the function a doctor serves in serving the patient's health.
The analogy more fitting to the police officer would be one of the public health official who orders patients arrested and quarantined that have communicable illness or conditions of public health cocnern. That these arrests are often contrary to the interest of the individual who is ill is revealing of the flaw in your comparison.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14152634 - 03/20/11 07:38 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14153132 - 03/20/11 10:52 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: ChuangTzu's reply was interesting and thought provoking. He brought up the thought that health issues are often preventable by the individual, so there is an element of individual responsibility while crime is usually not preventable by the individual, or at least to a much lesser degree. I suppose that's where Pris' take on it would be, where the individual should be responsible for his/her own safety and carry a weapon.
even without carrying a weapon much of the crime against persons can be prevented just as property crimes can be, the CIA and NSA dont run easily accessed systems that allow people to just go through files, they put security measures in place to prevent intrusions just as the individual needs to be aware of their surroundings and the people coming into it, to prevent crimes against your person you certainly wouldnt go strolling through low income areas wearing more gold than Mr.T and it's advisable to move away from a perceived threat into a more public area thus reducing the chances of you being victimized by criminals
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14153261 - 03/20/11 11:18 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I never claimed that people were dieing due to lack of treatment. The cause is the virus or bacteria etc. The analogy is something like: police are to criminals as doctors are to bacteria.
You think anarchy would not create a more dangerous world? The traditional purpose of the police, as I understand it, is like you said for control. But I think the basic premise is that without this control you would have anarchy, there would be more thugs and thus we would all face greater danger.
i.e. ""People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14155103 - 03/20/11 05:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
How is there a relevant difference? Whether the cause is bacterial or viral agents has nothing to do with whether people are succumbing to lethal effects that would not have been realized but for the claimed lack of healthcare facilities. Your distinction seems to have some major problems in light of this fact.
You said: Quote:
the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
Now you say you were not claiming people were dieing without treatment despite you clearly saying death results without medicine in some cases and that this is analogous to the function of the police
I've asked you three times, and now a fourth, to defend your argument which I quoted. You've equivocated each time, however; never addressing the issue: simply effecting blanket denials a'la your latest post, without addressing the argument.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14155826 - 03/20/11 08:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am not equivocating. I have been unable to understand what your beef is.
I don't think your argument is complicated, so you should be able to state it in a sentence or two, not paragraphs. This is why I keep restating my original premise, to make it clear and concise in the hope that you can state your beef clearly and concisely.
I am willing to agree that adequate care is available now, although this is debatable. What is it about this adequate care that causes you to dislike the analogy? If we currently had public healthcare but private security, would you be claiming my analogy doesn't work because we already had adequate security?
|
|