On 07/11/2012 10:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:56:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 1/	No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
>> religion that promises life after death.
>
> I disagree.  There are some who accept that that is the reality of the
> situation (to the best of anyone's actual knowledge), and are OK with
> that.
>

You are right to disagree. I was sloppy with my language.

>
>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>
> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.

I do.

> Objectively, there are ways to measure someone's competence (we do that all the time
> in the courts to determine if someone is 'competent to stand trial'),

True.

> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted on
> would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>

Obviously it does to people who believe that.
I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then 
you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might 
decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso 
facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
It is a slippery slope etc.

> In this election, for example, I was unaware that there were two
> positions being voted on for school boards.  As I was in the voting
> booth, it was too late for me to learn something about those issues, so I
> abstained from voting.  Too many people see choices like that and decide
> that their vote doesn't matter anyways, so they pick a choice at random.
>

I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than 
picking one who put themselves forward.


>
> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.

Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:43:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It sounds like those people who, when the new healthcare system (kind
> of)
> was ratified, threatened to move to Canada.

Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
Medicare" (a government-run program).

Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
hate about where the US is going.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.

The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse') 
that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.

Which is complete BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2012 1:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> It seem that those Americans seem to think that only the extremes are
>> possible: Either Chinese-style totalitarian communism/socialism, or
>> completely unrestricted capitalism. There's no middle ground.
>
> The use the "slippery slope" argument (or maybe I should say 'misuse')
> that if we start down that road, there's no turning back.
>
> Which is complete BS.
>
> Jim
>
Yep. But, as to why.. Well..

1. We, literally, have been known to let out mental patients, to make 
room for people with small time drug busts, to.. that might be "one" 
explanation. lol

2. Otherwise, the simple reality is that the US is the only place, other 
then the Middle East, where being fanatical is a status symbol for 
politicians, not an embarrassment. And, when everyone from the TV, to 
the political parties, look for "controversy", instead of, "reality", 
when making decisions about how to win viewers/supporters.. rational 
solutions are somewhat lacking.

Finally, 3. There is the overtone window. We have spent 30 year being 
told, without successful refutation, that the delusional "trickle down 
economics" is actually an economic model, not a pyramid scheme on 
governmental scale, and like 70 years, having the super-Christians, who 
got pushed into the US out of Europe, and really only have places like 
Africa, to retreat to now (and with all those black people there... No, 
I am serious, this is almost certainly on huge reason they don't 
leave.), spread around everything from anti-gay, to anti-nonchristian, 
to anti-you name it, as "truth". Our side, has, regrettably, actually 
suffered one of those "slippery slope" things, by trying to find allies 
everyplace, even among those that where enemies, in an attempt to get 
the truth out. It works about as well when apposing pseudoscience, 
theocracy, and economic bullshit, as has the foreign policy it echos, 
i.e., "We will support this dictator because he promises to keep this 
other one in check, then help that one, in trade for oil, and so he can 
fight a war with a third one, so that some fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. 
nut will be weakened/give us something/not side with someone else, etc.

This is completely nuts of course, but... its pretty much exactly what 
certain people suggest be done to appose extreme religion. Side with 
group A, because they appose group B on some issue, but B, when its 
about something C causes problems with, etc. I am no math expert, but.. 
seems to me you have three outcomes from that kind of BS: 1. The net 
result is positive. 2. The net result is negative. 3. All the sums 
cancel, and you don't get anywhere at all (with the understanding that 
some subsets can still go really really negative, as long as someone 
else goes really really positive, producing no net gains or losses).

In other words, a damn stupid way to solve a serious problem with, for 
example, science understanding.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/10/2012 10:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
>
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?
>
>
Yes, and not all of them. He was definitely, for example, a major 
misogynist, and like Ayn Rand, his books can appeal to people that a) 
haven't grown up enough to really think about everything he said, or b) 
don't bother growing up at all. Some of his ideas are not bad, others.. 
not so great (unlike Rand, who well...).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my 
> Medicare" (a government-run program).

> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without 
> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they 
> hate about where the US is going.

I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from the
citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient because
basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)

Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
*quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
practice in the US.

And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
(There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-09 14:24, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> On 06/11/2012 01:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - *which* century do you live in? Because it sounds like the
>>> Dark Ages...
>>
>> I live in the 21st century, but some of our legislators are in the dark
>> ages, certainly.
>
> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
> the world thinks about your country...

There are other countries?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>> the world thinks about your country...
>
> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)

Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be 
British... :-(

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:50:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> It must make you feel really sad when you contemplate what the rest of
>>> the world thinks about your country...
>>
>> Not really, when I see some of what goes on in yours. ;)
> 
> Yeah, there are moments when I certainly do *not* feel proud to be
> British... :-(

All I need to say is "Phone Hacking" to get most of my British friends to 
cringe.  Or "Jeremy Hunt". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:34:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yep, or those who scream "government needs to keep its hands off my
>> Medicare" (a government-run program).
> 
>> Or those who threaten to leave for Cuba, or Italy, or .... without
>> actually knowing that their target country is more like the thing they
>> hate about where the US is going.
> 
> I believe that it has been quite clearly shown that the Europan-style
> healthcare system is actually *cheaper* (ie. requires less money from
> the citizens) than the American system, yet it's much more efficient
> because basically all citizens get good healthcare (basically for free.)
> 
> Some Americans argue that such a healthcare system would lower its
> *quality*. This is based purely on preconceptions, because in most
> European countries medical practice is top-of-the-world quality. I don't
> think it loses much (if anything) to the quality of the best medical
> practice in the US.
> 
> And it's not like European-style healthcare forbids private practice.
> If you are rich and want to go to a private doctor, nothing stops you.
> (There can actually be benefits from doing that. Most prominently that
> waiting times are much shorter due to lower demand.)

Oh, yes, I agree - but there are those here in the US who believe that 
European-style healthcare is inferior and more expensive.

We had a presidential candidate who (as mentioned previously) thinks 
there's nothing wrong with letting people go to the emergency room when 
things get bad enough if they don't have health insurance - that that's 
somehow magically cheaper than preventative care.

Which shows just how out of touch people who have money are with the 
plight of those who have none.

Jim

Post a reply to this message