- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.
There is a way to address the problem of health providers having all the power in the consumer relationship without a single-payer system. Obama first tabled the suggestion of a "Public Option" before "Single-payer" and what was eventually settled for (which gave the U.S. health insurance companies more power by the way - because now legally everyone has to have coverage in the U.S.). What do you think about the idea of a "Public Option"; a government run health insurance provider with the power of collective bargaining and the ability to compete with price gouging insurance companies in order to keep their prices down.
You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.
I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.
Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional.
Jesus was only referring to humans though. So it's unconditional love for humans.
As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.
You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.
There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.
Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.
In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.
Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
No, Jesus did that. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.
All I hear at this point is...
Everything you quoted me saying there is factually accurate and comes from my own independent inquiry into the workings of the EU parliamentary system. Furthermore, I hate the conservatives and have never voted for them even once, so good luck with the argument of guilt by association there, followed by a string of straw men, things I don't agree with and slurs against minorities.
How many newborns have to test positive for meth, cocaine, or heroin before the state can say “you’re not going to do that to any more new borns”? It cuts against my general sensibilities, but some people need to be sterilized.
It's sad to say but in such a case where someone repeatedly gives birth to drug addicted children, or for that matter HIV positive children, this is actually true.
Not different than how the PM appoints various cabinet ministers, except that rather than one person (a PM) appointing them
The cabinet are made up of elected MPs. The unelected EU commission write the laws, whereas the directly elected commons write the laws in the Westminster system. The EU commission does not represent the people and has no accountability to the people. The people elect MPs to represent them and the MPs are accountable to the electorate.
an entire swathe of UK MEP's appoints one person to represent the UK on the Commission.
Untrue, this is done by the EU council. 50% of the EU Parliament must vote to consent to the commission as a whole, but they don't appoint them.
Much more so than a hereditary House of Lords that the PM and Queen decide upon.
I already noted the problems with the House of Lords and that I would reform it. Why are you fine with appointing the commission but not the Lords? Having one layer of unelected bureaucracy (House of Lords) is better than two layers (House of Lords and EU Commission).
Add to this the fact that the Commissioner for each country has obligations to their country
What obligations? In any case there is no obligation to the people, for they do nor represent them and are not accountable to them, unlike in representative democracy.
European MEP's are elected
The unelected commission writes legislation, MEPs can merely approve, reject or amend said legislation. In other words, it would be like if in our UK system the House of Commons was appointed and we elected the House of Lords. Now, one can rightly criticize our UK House of Lords, and reform would be good, however in the case of the EU we cannot even elect people to reform the EU commission. This is because our elected MEPs cannot propose legislation.
The more I have tried to convince people, or think of ways to change the system
There are co-operatives that exist, so if you want to own a piece of where you work you can join one (e.g The Co-operative Group). You could also save some money and create your own co-operative. Leading by example is the only way to lead; "Demonstrate, do not explicate".
Pair this with being relatively poor
This is hard pill to swallow, but you should sort your own life out before you save others. You should be capable of solving smaller problems (your financial situation) before you move onto bigger ones (the fate of 7Bn people). As you solve smaller problems your field of competency will increase and eventually you may even have the competence to change the world.
Why should I focus on creating something meaningful when I could focus on merely making profit and be uplifted?
There's no reason that you can't figure out a way to do both. Do something meaningful that can be monetized. There are lots of problems and tasks to be done in the world that would make things better and people are generally willing to pay for things that make their lives better. For example, if you got a job as a street cleaner you are actually helping people by making sure we don't all live in a mound of rubbish. Now, I'm sure such a job is far below your station but there is something fitting out there that you personally can do.
humanity goes extinct anyway regardless of what I do
I wouldn't worry about that, historically it's usually the thing we aren't worried about that gets us.
A poverty stricken Western Civ would be less charitable, even if more in Christian-like.
All I'm saying here is that we needed such altruistic ideas to be injected into our market of ideas.
But it is a more literal interpretation
Are the literal words more important than their intent? The intent was to tell his followers to pay taxes to the secular state.
Yes we do, because that’s what we did. That’s been my point.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
If the conditional love overrides the unconditional love, as I believe it should, then what you have is not unconditional love... I don’t unconditionally love my family. If my brother turned into a Mao, I would not love him.
I'm amazed that you don't possess such a concept. How about the fact that we hold humans in regard because they are human? Could that not be described as a sort of unconditional love? Once again, in my mind conditional love is separate; on top of unconditional love.
(regarding inherent human value) I believe it comes from a logical empathetic extension of one’s self-evaluation recognized in the person of another.
There is truth to what you're saying. However, just because something appears self evident post-facto doesn't mean it was self-evident before. I recall as a child doing nasty things to other children without thinking and having to be reminded to empathize with them: "You wouldn't like it if they did it to you".
Nowhere else had Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius (The Swerve is a good read), etc.
True, the argument cuts both ways. I'm actually currently reading Lucretius' "the way things are".
If Arab cultures hadn’t decided to place faith above reason, you and I may be discussing whether Western Civ would have made it without Muhammad, rather than Jesus.
To be fair though, Islam is far more totalitarian than Christianity, not to mention inherently political. As such, I'd argue that what Arab cultures did was completely to be expected.
It is even filled with examples of god punishing whole communities for the sinfulness of it’s inhabitants. Thus, a faithful state is completely justified in compelling citizens to adhere to the word of god.
The Old Testament applies to Jews, and does indeed suggest a theocratic state. There's nothing in there that suggests Gentiles need to follow the Old Testament.
But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily contemptable when someone, gauging the risk too high or their capability to low, declines to step up.
I can agree with that. Of course some people will wrongly make such judgements though, or selfishly refuse to help others at very little or no cost to themselves.
It would be a problem for the falsely accused. Rape is pretty difficult to prove, especially if the report is false. The standard for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It's also exceptionally difficult to prove something conclusively false, and even in cases where things later are proven false the accused's life is still ruined in the meanwhile.
Whether the report is true or false, if it regards an abortion, we have the DNA of the father. Finding them would not be too difficult.
The sex could have been consensual, though.
But suffering is not the only consideration when determining to end a life. Indeed, in all other circumstances it is not a sufficient justification, all else being equal, even if it is a necessary consideration.
I agree, I simply don't believe that it's a good idea to create too many children that other people will have to care for, be that through adoption or welfare. Allowing abortion to some degree reduces the number of children that other people have to support. This means that we can look after those unwanted children who aren't aborted better because proportionally we have more adoptive parents and resources available. Note also that children raised in poverty and/or in single parent homes have far poorer outcomes later in life. For these reasons, I view abortion as a necessary evil. What are your thoughts on abortion?
First because he didn’t save anyone by his death.
Not if the Bible is true, though, right?
thus suicide missions would remain the least common act of heroism.
Yet you seem to accept it is an act of heroism, regardless.
That’s no reason to give my coat to a stranger
What if the reason that western civilizations are so charitable is because of that idea underpinning our philosophy? Now, I can completely accept that one can be too charitable, however perhaps back then we were not generous enough.
But then you have the guy who is supposed to get everyone into heaven, pointing not to villainous murderers, rapists, pillagers, and thieves, but rather pointing to the rich.
I'm pretty sure he pointed to them too.
I wouldn’t have promoted state ownership of wealth.
I don't believe that was his intent in that passage.
I would have promoted those philosophical values that Christian cultures internalized from Greeks and Romans which stifled the development of Christianity’s more socialistic teachings.
We have no idea what that would look like so I wouldn't be so quick to declare that if you were in Jesus' shoes things would be better 2000 years later. If we were to assume that Jesus was in fact God, perhaps he was utilizing the Hegelian dialectic (thesis and antithesis create a synthesis) and knew that this would be the result.
If you hold the villain equal to the hero, who benefits? If you love without condition both the beautiful and the contemptible, who do you profit?
You're misinterpreting what unconditional love means. Loving everyone unconditionally does not mean that you do not also have conditional love on top of that. Perhaps a good example would be how you unconditionally love your family despite at times hating them, or merely not liking them. This is arguably where our idea of valuing all human life (a novel idea at the time) comes from.
There are very good values held by many Christians. Then again there are awful values held by Christians.
I'd say that the Christian ideas, rather than the Christians themselves, is what was important.
I’m not sure that we couldn’t have arrived at western civilization without Jesus. I find his example quite disagreeable.
Perhaps we would have, but nowhere else did, which is interesting.
Jesus is supposed to have chosen his fate, but none of his persecutors seemed to think so.
An individual spreading controversial ideas at the time was bound to be killed if such ideas were perceived to be a threat to the state. The story of the revolutionary thinker drawing the state's wrath is far older than Jesus, take Socrates for instance.
Physically saving oneself from a bloodthirsty mob requires a bit more.
The example you gave was of them being persuaded to be sacrificed willingly. If they are forcing you to be sacrificed then you don't have a choice so it's not relevant.
The word of god is hardly advice from a kindly stranger, to be accepted or rejected with equal import.
Yes but nonetheless you have the free will to take that advice. Furthermore, it never says that to not do so is a sin.
Only if he was lying to get out of a trap, in which case he is not advocating a separation of church and state.
Saying "pay your taxes to the secular state" seems to suggest a separation.
I haven’t described that.
You were talking about the state forcing people to give their property away.
Jesus says you should give to all who ask of you...So you should give love, deed, and property to those who hate and take and you should expect nothing in return.
I certainly agree that such ideas can be taken too far and can be pathological. I would also argue, however, that we are so charitable and generous because of the influence of such doctrines on western philosophy.
I agree that expanding ones sphere of influence to do good is advisable. I find that a person will derive a greater sense of personal significance, satisfaction, and meaning by extending good will and even property to strangers without expectation of repayment.
Does this blur the altruist/egoist line? It seems to me that altruism, if one is capable of it, greatly serves the self.
The courageous person who risks harm to save strangers is admirable, but the person who keeps their safe distance is not to be damned for it.
It depends on what you mean by damned. In my estimation stepping up to the challenge is the right thing to do, assuming capability.
Read Luke Chapter 6 Verses 20 through 35. These are part of the Sermon on the Mount.
I agree that these verses are too radical, nonetheless they helped set the philosophical stage for a more benevolent zeitgeist.
Such a rule would lead to an increase in false rape reports. Aside from the great deal of harm inflicted on the falsely accused, it would make finding the real rapists more difficult.
An abortion limit of 14 weeks, however, allows abortion when necessary while balancing against the suffering of the foetus. After all, the foetus doesn't have any brain activity until 14 weeks.
Does the suffering of the foetus matter less than the suffering of a newborn? A 9 month old foetus is identical to a newborn and it's not acceptable to kill them under any circumstances, is it? Look, if you make me choose between no abortions and abortions up to birth I won't be on your side.
There is no comparison between a sperm and a thinking, feeling 9 month foetus. My line in the sand is brain activity at 14 weeks and, given that pregnancy causes the cessation of menstruation, any regular woman will know they are pregnant before that point.
Abortion at ANY time is taking a life. The REAL question WITHOUT all the fluff, is does a women have that right.
Woah, wait, are you saying you support 9 month abortions? I don't see any difference in the value of the life of a 9 month baby inside or outside of the womb.
If she says rape, she'll have to have someone to accuse
Aren't false rape accusations a major problem at the moment?
If abortions go down 99%, but false rape claims go up .5%, that's a net win.
I think reducing abortions is great, particularly given the current blasé attitude towards it. It's frankly disgusting how some people view an 8 month old baby as "a bundle of cells". However I do think that if done sufficiently early it can be better than bringing a child into the world in some circumstances. 14 weeks is when their brain impulses start to fire (1) and so up until then I see abortion as far less egregious than after that point.
While I am pro-abortion up to around 3-4months I don't agree that it's simply a matter of controlling her own body. The foetus is a life too and in fact it's experiences in the womb (e.g. auditory) shape it's preferences and behaviour (1).
We've just had the European parliament elections and the results will be in tomorrow. A new party formed a few weeks ago in protest to how Brexit hasn't been delivered; the "Brexit party". According to the polls it is going to get more votes than the main 2 parties combined.