Politics Unfiltered

[Warlord]

(09-26-2019 03:00 PM)lloyd mayflower Wrote:  If course there are grey areas. Politics is largely opinion based. Americans have, by and large, never pushed the agenda of universal free healthcare enough to make it happen. Conversely, the loss of the NHS over here would result in riots. That is clearly based on widespread opinion here that the tax we pay should be commensurate with funding that, and the opposite being true in America. You cant tell me I am wrong any more than I can tell you.

You're losing me a bit here. What exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that government runs healthcare better than private industry? If that is your argument, you are objectively wrong. And if you think government run healthcare is objectively better, list the criteria you used to arrive at that decision, and I'll show you where the private industry has, does, and would do it better. There will be no grey area.

Even if you are arguing that government run healthcare is subjectively better than privately run hospitals (i.e. making an argument based on feelings), I will still give you an objective argument as to why you are wrong to feel that way. Even feelings are rooted in basic objective truth. If you don't believe me, tell what you feel about something and why. The why will rely almost entirely on something you believe to be an objective truth.

You want to live in a world where no one can tell you what you feel is dumb. You want to live in a world where there are no objective truths, and where every important decision is based on who feels the most strongly about an issue. Unfortunately you don't live in that world. There are dumb opinions. People who make important decisions based solely on their feelings are dumb. People who use feelings as substitutes for facts are dumb. Greta Thunberg is dumb. Adults who look to children like Greta Thunberg for leadership are dumb. Open borders and unchecked immigration is dumb. Socialism/communism is dumb. Believing there are more than two genders is dumb. Thinking it is okay for men to share bathrooms with adolescent girls is dumb.

Tell me why any of those things isn't dumb, and I'll give you an objective reason why they are. And when I do there will be nothing grey about it.

If you want to end the argument really quickly, answer this one question and we can settle the debate for good: is there a such thing as objective truth?

[the ollie reed fan club]

(09-26-2019 05:59 AM)lloyd mayflower Wrote:  Yeah black, I think at some point there was a purity in what she is doing and her efforts to get where she has for something she believes in have to be applauded. Most 16 year olds dont lift their head from facebook any longer than it takes to grunt at people who have the nerve to communicate with them offline.

I dont know if it has happened yet, but if not it absolutely will, but she will be hijacked and driven by much larger forces. She needs strong parents to prevent serious damage being done.

I mean, she isn't telling us anything that numerous scientists aren't already saying. So the fact that she has gained the traction she has is immediately indicative of a media machine taking advantage of her a different, more "inspiring" angle. They will of course drop her like a hot potato whenever it suits though.

The issue of climate change needs a figurehead and focal point though and they seem to be pushing her into that role. It really should be someone in power. I know there is a split in the climate change argument but as far as the growing population AND leading politicians/business people who (claim to) believe passionately in it, they should be ashamed of themselves hiding behind a little girl who evidently feels strongly enough that she cannot contain her emotions, and exposing her to a global audience like that. Shitebags.

No Lloyd, Greta was a media creation from the very beginning and had some very well known Leftist orgs backing her. You can find plenty of photographs of her with her handler, a young German chick called Luisa-Marie Neubauer, who is part of 'One Foundation' an org which has the backing of, surprise, surprise......................George fucken Soros. (Photos in link.)

https://freewestmedia.com/2019/04/24/geo...-thunberg/

If you think this is about climate change you're nuts. Catch the REAL gem in that over the top hysterical performance at the UN?

'All you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.'

That is the whole ball game right there. All this is is socialism (which hasn't ever taken off in the West) repackaged as the existential threat of Climate Change. Don't believe me? Well AOC's ex chief of staff got busted admitting as much when talking about 'The Green New Deal.'

In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...he-climate

As for the whole 'the science is settled' thing, I call bullshit on that as well. Again it's just the narrative that the MSM are feeding the population to drive clicks and it's doing a great disservice to the conversation. The '97% of scientists agree on man made climate change' being the most erroneous example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/c...an-tuttle/

This is just a small smattering of eminent and respected scientists that absolutely disagree that man is changing the climate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc...al_warming

I always laugh when reports say 'this is the hottest summer on record.' The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and we have records going back at best 400 years but most accurate records are around 100-150 years old. So out of four and a half thousand million years we have data for 150 years

P.S While the MSM complains about adults going after 'a child' the same media had no problem smearing with absolutely vile comments the good name of Nick Sandman and the Convington kids.

[Warlord]

Not to mention their reasoning behind those claims is spurious at best.

When they say it was “the hottest day on record”, which is literally almost every day somewhere, what they actually mean is “this is the hottest it has ever been at 7:06:56 on [X date].” It’s extremely misleading.

The sad part is when government agencies and other entities delete actual observed climate data over a 100 year period because it doesn’t conform to the models they’ve created out of thin air to prove the earth’s temperatures are increasing. That doesn’t sound like science to me at all, let alone settled science. It sounds like fanaticism.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist...ate-change

[lloyd mayflower]

But War I wasnt saying private hospitals are better or worse. I was saying its my opinion that healthcare should be provided to all and paid for by taxes. The setup is different here anyway as the provate healthcare stuff we do have is small clinics often staffed by NHS workers earning a bit on the side and all you can do privately really is jump the queue. If you get fucked up in a crash, you are going to the NHS with no choice in the matter.

Anyway I digress. I dont see how you can say that the argument about healthcare, since its a big battleground for you guys politically, isnt about opinions? Its the opinion that you should have free and universal healthcare, versus the opinion that you should get what you pay for yourself surely?

[Warlord]

(09-27-2019 02:14 AM)lloyd mayflower Wrote:  But War I wasnt saying private hospitals are better or worse. I was saying its my opinion that healthcare should be provided to all and paid for by taxes.

I understand. And I am telling you that you are wrong. Healthcare should not be provided to all, nor should it be paid for by taxes.

You think because it is your opinion, and because you believe it very deeply, that you can't be told you are wrong. But you are wrong. If you list your reasons for why you think it should be provided, I will explain to you why it is wrong.

This is the overall point I've been trying to make. You may think feelings are subjective, but typically they are based on things you believe to be objective truths. If it can be demonstrated that you are factually wrong, or that your reasons are objectively untrue, then it becomes clear why your opinion is the wrong one.

Just for example. Jimmy says he doesn't like Donald, because he thinks Donald is a bad man. He thinks Donald is a bad man because Donald is a rich man who stole all his money from the poor. Stealing is bad, especially from people who don't have much money to begin with.

It is then explained to Jimmy that Donald is rich because he invented a cure for the Hohokum virus. Donald sold this cure to everyone who could afford it, rich or poor. He charged the same price to all. He charged what it cost to manufacture the drug, plus 10% so that he could use the profit to live on, and to buy new equipment to research new drugs for other viruses. Donald has never been convicted of a crime, including stealing, and there is no evidence that Donald ever stole from anyone, rich or poor.

Was Jimmy right or wrong to feel that Donald was a bad man who got rich because he stole from the poor? Was his opinion of Donald right or wrong? If you knew Donald, would you explain to Jimmy why his opinion of Donald was wrong, or would you just say, "well, I can't say anything, because that's what he feels, and feelings are never wrong."

If you're honest, hopefully you'll be able to admit what is already very obvious to most - even opinions must be rooted in fact. Even opinions can be objectively wrong.

Quote:The setup is different here anyway as the provate healthcare stuff we do have is small clinics often staffed by NHS workers earning a bit on the side and all you can do privately really is jump the queue. If you get fucked up in a crash, you are going to the NHS with no choice in the matter.

Anyway I digress. I dont see how you can say that the argument about healthcare, since its a big battleground for you guys politically, isnt about opinions? Its the opinion that you should have free and universal healthcare, versus the opinion that you should get what you pay for yourself surely?

Just because some people want it doesn't make it right. And just because you feel very strongly about it doesn't make it right either. As I said, you want to live in a world where all feelings and all opinions are equally right. They aren't, and can't be.

For example, open borders is wrong, no matter how deeply one might feel it is right. Adults who look to children for leadership or political advice are dumb, no matter how "pure" the child's feelings are.

Let's just end this debate now, and it can be done very easily by answering this question - is there a such thing as objective truth? Yes or no. You don't even have to say why.

[Dickagon]

I think universal healthcare here would be too complicated. It'd just create a system where sorry motherfuckers live in the hospital and visit a doctor's office because they don't want to pay for over the counter medication.

[lloyd mayflower]

On what basis can you tell me I am wrong? I literally have no idea how you can claim that I am wrong and you are right. There is none. The world is made up of hugely different cultures, beliefs, political and social setups. There are numerous things you simply cannot say someones opinion is outright wrong. I think healthcare should be provided to everyone. In the place that I live, thats how it is. It is literally impossible to say my belief that it should be is wrong.

Feel free to try and break it right down into laymans terms if you like.

How about guns? You think Americas system works. I think the UKs system works. Both are wildly different. On what basis are you going to tell me I am wrong and that actually what the UK needs is guns for the public?

On what basis are you, a Christian who believes in God and heaven going to tell me I am wrong not to be a Christian?

[Warlord]

I think you are getting confused on the terms right and wrong. You are taking it as a moral judgement, as in good or bad.

This is why I continue to use words like objectively true and objectively untrue, in the hopes that you will be able to better understand what I'm actually arguing.

I am not arguing that people who argue for universal healthcare are morally wrong or bad. I am arguing the suggestion that universal healthcare is a human right is objectively untrue.

You said it is impossible for me to tell you that your opinion is wrong. That is also objectively untrue, because I've done it. Your opinion is wrong because it is objectively untrue.

Anything which is only subjectively true is objectively untrue.

I know we're getting into the weeds here, so let's make it very easy for both of us. Do you believe there is a such thing as objective truth? A simple yes or no will suffice. No matter how you answer the question, the debate will effectively be over.

[lloyd mayflower]

I see what you are getting at too. I just dont understand why you are attemtping to apply it to politics. In a world where all we have to live by are man made ideas and constructs, why is it "objectively untrue" that people should all be entitled to the same level of healthcare?

[Warlord]

It is objectively untrue because you have no observable evidence or scientific evidence to substantiate that claim. In other words, it is objectively untrue because it isn't objectively true.

It is an opinion rooted in emotion only. That which is only subjectively true is objectively untrue.

Do you believe there is a such thing as objective truth? This isn't a trick question. Either answer will prove my point.