Nice red herring. I asked if you consider questioning the progressive account of sexuality as flipping out.
What do you consider flipping out? Is questioning the progressive account of human sexuality flipping out?You asked two questions. I don't know what the "progressive account of human sexuality" is, so you'll excuse me for skipping that one. If you'd care to define what you mean when you say that, perhaps I'll be in a better position to respond.
No matter what spin is put on it, the ACA made it possible for millions of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance to get it after the ACA was introduced. I know people like that. So returning to the old purely for profit model will make more people sick and die earlier than they would have otherwise. And the claim that it somehow benefits everyone through economic activity is unsupportable. Insurers have entire departments dedicated to denying adequate care under pure for profit health care, they don't do their utmost to find the best care in the most efficient way. So what happens is that you get a multi-tiered system where people who can afford the huge costs created get the finest care and everybody else is on a sliding scale down to emergency care that the tax payers end up footing the bill for. So in the end you're correct, how can you pursue life, liberty and happiness when something as basic as your health has been turned into a commodity to make someone else wealthy. But don't expect a highly corrupt billionaire or a party completely controlled by highly corrupt billionaires to care about something like that at all. The republicans will be taking care of their own and denying the existence of everyone else as they've been doing for decades. ENRON and its close connection to the Bushes is a prime example of this. The Bush White House refused to protect Americans as the energy sector was deregulated to meet the demands of corporations like ENRON that thought only in terms of profits for executives, they didn't even care about shareholders. And we ended up with artificially created power shortages in places like California that were causing rolling brownouts and blackouts across the state while ENRON was making huge amounts of money. They'd get electricity producers to shut down production or divert electricity out of state, then when the price spiked their due to increased demand for electricity, they'd power the plants back up and send the electricity back into the grid. It was killing the economy there and raising the costs for everyone, but the traders at ENRON couldn't have cared less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOLNWF5QMxY They do the same damn thing with health care in the US, create artificial shortages then demand premium cost on care that saves lives. This should be an 8th. Amendment issue, with the denial of adequate basic health care in the US being deemed cruel and unusual punishment.DougC said, The wealthy aren't hurting, they have more money than they know what to do with. What is going on is that people who are spending huge amounts of money to fund political campaigns after the Koch backed Citizens United Supreme Court decision now expect results that include them not having to pay any tax at all. , Which is likely why Trump won't release his tax returns and why he'll be more than happy to cut taxes to the people who need no tax relief at all.And we end up with cutting other programs like ACA. Apparently health care has become a "negotiable" commodity. Perhaps the sacred right granted by our Maker;We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...will be repealed and replaced by a new paradigm "Life, & Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness, & Death Panels".
At least we enjoy an open democratic form of government where we are free to express our disapproval of abbérant sexual preferences, which does at least keep things in check. To lie with another man or for a woman to lie with another woman is not immoral in itself, especially where deep, sincere emotion are concerned, but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population.Sounds schizophrenic. Why would the general public make it their issue?
The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone "questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.Speaking of social impacts I notice you ignore most of my questions. What you have done is to paint a very selective picture, ignoring a lot of reality you don't like, or want to consider (such as all the positive contributions the gay community has provided society - hell we'd still be wearing dungarees if not for those nice gay guys that thought we should be dressing well too. Even in them good ol days, the dandy dressers were dressing dandy for a reason.). Or their many contributions to the arts that we all enjoy. You do enjoy art? Or do you also want to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts because it encourages thinking about art and beauty and creativity and such nonsense? Another curious aside, most of the kindest, gentles, most humanly insightful folks I've met happened to turn out to be gay - why rob society of all that? While the religious folks, especially the one's so out of touch with reality that they think they have some personal relationship to God and can speak for God, no those are the scary vicious one's - just look at the Middle East - the fruits of religious brainwashing. Me myself, I'd rather deal with queers any day, at least when you tell them no, that say okay, its cool, you're cute anyways and move along. ;-P But seriously now,
How does individual sexual orientation disrupt "an ordered cohesive society" ? What about the celebration of greed and avarice? What about the acceptance of blatant misrepresentation and out-n-out lying about critically important fundamental facts? What about the acceptance of hate speech as free speech? What about speech becoming a bludgeon, rather than an avenue towards learning and understanding? What about ignoring our changing world, instead erecting alternate vapor realities to hide in? Think any of that stuff can help speed civilizations to demise?
Here’s what happens when the general public actually gets the choice to have universal health care.
https:// The birth of Medicare – Canadian Dimension
edit- added space to link to get past spam filter…
Medicare was born in Saskatchewan on July 1, 1962. It would be the first government-controlled, universal, comprehensive single-payer medical insurance plan in North America. It was a difficult birth. The North American medical establishment and the entire insurance industry were determined to stop Medicare in its tracks. They feared it would become popular and spread, and they were right. Within 10 years all of Canada was covered by a medical insurance system based on the Saskatchewan plan, and no serious politician would openly oppose it. The same interests that tried to prevent Medicare and are continually trying to destroy it in Canada have mostly succeeded in stopping similar progress in the United States. After more than half a century of struggle, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the private insurance industry still control the US medical system despite minor steps forward like Medicaid for the very poor and Medicare for the elderly. The latest plan passed by Congress and endorsed by the private insurance industry amounts to public subsidies for the insurance industry.Not only does the private sector have a death grip on essential health care in the US that they keep demanding must remain a pure profit commodity, they want to eliminate universal care in other places like Canada so they can extend the for profit model. Our system has worked great in the past but it is fading out now due to constant pressure from massive US corporations led by people who couldn't care less about anything but their own wealth. So Trump and the Congressional republicans are full of it when they claim they're going to kill any chance of universal health care in the interests of all Americans. They're doing it in the interests of the wealthy AMA and private insurers who want to maintain a monopoly on something that should be a universal right for everyone.
Here’s what happening to health care in Canada.
An epic legal battle is raging in British Columbia's Supreme Court over Canada's public healthcare system, with one side arguing allowing private health care could solve chronic wait times while the other argues it could dismantle a national economic jewel. The case revolves around crusader Dr. Brian Day's Cambie Surgery Centre, which charges patients for services. B.C.'s Medical Services Commission, the provincial Health Ministry and the federal government, which is an intervenor in the case, say what the doctor is doing is illegal and are fighting to stop him from toppling Canada's equal access model. For nine years the clinic's attempt to win for British Columbians the right to pay for health care — if they choose to — has plodded along, with a judge now set to decide whether B.C.'s Health Minister must testify.This isn't being done to provide better care, universal health care has been intentionally underfunded and run in an inefficient way for years to bring us to the point where for profit health care is once again forced on us. Along with 700,000 other people in BC I'm unable to find a family doctor after a couple decades of attacks of this kind. I grew up with great health care, we all had it here but many medical professionals, insurers and big pharma hate universal care because it protects patients at their financial cost. Getting rich is more important to them than providing the best care to the most people they can. When you look at how cynical the medical field is in providing life saving care in the US, that is the last model we want here. That includes economic predators like Martin Shkreli who look at health and life saving drugs as purely commodities that should be monopolized then prices raised far beyond the ability of most people to be able to afford them. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/martin-shkreli-who-raised-drug-prices-from-13-50-to-750-arrested-in-securities-fraud-probe/
A privately held startup, Turing sparked controversy earlier this year after news reports that it had raised the price of Daraprim (pyrimethamine), a 62-year-old drug used for protozoal infections, to $750 a tablet from $13.50 after acquiring it.This idea that "free" enterprise works in the health field is nuts when it ends up being controlled by what is in effect a cartel that artificially raises prices to the point where a huge part of the population simply cannot afford basic care that is taken for granted in many other places. Before ACA there were about 45 MILLION Americans without health insurance and about 100 million who were under insured. Their insurance was great until they got sick, then it had so many loopholes and exceptions that either they paid from pocket or didn't get care. There are some people who would charge the rest of us for the air we breath if they could, that doesn't mean it makes good sense to let them do so. Just that there are some who are so selfish that they are completely unable to understand that others have needs let alone exist. Martin Shkreli being a great example of this, he may have been on the extreme, but health care in the US overall is treated in this manner. It doesn't bring the highest quality of care to the greatest number at the lowest cost. It gives the already wealthy who can pay from pocket great care and more than half the population without any real care. The social costs are huge which is a crime when you consider how much public funding through science, training and infrastructure has made modern medicine possible. It shouldn't be treated entirely as a commodity sold at the highest price by those with a monopoly on delivery, whether direct care or pharmaceuticals.
..but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population. The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone "questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.There is just too much stupid to respond in this one. These assertions you make have been studied. You don't have data to back them up. Where are these stable societies you speak of? The ones you seem to be alluding to were brutal and repressive. They might look stable if you only look at what the elite were doing, but most people didn't want to maintain that "stability" at all. If you live in the US, you live in a country that was designed to have everyone question it all the time. That philosophy has been under attack by fake news, fake science, lawyers, and politicians that know they can lie even when being taped because enough voters don't know how to check facts. You are either one of those voters, or one of the people attacking that philosophy. It is the family unit that forms the backbone of civilized societies and by 'family unit' I mean one parent of each gender, which has been shown to be the most stable and beneficial form of family life. There have always been people who have chosen an 'unconventional' type of life and this is to be applauded because it introduces variety into what would otherwise be a very predictable, routine kind of society, however, this can only work up to a point and the stability of traditional family values, which has been the bedrock of most western democratic countries in the past, must be the principle arrangement on which our very civilization relies. With the increasing power of modern communications any fad or fashion can quickly gain a momentum that is hard to control, rather like an out of control forest fire, and goes beyond simply being a passing phenomenon, becoming entrenched into the general fabric of society. Human beings have a tendency to like novel experiences and modern life has provided an almost unlimited opportunity for social experimentation, regardless of the long term consequences therein present. Drug abuse is another example of the way some people have sought new thrills in the quest for variety and we all know the injurious effects of that. This is why we need to stop giving our consent to sexual behavior which threatens the status-quo because by 'normalizing' such behavior we are participants in destroying the very fabric of a civilized, compassionate, libertarian nation. I say that because so often people who choose a gay life seem unreasonably antagonistic towards hetrosexuals, as if this was somehow an aberration, and that they somehow have the upper moral ground in choosing their particular sexual orientation. There is still inconclusive scientific evidence regarding someone's sexual predilection and this will always be the case in my opinion because deciding to be gay is largely a conscious 'lifestyle' decision, not a biological one. Simply because a man happens to experience sexual desires for another man or a woman for another woman, does not mean they are any different from anyone else. What it does demonstrate is that some people allow themselves to become obsessed by odd thoughts they cannot control and would be better consulting professional assistance.
At least we enjoy an open democratic form of government where we are free to express our disapproval of abbérant sexual preferences, which does at least keep things in check. To lie with another man or for a woman to lie with another woman is not immoral in itself, especially where deep, sincere emotion are concerned, but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population.Sounds schizophrenic. Why would the general public make it their issue?
The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone "questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.Speaking of social impacts I notice you ignore most of my questions. What you have done is to paint a very selective picture, ignoring a lot of reality you don't like, or want to consider (such as all the positive contributions the gay community has provided society - hell we'd still be wearing dungarees if not for those nice gay guys that thought we should be dressing well too. Even in them good ol days, the dandy dressers were dressing dandy for a reason.). Or their many contributions to the arts that we all enjoy. You do enjoy art? Or do you also want to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts because it encourages thinking about art and beauty and creativity and such nonsense? Another curious aside, most of the kindest, gentles, most humanly insightful folks I've met happened to turn out to be gay - why rob society of all that? While the religious folks, especially the one's so out of touch with reality that they think they have some personal relationship to God and can speak for God, no those are the scary vicious one's - just look at the Middle East - the fruits of religious brainwashing. Me myself, I'd rather deal with queers any day, at least when you tell them no, that say okay, its cool, you're cute anyways and move along. ;-P But seriously now,
How does individual sexual orientation disrupt "an ordered cohesive society" ? What about the celebration of greed and avarice? What about the acceptance of blatant misrepresentation and out-n-out lying about critically important fundamental facts? What about the acceptance of hate speech as free speech? What about speech becoming a bludgeon, rather than an avenue towards learning and understanding? What about ignoring our changing world, instead erecting alternate vapor realities to hide in? Think any of that stuff can help speed civilizations to demise?I agree with a lot of this and, yes, our world is that much richer for having people in it who are colorful, outrageous and generally unconventional. But this can go too far and infect the rest of society, especially the young and impressionable, who simply seek thrills and change and are in danger in becoming involved in 'alternative lifestyles' that, in the long term, will lead to unhappiness and disappointment. The AIDS virus was one consequence of this, which was nature's way of disapproving of unnatural practices. Greed and avarice is part of human behavior and, unfortunately, has enjoyed great prominence as modern societies have developed technologically. Even in totalitarian countries where the average per-capita income is very modest in comparison to many western economies there exists much corruption among the ruling elite. What can be done seems very problematic in a free, democratic type of arrangement. Once you begin to enforce social measures you run the risk of losing the right of individuals to excersise their freedom to achieve their aspirations. Free speech is free speech and the moment you begin censoring what people should or should not say you are on the road to authoritarianism. Lying is best tackled by open criticism and debate, which is another strength of our system.
webplodder is just repeating himself now. He thinks the picture of a happy family in the suburbs is what life has always been like. He has bought the propaganda of the 1950s in America, or he is trying to sell it, hard tellin’. There are many forms of “family” in societies throughout history, including now. again, use google. To say that one of those forms is the fabric of society is hubris beyond measure.
Gender Variance Through History]
webplodder said, The AIDS virus was one consequence of this, which was nature’s way of disapproving of unnatural practices.So passing on the cold virus by kissing a loved one is also a way of nature's disapproval? How about passing on the AIDS virus , through a blood transfusion? Nature disapproves of that also?
I agree with a lot of this and, yes, our world is that much richer for having people in it who are colorful, outrageous and generally unconventional. But this can go too far and infect the rest of society, especially the young and impressionable, who simply seek thrills and change and are in danger in becoming involved in 'alternative lifestyles' that, in the long term, will lead to unhappiness and disappointment. The AIDS virus was one consequence of this, which was nature's way of disapproving of unnatural practices.Stereotype much... Being gay doesn't make you a performer as you seem to believe, it means you're gay. So by your logic nature is also disapproving of millions of Africans who are mostly heterosexual, AIDs is mostly passed on by heterosexual contact on that continent. Just as it has spread into the general population here. It was probably the isolation that most gay people were forced into by social convention and before that law that made them vulnerable to something like the AIDs virus not the fact that "nature" was punishing them. They often left the country to be able to openly express their basic nature and when they were home they stayed in the shadows for protection letting the disease spread very far before it was even noticed. So not only do you come across as a complete homophobe, you're also racist to condemn millions of Africans this way. But then again you make idiotic statements like the 2,000 Russian nuclear warheads being aimed at us on a hair trigger "launch on warning" isn't a military threat to the US. It's the definition of an existential military threat that could end all our lives in days, most of us probably dead in the first hour. One that is only going to get worse starting next year as the largest most sophisticated ICBMs are introduced by Putin. Either you're just here trolling us or you truly don't have a clue...
The AIDS virus was one consequence of this, which was nature's way of disapproving of unnatural practices.It also needs to be pointed out that gays didn't create the AIDs virus, it has probably been in the wild primate population of Africa for a long time. http://www.theaidsinstitute.org/node/259
Scientists identified a type of chimpanzee in West Africa as the source of HIV infection in humans. They believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood. Over decades, the virus slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s.
I think alternatives to gender roles are good and is something that is good about liberalism. I think one thing that is bad about liberalism is hostility towards freedom of speech. I don’t know how that developed. Oddly enough libertarians and conservatives have a better position on free speech in some cases.
I think one thing that is bad about liberalism is hostility towards freedom of speech. I don't know how that developed. Oddly enough libertarians and conservatives have a better position on free speech in some cases.This was probably unthinkable 30 yrs ago.
Alternatives to gender roles give people options. The idea that one could not be married or have kids is an option. The idea that one does not need to be tied to their family of origin is an option. These options give people freedom. All of this is not mandatory.
On the other hand sometimes gender roles, the nuclear family and a breeder society do appear mandatory. I think there is a desire to break up this status quo for the purpose of personal and sexual liberation.
Nice red herring. I asked if you consider questioning the progressive account of sexuality as flipping out.
What do you consider flipping out? Is questioning the progressive account of human sexuality flipping out?You asked two questions. I don't know what the "progressive account of human sexuality" is, so you'll excuse me for skipping that one. If you'd care to define what you mean when you say that, perhaps I'll be in a better position to respond.You described it upthread:
Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever.
What you have done is to paint a very selective picture, ignoring a lot of reality you don't like, or want to consider (such as all the positive contributions the gay community has provided society - hell we'd still be wearing dungarees if not for those nice gay guys that thought we should be dressing well too. Even in them good ol days, the dandy dressers were dressing dandy for a reason.). Or their many contributions to the arts that we all enjoy. You do enjoy art? Or do you also want to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts because it encourages thinking about art and beauty and creativity and such nonsense? Another curious aside, most of the kindest, gentles, most humanly insightful folks I've met happened to turn out to be gay - why rob society of all that?:lol: You must be joking.
Alternatives to gender roles give people options. The idea that one could not be married or have kids is an option. The idea that one does not need to be tied to their family of origin is an option. These options give people freedom. All of this is not mandatory. On the other hand sometimes gender roles, the nuclear family and a breeder society do appear mandatory. I think there is a desire to break up this status quo for the purpose of personal and sexual liberation.Well said, and it's important to note that personal and sexual liberation should not be treated as equal to the "breeder society" as you call it.
webplodder is just repeating himself now. He thinks the picture of a happy family in the suburbs is what life has always been like. He has bought the propaganda of the 1950s in America, or he is trying to sell it, hard tellin'. There are many forms of "family" in societies throughout history, including now. again, use google. To say that one of those forms is the fabric of society is hubris beyond measure. Gender Variance Through History]Notice that paraphilia has no role in any type of family.
Generally when leaving one’s family one may encounter several obstacles:
Free speech is free speech and the moment you begin censoring what people should or should not say you are on the road to authoritarianism. Lying is best tackled by open criticism and debate, which is another strength of our system.In other words fraud is okay and honest is a joke?