I am a against individual civil servants deciding for themselves what is legal and illegal and going to the press instead of proper channels.
Going to proper channels in this case would seem futile. It's like having the police investigate themselves. Going to the news media seems more expedient.
So far as I can see, Pudge is just picking apart points of argument. I don't have the impression (yet?) that he supports the government in it's legal pursuit against Tamm.
The real issue here is hypocrisy. While the government wants to have immunity for itself and its conspirators for breaking the law; they insist on punishing a person who thought he was doing the right thing (and perhaps something patriotic) by exposing this illegal behavior.
nothing different than what the organized crime people will do... well except they kill everyone, the Feds are not at that level yet.
In something reminiscent of The Prisoner, the CIA threw a former LSD researcher out of a hotel window when he told his colleagues that he wanted to quit his job because of ethical issues dealing with his research. Although the CIA denied the claims (and the referenced URL doesn't get into details), there is evidence that contradicts the CIA's claim that he committed suicide by jumping out of the window. In fact the forensic evidence indicated that he was thrown out of the window (according to the American Justice account). "Frank Olson's body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries indicated Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window." (Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA).
Though that is just one account that was made public and that the CIA denies (even though the government eventually awarded the family financial damages).
I perceived in your earlier argument (through the lack of Bullshit that is often included in political discussions) that you are more objective than many.
FYI, the Canadian government insurance system is just that; insurance (no [or very minimal] government administration or interference except for things like financial auditing and deciding what procedures are cosmetic, etc). And there's always private insurance offered by most employers for the extra perks.
At any rate, there's my 2 cents, I hope things get better for the USA.
Pointing out the flaws in one system says nothing about how or why the other one is going to be any better or even any different.
I was actually pointing out the flaws in the OPs arguments (biases).
Insurance corporations have done a terrible job and the U.S. government is not exactly a model of efficiency.
Perhaps one needs to change the model of efficiency in the U.S. government then. It should be noted that the OP is not American and was arguing against UHC in general.
I've argued health care issues before that were on-topic to the discussion. In Canada were I live the health care system is more efficient than the US system. It's a point I'm sure many pundits would (and have, unsuccessfully) argued against -:)
I've found that most people who argue against UHC are actually quite ignorant of the facts and details. I would suggest that people take a close look at various systems and do a cost/benefit analysis for themselves. Hopefully they will leave their ideologies and biases behind when or if they bother to take the time.
So in essence that means, from January 1 to August 30, a European is the government's slave (or if you prefer: serf) working not for themselves but to pass the wealth to the politicians, and he/she does not regain freedom until around September 1.
Do you having any evidence of this? -:) (that politicians get all of this money for themselves)
Slavery does not equal a willingness to pay taxes for public goods and services (however apparent this "good" may be). Europeans certainly don't live in the lifestyle of poverty, crime, and debt to the extreme extent that Americans do. Americans have the most amount of people in jail; I don't see freedom in America, but mainly just repression except for the rich.
As you stated, "The illusion of freedom is not true freedom". How true.
First the original premise is flawed (MPAB, #26111905), and is a Troll as I stated much earlier in the discussion (and subsequently got modded Troll for explaining the reasoning. The UHC tangent certainly justifies my statement however).
Yeah, it's a shame the rest of the First World foolishly chooses higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality over FREEDOM!!
This statement (however off topic it may be) is contrasting free market economics (I would presume this to be the "Freedom" he is talking about) with the implicit moral implications of imposing this system with people's health and ultimately with their mortality.
You however completely changed the argument (or attempted to, although there was probably no malevolent motivation on your part) to personal freedom and mobility versus health and longevity which are not related to each other. One of these variables is not dependent on the other:
Would you rather live to 120 as a plantation slave in the south, or 70 as a freeman in the north?
It is a non sequitur, and if anything it would have been more fair to mod your post a Troll rather than EsJay's post, but that is a different topic (down-mods are certainly overused).
There are different forms of censorship. I do remember when Howard Stern broadcast in Toronto that there were often large half hour gaps of commercials that weren't censored in America (though I think things have changed for the worse in the USA since then). There are also many movies that you can't watch in Canada (well in my province at least) that you can watch in the US. And we have the unfortunate distinction of the criminalization of emotions in speech and media (i.e. so-called hate speech laws). The enforcements have been more draconian than I think most casual non-observers would like. Not to mention that fact that completely legal pieces of media are often banned and confiscated at the boarder without compensation to the buyers.
Addendum: If you're talking about licensing end user customers to use the Internet then this would be far worse. It would involve great expenditure and bureaucracy, as well as tracking and privacy issues. No intelligent freedom loving person (or government) would go there.
Neither licensing nor filtering are necessary. Regulation alone would enforce compliance to anything untoward. It could be argued that even just regulation is not needed, because things tend to work themselves out naturally. Take DDOS attacks or spam for example, these things are generally taken care of transparently by the ISPs; granted that the solutions are far from perfect, but neither licensing or mandated filters would help to stop these abuses either.
>>>it should not be the providers responsibility to cater to your individual whim
Why not? *Other* providers cater to my whim.
Because it normalizes and legitimizes centralized filtering, even if the centre is just a small ISP. It's bad for the customer as well as the ISP. Self-censorship is one thing, but allowing other entities to censor for us is a bad practice that no intelligent society should morally allow.
But what if users with alternative preferences--say, parents who are capable of protecting their kids online without centralized censorship and nipple slip fines--outnumber those who want government nanny-state rules?
I have zero doubt that the powers that want censorship also want the occasional nipple slip just to justify their agenda. More drastic measures were used with more serious outcomes (think of the Gulf of Tonkin). Or even better (or worse), just have a government claim something so inhuman happens that they can't allow evidence of these inhuman acts to be given to the public, and you might get Wikipedia covertly censored.
OK this is getting weird and irritating. Trolls get modded up and informative explanations get modded Troll. I'm going to start meta-moderating again because I'm starting to get so tired of this abuse.
I've met a person on Slashdot who said he was a doctor and he supported UHC. It really doesn't matter anyway because being an authority on economics doesn't logically make one's statements correct, and being a medical doctor does not necessarily make one's comments on economic policy correct. Sadly, UHC is not the topic here, and I'm disappointed that so many people are arguing on that tangent.
No, it wasn't, and I find that people who often instantly throw out names of fallacies without explaining how it is so typically don't understand the fallacy they refer to...
The explanation:
Non sequitur (IPA:/nnskwtr/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used to indicate something which does not follow logically, such as a stated conclusion that is not supported by the facts.
I'd rather live to 150 as a plantation owner in a free and educated south. But as I've stated already, this original health care Troll is just a diversion to the topic at hand. But often people's ideologies are more important than the actual topic it seems.
The Troll is basically diverting the argument to health care. Your reply seems to insinuate its success. My original response was merely to counteract the +5 moderation of the original post (which I deemed inappropriate).
If the collective "landlords" want to impose certain requirements for use of their property, so be it.
I'll first point out that a Slippery Slope isn't always a logical fallacy. That being said I can see undo amounts of bureaucracy and political and economic quarrels over this.
If it is a government mandate, then at the very least there should be as little government regulation and influence as possible. I don't think the US would want something like Canada has were they require a certain proportion of Canadian content to be broadcast over their television sets and radio's, and were there is excessive amounts of arbitrary censorship. The US is already too over-burdened with censorship issues as it is with TV and radio. I would not wish the Canadian example imposed on any other country. I can envision huge swaths of time and money and energy spent dealing with the "controversy" of an accidental nipple slipped through any Internet filters the government may impose.
To be more accurate, I reworded your anti-UHC Troll:
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with the current insurance industry health service. At first it works fine and takes only a tiny bit of our pay cheques, then it grows in size (and squares in budget) as more and more people can't afford their current paid service: after all, they're paying for it as well. Then comes the time when almost the whole service is in the hands of the financial conglomerates. It takes up a huge budget and a proportionate bite of our pay cheques. It works so that many people are left unconnected, but not much more. The insurance conglomerates mandate what can it be used for and what not. It sets up any filter it likes (of course, filters will only grow). Privacy is nixed. But, hey, almost everybody is hooked up to an HMO because nobody can afford anything else. Only those that can afford paying double get a quality (and expensive) health insurance plan.
Slashdot Mirror
I am for whistleblowing illegal activity
and
I am a against individual civil servants deciding for themselves what is legal and illegal and going to the press instead of proper channels.
Going to proper channels in this case would seem futile. It's like having the police investigate themselves. Going to the news media seems more expedient.
So far as I can see, Pudge is just picking apart points of argument. I don't have the impression (yet?) that he supports the government in it's legal pursuit against Tamm.
No, it's not
I will elaborate and rephrase that:
"For me the real issue here is hypocrisy."
The real issue here is hypocrisy. While the government wants to have immunity for itself and its conspirators for breaking the law; they insist on punishing a person who thought he was doing the right thing (and perhaps something patriotic) by exposing this illegal behavior.
nothing different than what the organized crime people will do... well except they kill everyone, the Feds are not at that level yet.
In something reminiscent of The Prisoner, the CIA threw a former LSD researcher out of a hotel window when he told his colleagues that he wanted to quit his job because of ethical issues dealing with his research. Although the CIA denied the claims (and the referenced URL doesn't get into details), there is evidence that contradicts the CIA's claim that he committed suicide by jumping out of the window. In fact the forensic evidence indicated that he was thrown out of the window (according to the American Justice account). "Frank Olson's body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries indicated Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window." (Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA).
Though that is just one account that was made public and that the CIA denies (even though the government eventually awarded the family financial damages).
I perceived in your earlier argument (through the lack of Bullshit that is often included in political discussions) that you are more objective than many.
FYI, the Canadian government insurance system is just that; insurance (no [or very minimal] government administration or interference except for things like financial auditing and deciding what procedures are cosmetic, etc). And there's always private insurance offered by most employers for the extra perks.
At any rate, there's my 2 cents, I hope things get better for the USA.
Best regards,
UTW
Pointing out the flaws in one system says nothing about how or why the other one is going to be any better or even any different.
I was actually pointing out the flaws in the OPs arguments (biases).
Insurance corporations have done a terrible job and the U.S. government is not exactly a model of efficiency.
Perhaps one needs to change the model of efficiency in the U.S. government then. It should be noted that the OP is not American and was arguing against UHC in general.
I've argued health care issues before that were on-topic to the discussion. In Canada were I live the health care system is more efficient than the US system. It's a point I'm sure many pundits would (and have, unsuccessfully) argued against -:)
I've found that most people who argue against UHC are actually quite ignorant of the facts and details. I would suggest that people take a close look at various systems and do a cost/benefit analysis for themselves. Hopefully they will leave their ideologies and biases behind when or if they bother to take the time.
Best regards,
UTW
So in essence that means, from January 1 to August 30, a European is the government's slave (or if you prefer: serf) working not for themselves but to pass the wealth to the politicians, and he/she does not regain freedom until around September 1.
Do you having any evidence of this? -:) (that politicians get all of this money for themselves)
Slavery does not equal a willingness to pay taxes for public goods and services (however apparent this "good" may be). Europeans certainly don't live in the lifestyle of poverty, crime, and debt to the extreme extent that Americans do. Americans have the most amount of people in jail; I don't see freedom in America, but mainly just repression except for the rich.
As you stated, "The illusion of freedom is not true freedom". How true.
First the original premise is flawed (MPAB, #26111905), and is a Troll as I stated much earlier in the discussion (and subsequently got modded Troll for explaining the reasoning. The UHC tangent certainly justifies my statement however).
Yeah, it's a shame the rest of the First World foolishly chooses higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality over FREEDOM!!
This statement (however off topic it may be) is contrasting free market economics (I would presume this to be the "Freedom" he is talking about) with the implicit moral implications of imposing this system with people's health and ultimately with their mortality.
You however completely changed the argument (or attempted to, although there was probably no malevolent motivation on your part) to personal freedom and mobility versus health and longevity which are not related to each other. One of these variables is not dependent on the other:
Would you rather live to 120 as a plantation slave in the south, or 70 as a freeman in the north?
It is a non sequitur, and if anything it would have been more fair to mod your post a Troll rather than EsJay's post, but that is a different topic (down-mods are certainly overused).
Best regards,
UTW
I completely agree. It's good to see people like yourself who can see the problems caused by prohibition.
There are different forms of censorship. I do remember when Howard Stern broadcast in Toronto that there were often large half hour gaps of commercials that weren't censored in America (though I think things have changed for the worse in the USA since then). There are also many movies that you can't watch in Canada (well in my province at least) that you can watch in the US. And we have the unfortunate distinction of the criminalization of emotions in speech and media (i.e. so-called hate speech laws). The enforcements have been more draconian than I think most casual non-observers would like. Not to mention that fact that completely legal pieces of media are often banned and confiscated at the boarder without compensation to the buyers.
Addendum:
If you're talking about licensing end user customers to use the Internet then this would be far worse. It would involve great expenditure and bureaucracy, as well as tracking and privacy issues. No intelligent freedom loving person (or government) would go there.
Neither licensing nor filtering are necessary. Regulation alone would enforce compliance to anything untoward. It could be argued that even just regulation is not needed, because things tend to work themselves out naturally. Take DDOS attacks or spam for example, these things are generally taken care of transparently by the ISPs; granted that the solutions are far from perfect, but neither licensing or mandated filters would help to stop these abuses either.
>>>it should not be the providers responsibility to cater to your individual whim
Why not? *Other* providers cater to my whim.
Because it normalizes and legitimizes centralized filtering, even if the centre is just a small ISP. It's bad for the customer as well as the ISP. Self-censorship is one thing, but allowing other entities to censor for us is a bad practice that no intelligent society should morally allow.
But what if users with alternative preferences--say, parents who are capable of protecting their kids online without centralized censorship and nipple slip fines--outnumber those who want government nanny-state rules?
I have zero doubt that the powers that want censorship also want the occasional nipple slip just to justify their agenda. More drastic measures were used with more serious outcomes (think of the Gulf of Tonkin). Or even better (or worse), just have a government claim something so inhuman happens that they can't allow evidence of these inhuman acts to be given to the public, and you might get Wikipedia covertly censored.
OK this is getting weird and irritating. Trolls get modded up and informative explanations get modded Troll. I'm going to start meta-moderating again because I'm starting to get so tired of this abuse.
I've met a person on Slashdot who said he was a doctor and he supported UHC. It really doesn't matter anyway because being an authority on economics doesn't logically make one's statements correct, and being a medical doctor does not necessarily make one's comments on economic policy correct. Sadly, UHC is not the topic here, and I'm disappointed that so many people are arguing on that tangent.
Your quote:
No, it wasn't, and I find that people who often instantly throw out names of fallacies without explaining how it is so typically don't understand the fallacy they refer to...
The explanation:
Non sequitur (IPA: /nnskwtr/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used to indicate something which does not follow logically, such as a stated conclusion that is not supported by the facts.
(Ref. Wikipedia)
I'd rather live to 150 as a plantation owner in a free and educated south. But as I've stated already, this original health care Troll is just a diversion to the topic at hand. But often people's ideologies are more important than the actual topic it seems.
Why have this and a related comment a few doors up been modded "flamebait?" It's especially ironic in a discussion that involves freedom of speech.
I don't know, but somebody else spotted an apparent trend (for me at least).
I'm not arguing against you; just elaborating on some concepts.
Best regards,
UTW
The Troll is basically diverting the argument to health care. Your reply seems to insinuate its success. My original response was merely to counteract the +5 moderation of the original post (which I deemed inappropriate).
If the collective "landlords" want to impose certain requirements for use of their property, so be it.
I'll first point out that a Slippery Slope isn't always a logical fallacy. That being said I can see undo amounts of bureaucracy and political and economic quarrels over this.
If it is a government mandate, then at the very least there should be as little government regulation and influence as possible. I don't think the US would want something like Canada has were they require a certain proportion of Canadian content to be broadcast over their television sets and radio's, and were there is excessive amounts of arbitrary censorship. The US is already too over-burdened with censorship issues as it is with TV and radio. I would not wish the Canadian example imposed on any other country. I can envision huge swaths of time and money and energy spent dealing with the "controversy" of an accidental nipple slipped through any Internet filters the government may impose.
So in your scenario it would be free as in free advertising, and free unsolicited email. Sometimes there's too much freedom.
To be more accurate, I reworded your anti-UHC Troll:
Free nationwide internet access would be just like what happens with the current insurance industry health service.
At first it works fine and takes only a tiny bit of our pay cheques, then it grows in size (and squares in budget) as more and more people can't afford their current paid service: after all, they're paying for it as well.
Then comes the time when almost the whole service is in the hands of the financial conglomerates. It takes up a huge budget and a proportionate bite of our pay cheques. It works so that many people are left unconnected, but not much more. The insurance conglomerates mandate what can it be used for and what not. It sets up any filter it likes (of course, filters will only grow). Privacy is nixed.
But, hey, almost everybody is hooked up to an HMO because nobody can afford anything else. Only those that can afford paying double get a quality (and expensive) health insurance plan.
There; fixed that anti-UHC Troll for you.