Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

When It’s Time to Go


Forums Forums General Discussion When It’s Time to Go

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 100 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #334709
    @sree
    Participant

    Have you ever actually seen two chimps do that?

    No. I stole that from a TED talk by Johnathan Haidt.

    #334711
    @widdershins
    Participant

    I say this kind of stuff ’till I’m blue in the face and no one seems to understand a word of it. They hate the word ‘socialism’ as though it’s dictionary definition is :”The reason leaders mass murder their people while starving them and stealing everything they own.”

    That everything great about our society is based on ‘socialism’ is lost on them. I expect you will get the same type of uninformed response.

    That’s because it has become a right-wing buzz word for “evil thieves who are going to steal from you so they don’t have to work”.  Conservatives neither know nor care what the word actually means.  Conservatism is more religious movement than political ideology these days and the Church of Reagan says socialism is evil, so it is.

    Most of them would be absolutely horrified at the sheer number of times a day they actually enjoy the benefits of socialism without even knowing it, and many of them actually sign up for socialist programs throughout their lives completely oblivious to the fact the unemployment insurance, and in fact, ALL insurance, is socialism.  And the tax breaks their churches get is socialism.  The religious channels some of them like to watch exist because cable companies charge us all for those channels so that they can get enough subscribers to survive, another form of socialism.  Paid vacation from work is socialism.  Flights would cost tens of thousands of dollars if not for socialism.  No road would be free to drive on if not for socialism.  Schools would look very different without socialism.  Social Security wouldn’t exist.  Nor would the law requiring emergency rooms to treat people regardless of ability to pay.  Socialism is literally everywhere.

    #334715
    @timb
    Participant

    I think that especially people who have immigrated from countries with “Socialist” countries are escaping a failing authoritarian regime.

    Typically the nation’s history has included:  A leader, perhaps with good intentions, came to power as a populist for the people.  The leader begins to centralize power to himself.  The leader is corrupted by all that power and makes terrible mistakes in judgment.  The country’s economy goes south, big time. Crises become the norm. People escape.  Some to the USA where they proclaim the evils of “Socialism”.  But the actual problem was never “Socialism”.  It was allowing the authoritarian takeover.

    And in the USA, NOW, our govt is continuing to be taken over by the tRump.  THAT is the threat.  Not “Socialism”.

    If the tRump retains power. He will soon have secured his Dictatorship. (Of course he will call it something that sounds nicer).  But if it happens to suit him to enact full blown Socialism, he certainly would, if it would mean that even more direct power would be funneled to him.

    I repeat.  “Socialism” is NOT a threat to us.  Authoritarianism IS.

    Hence, Vote Biden/Harris 2020!

     

     

    #334722
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    No. I stole that from a TED talk by Johnathan Haidt. — Sree

    And you completely missed the point. I’m sure that happens to you a lot.

    #334723
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    horrified at the sheer number of times a day they actually enjoy the benefits of socialism  — Widders

    I have a friend from college, he took Poli-Sci, but then didn’t have the desire to go into politics. But I trust him. He distinguishes socialism as things that are owned by the community, or as a conservative would say, by the guberment. A lot of things we do involve the pooling of resources, but they are still administered privately. Also, our government doesn’t gives us much direct control of our social programs, so that’s “social democracy”. In the current environment, this distinction will appear to be a rebranding, but really, they rebranded it to “socialism”. They are wrong, they are always wrong. They should go home and think about what they’ve done.

    #334730
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    You come so close to having something worth saying, but then you revert to 5th grade level understanding of the world. Democracy is only a few hundred years old. The idea may have been thought of by the Romans, but they quickly went back to Kings who became gods. Large scale civilizations that actually built things like aqueducts or supported exploration were almost always held up by some form of weapon or military strategy that others didn’t have. Most of them have some form of slavery. Of course it “works out”, it’s called human progress.

    If you are trying to say social progress is responsible for our “success” today, you’re wrong.  We are successful because we are militarily and economically powerful –and we didn’t get that way by being nice.

    #334732
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    If “most people” life longer than 60-70 year then 60-70 years is not the “average”.

    The “average lifespan” is taken by adding together the ages of every person when they die and then dividing that number by the number of people in your sample.  Some of the “modern medicine” which seems to vex you so much actually prevents YOUNG people from dying, not old people.  Vaccines wiping out polio, for example, raised the average lifespan, not by making old people live longer, but by allowing young people to become old people.  The same is true with modern pregnancy care.  And the maternal death rate has plummeted in the 20th century, also greatly increasing the “average” by keeping mothers and their infants alive through birth.  The maternal death rate declined 44% just from 1990 to 2017 alone.

    Very true about child mortality lowering life expectancy.

    However, research on modern hunter gatherers and on prehistoric and classical era remains show the average human lifespan without modern medicine is around 60-70.

     

    #334764
    @widdershins
    Participant

    However, research on modern hunter gatherers and on prehistoric and classical era remains show the average human lifespan without modern medicine is around 60-70.

    Change the “is” to “would be” and I don’t have a problem with it.  I’m not saying I believe it’s true, but I don’t have a problem with the statement.

    But it’s irrelevant anyway because we HAVE modern medicine so the life expectancy IS higher than that.  So what, exactly are you arguing?  That modern medicine is bad?  That we should get rid of certain medicines and medical technology to return to a more “natural” lifespan, but only those medicines and technologies which expand life expectancy past 60 or 70?  Does that include blood pressure medication?  A lot of older people take blood pressure medication, which extends their lives.  My 23 year old son also takes blood pressure medicine.  Is it okay for him to have it?  And when would his supply be cut off?  Can black people still have it?  They are genetically prone to high blood pressure.  Do they get cut off at the same time white people do?  Or do we just do a eugenics thing, cut them all off and let God sort them out?

    I’m finding it difficult to nail down exactly what it is you are arguing “should be”; what we “should do”, exactly, to fix the extended life expectancy you appear to see as a problem with society.  Maybe a “Logan’s Run” type of system, huh?  That would certainly take care of all those pesky old people if you just kill them when they reach an age you don’t like.

    #334777
    @sree
    Participant

    But it’s irrelevant anyway because we HAVE modern medicine so the life expectancy IS higher than that.  So what, exactly are you arguing?  That modern medicine is bad?  That we should get rid of certain medicines and medical technology to return to a more “natural” lifespan, but only those medicines and technologies which expand life expectancy past 60 or 70?

    Medical intervention to prevent death past 60 is not cheap and wasteful of resources even if you can afford to pick up the tab.

    Does that include blood pressure medication?

    Definitely.

    A lot of older people take blood pressure medication, which extends their lives.  My 23 year old son also takes blood pressure medicine.  Is it okay for him to have it?  And when would his supply be cut off?  Can black people still have it?  They are genetically prone to high blood pressure.  Do they get cut off at the same time white people do?  Or do we just do a eugenics thing, cut them all off and let God sort them out?

    The human body is an extremely complex organism and remarkably stable most of the time. Like any complicated machinery, things can go wrong. And when they do, the humane option is to shut it down.

    I’m finding it difficult to nail down exactly what it is you are arguing “should be”; what we “should do”, exactly, to fix the extended life expectancy you appear to see as a problem with society.  Maybe a “Logan’s Run” type of system, huh?  That would certainly take care of all those pesky old people if you just kill them when they reach an age you don’t like.

    Nobody is proposing killing off anyone. Even without medical intervention, people in well-run countries live well past 60 to 70 and end up in a bind without neither home nor food. Old people in Japan are resorting to petty crimes in order to get thrown into jail for free board and lodging. Timely decommissioning of the human body is a progressive approach to the management of society.

    #334781
    @widdershins
    Participant

    Medical intervention to prevent death past 60 is not cheap and wasteful of resources even if you can afford to pick up the tab.

    Incorrect. SOME medical intervention to prevent death past 60 is expensive. Blood pressure medication is like $4 after insurance.  You are confusing “the majority of health care costs come at the end of life” with “ALL old people accumulate massive health care costs at the end of life”.  That is simply not true.  And much of that cost is alleviating their suffering and making them comfortable so death isn’t torturous.

    The human body is an extremely complex organism and remarkably stable most of the time. Like any complicated machinery, things can go wrong. And when they do, the humane option is to shut it down.

    Nobody is proposing killing off anyone. Even without medical intervention, people in well-run countries live well past 60 to 70 and end up in a bind without neither home nor food. Old people in Japan are resorting to petty crimes in order to get thrown into jail for free board and lodging. Timely decommissioning of the human body is a progressive approach to the management of society.

    The first sentence of the second paragraph is at odds with the first paragraph and the last sentence of the second paragraph. I fail to see the difference between “killing people off” and “cutting off all medical care so that they die”, which is absolutely what you are advocating there.

    And that last sentence is a really doozy.  There is NOTHING “progressive” about advocating for the deaths of millions.  It’s called “genocide”, whether you shoot them, gas them, “put them to sleep” or just cut off care, the result is the same.  There is nothing “progressive” about genocide.

    On a side note, if you think you’re going to trick me into thinking “Oh, yeah, killing a bunch of old people is a good idea” by falsely claiming it is “progressive”, nobody is that stupid.  3 of the 4 largest genocides in history, including the 2 largest, were done by Nazis.  The Naxzi party was the extreme right-wing party.

    #334785
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    Change the “is” to “would be” and I don’t have a problem with it.  I’m not saying I believe it’s true, but I don’t have a problem with the statement.

    But it’s irrelevant anyway because we HAVE modern medicine so the life expectancy IS higher than that.  So what, exactly are you arguing?  That modern medicine is bad?  That we should get rid of certain medicines and medical technology to return to a more “natural” lifespan, but only those medicines and technologies which expand life expectancy past 60 or 70?  Does that include blood pressure medication?  A lot of older people take blood pressure medication, which extends their lives.  My 23 year old son also takes blood pressure medicine.  Is it okay for him to have it?  And when would his supply be cut off?  Can black people still have it?  They are genetically prone to high blood pressure.  Do they get cut off at the same time white people do?  Or do we just do a eugenics thing, cut them all off and let God sort them out?

    I’m finding it difficult to nail down exactly what it is you are arguing “should be”; what we “should do”, exactly, to fix the extended life expectancy you appear to see as a problem with society.  Maybe a “Logan’s Run” type of system, huh?  That would certainly take care of all those pesky old people if you just kill them when they reach an age you don’t like.

    The main point is gerontocracies should be avoided because too many old people living too long equals a society with no future.

    As I said upthread, if it was up to me I would not allow life prolonging medical intervention to anybody starting at about 70 years old.   70 years is long enough.

    In a normal society where there are far more young than old, it wouldn’t be necessary.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    #334789
    @lausten
    Keymaster

     We are successful because we are militarily and economically powerful –and we didn’t get that way by being nice. –oneguy

    It makes sense that you think we somehow bombed our to success. Wrong, but it makes sense.

    #334791
    @timb
    Participant

     We are successful because we are militarily and economically powerful –and we didn’t get that way by being nice.

    So we were not being “nice” when our military helped destroy the threat of the Nazis and the raping destructive Japanese Imperial Military?

    Were we being mean when we developed a national Interstate Highway system before any other nation and thereby propelled our economy beyond all others?

    Was the post WWII GI Bill, which helped establish a strong middle class,  not nice?

    Was our vaunted reputation as the freedom assisted innovators of the world a mean and nasty lie?

    Was the investment in education a mean and nasty trick?

    Hint: the answer to all of the above is “NO, and asserting the opposite is bullshit.”

    Now what about when we have actually been mean and nasty with our military?  We have repeatedly engaged in unnecessary military conflicts that has been economic ratholes, e.g. Viet Nam, Iraq. Were those a great boon to our economy? No they were economic ratholes.  Pour in the money and blood as fast as you can and come up with nothing, except less money and blood.

    I should call you the deathmeister, as your philosophy seems to be a lying advocate of human death.

     

    #334794
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    Yeah, we conquered the world in a nice way instead of a mean way.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by thatoneguy.
    #334798
    @timb
    Participant

    I think you say that sarcastically. So in your book, we were “not nice” in joining the Allies to defeat the Axis Powers?  I can see how fascist lovers might think that was not nice.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 100 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.