Why not to vote

canndo said:

This last guy guaranteed I could get health insurance.

Click to expand...

That's great! Now tell me your premium? What's the deductible? What's the percentage? What's your co-pay? What's the network look like? What happens if what you need is considered cosmetic? Does it cover only generic? If so, what happens when generic doesn't exist or the generic doesn't work for you? What's the wait time? What happens when insurance denies the claim? What if you already have a awesome HMO, but your employer becomes cheap and tells you to get it your own damn self, PPO for me so it's fair?

That's all bullshit you say? You're right! Free medical for all!

Zaehet Strife said:

George Carlin, why he doesn't vote. Couldn't have said it any better myself. 4 minutes dudes and dudettes. Check it out. [video=youtube;xIraCchPDhk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&feature=related[/video]

Click to expand...

RIP Goerge and fuck em all

Canna Sylvan said:

That's great! Now tell me your premium? What's the deductible? What's the percentage? What's your co-pay? What's the network look like? What happens if what you need is considered cosmetic? Does it cover only generic? If so, what happens when generic doesn't exist or the generic doesn't work for you? What's the wait time? What happens when insurance denies the claim? What if you already have a awesome HMO, but your employer becomes cheap and tells you to get it your own damn self, PPO for me so it's fair?

That's all bullshit you say? You're right! Free medical for all!

Click to expand...

Point is that before him I couldn't get any at all. Premiums are over 500, it's an 80 20 plan in most instances. No copay. Network is the same one I was in when I had group. If it is considered cosmetic I don't get it. Generic if generic is available, if not I pay more. No wait time. I get to appeal and then - they deny the claim. I
If I "already have an HMO" then I wouldn't have made the statement I did - that before this president I couldn't get individual health insurance.

No one really expects free medical health, but they want something reasonable and they don't want to have to worry about it.

Samwell Seed Well said:

RIP Goerge and fuck em all

Click to expand...

Carlin is wrong here. He doesn't see the real picture.

canndo said:

Jim Crow proves you wrong Rob - we only have to look at history to find that plenty of folks just don't care about profit. As I said, if your primary clientel is willing to walk out on you if you serve a black guy, you are likely to preserve the business you have.

Click to expand...

Uh....we were talking about what a "violent act" is, remember ? You declared a violent act as possibly occurring when one person decides not to associate with another person. I refuted it and declared that in that scenario no violence occurs. Can you point out where "the violence" occurs or shall I take it you concede that point?

How do you define "violence" anyway?

Rob Roy said:

Uh....we were talking about what a "violent act" is, remember ? You declared a violent act as possibly occurring when one person decides not to associate with another person. I refuted it and declared that in that scenario no violence occurs. Can you point out where "the violence" occurs or shall I take it you concede that point?

How do you define "violence" anyway?

Click to expand...

refuse to "associate" is not the same as refuse to treat as equal when the person is equal.


Demanding that a black patron leave one's cafe is vilence.

canndo said:

refuse to "associate" is not the same as refuse to treat as equal when the person is equal.


Demanding that a black patron leave one's cafe is vilence.

Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't seem nice does it? But who OWNS the business? The "private" business owner or the general public / government? How can a person own something yet not be able to control how it is run? It would seem the "business owner" would have less than a full ownership interest in it under those circumstances.

Of course telling a person how they will run their private business and making them associate with others that they don't care to at the point of a gun...is that violence?

I point these things out not as an endorsement of a policy to deny patrons based on race. I point this out to advocate for the freedom of people to associate or NOT to associate.
In that regard if one party that purportedly "owns" something, shouldn't they be able to decide who they will contract with?

Rob Roy said:

It certainly doesn't seem nice does it? But who OWNS the business? The "private" business owner or the general public / government? How can a person own something yet not be able to control how it is run? It would seem the "business owner" would have less than a full ownership interest in it under those circumstances.

Of course telling a person how they will run their private business and making them associate with others that they don't care to at the point of a gun...is that violence?

I point these things out not as an endorsement of a policy to deny patrons based on race. I point this out to advocate for the freedom of people to associate or NOT to associate.
In that regard if one party that purportedly "owns" something, shouldn't they be able to decide who they will contract with?

Click to expand...

Again, if I OWN the business and I OWN the land why can I not dump polutants onto it? No one has ultimate control over anything they "own".


Yes, I suppose if the one is violence then the other is as well.

Freedom to not assoicate is not the same as freedom to deny services to another only on the basis of one characteristic of that individual.


Is it violence to deny a black home owner the ability to have electricity or water or sewer?

canndo said:

Again, if I OWN the business and I OWN the land why can I not dump polutants onto it? No one has ultimate control over anything they "own".


Yes, I suppose if the one is violence then the other is as well.

Freedom to not assoicate is not the same as freedom to deny services to another only on the basis of one characteristic of that individual.


Is it violence to deny a black home owner the ability to have electricity or water or sewer?

Click to expand...

If you own land and/ or yourself and your "pollution" stays on your land or within your body etc. it is not the business of others to intervene, since they were not victimized by your actions.

You contradict yourself. Freedom to not associate a private business is the same as the freedom of a private individual not to associate. The construct that a "business" is somehow not owned by people is an artificial one designed by government and wielded by people to shield personal responsibility. In either case it is wrong to use force to make people associate in their private lives or to make them transact via their private business with those they cannot make consensual agreements with. A consensual agreement by its very nature must involve consent from all the participants. Do you favor unilateral contracts? Why?

Denying people electricity or water ? How?

Rob Roy said:

If you own land and/ or yourself and your "pollution" stays on your land or within your body etc. it is not the business of others to intervene, since they were not victimized by your actions.

You contradict yourself. Freedom to not associate a private business is the same as the freedom of a private individual not to associate. The construct that a "business" is somehow not owned by people is an artificial one designed by government and wielded by people to shield personal responsibility. In either case it is wrong to use force to make people associate in their private lives or to make them transact via their private business with those they cannot make consensual agreements with. A consensual agreement by its very nature must involve consent from all the participants. Do you favor unilateral contracts? Why?

Denying people electricity or water ? How?

Click to expand...

I thought one of the solid planks of your political philosophy is "do no harm to others". Denying someone patronage of your establishment because of race, creed, color ... does harm. Unless you're willing to deny that ... cn

Rob Roy said:

If you own land and/ or yourself and your "pollution" stays on your land or within your body etc. it is not the business of others to intervene, since they were not victimized by your actions.

You contradict yourself. Freedom to not associate a private business is the same as the freedom of a private individual not to associate. The construct that a "business" is somehow not owned by people is an artificial one designed by government and wielded by people to shield personal responsibility. In either case it is wrong to use force to make people associate in their private lives or to make them transact via their private business with those they cannot make consensual agreements with. A consensual agreement by its very nature must involve consent from all the participants. Do you favor unilateral contracts? Why?

Denying people electricity or water ? How?

Click to expand...

Little pollution stays only on one's land, land is not perpetualy owned and so eventualy someone else will wind up aquiring that polluted land. SHould that pollution reach the ground water lots of people might suffer.

Freedom to deny services - such as a company's "freedom" to deny a home owner services such as gas, electricity, water or sewer. If I own an electric company and I opt not to serve black people in the area in which I sell my electricity, that is violence.

canndo said:

Little pollution stays only on one's land, land is not perpetualy owned and so eventualy someone else will wind up aquiring that polluted land. SHould that pollution reach the ground water lots of people might suffer.

Freedom to deny services - such as a company's "freedom" to deny a home owner services such as gas, electricity, water or sewer. If I own an electric company and I opt not to serve black people in the area in which I sell my electricity, that is violence.

Click to expand...

If pollution leaves land, then the harmed party would be a victim, the polluter should restitute them. So where is our disagreement?

Your claim that denial of a service is violence does not become valid if you continuously repeat it. How is "not associating" with a person violence? What you are advocating "forced association" can be construed as violence though. For violence to occur there must be an infliction, not a denial yes?

Rob Roy said:

If pollution leaves land, then the harmed party would be a victim, the polluter should restitute them. So where is our disagreement? When you cant pay the clean up bill.

Your claim that denial of a service is violence does not become valid if you continuously repeat it. How is "not associating" with a person violence? What you are advocating "forced association" can be construed as violence though. For violence to occur there must be an infliction, not a denial yes?

Click to expand...

When you cant pay the clean up bill.

No, not necessarily so (sorry canndo) Lets say you are a drug store and refuse service, the would be patron not has to drive further costing extra time, money in fuel and now can only afford half of the meds his baby son needs.

Rob Roy said:

If pollution leaves land, then the harmed party would be a victim, the polluter should restitute them. So where is our disagreement?

Your claim that denial of a service is violence does not become valid if you continuously repeat it. How is "not associating" with a person violence? What you are advocating "forced association" can be construed as violence though. For violence to occur there must be an infliction, not a denial yes?

Click to expand...

first of all there is that word - "should". Citizen A pollutes a stream that Citizen B fishes from, the stream crosses both of their land - who owns the stream?

Now, Citizen B is proveably harmed, what is his recourse? Who does he go to to have that party decide who is harmed, what the penalty should be and have that penalty enforced? Or does it just happen out of the goodness in Citizen A's heart?


Now, I am A Japanese American, the owner of the station that supplies electricity to everyone in my community does not like Japanese Americans and will not sell that Japanese American any electricity. That Japanese American has a wife on medical support which needs electricity. Is the owner perpetrating violence upon the japanese American who owns a home ?

The owner is intent on not "associating" with the Japanese home owner.

Grandpapy said:

When you cant pay the clean up bill.

No, not necessarily so (sorry canndo) Lets say you are a drug store and refuse service, the would be patron not has to drive further costing extra time, money in fuel and now can only afford half of the meds his baby son needs.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind I'm not advocating pollution, I am advocating holding the polluter that cause harm be held responsible to restitute the victims if they exist.

In your example you have described an inconvenience, maybe even a major inconvenience, but where and when did the violence get inflicted in your example?
So are you favor of having third parties dictate to private people who they will or will not associate with or do business with? If private business or people are not free to set the terms of their business is it still "private" ? In business, for a fair transaction , there should be offer and acceptance, no?

Rob Roy said:

If pollution leaves land, then the harmed party would be a victim, the polluter should restitute them. So where is our disagreement?

Your claim that denial of a service is violence does not become valid if you continuously repeat it. How is "not associating" with a person violence? What you are advocating "forced association" can be construed as violence though. For violence to occur there must be an infliction, not a denial yes?

Click to expand...

What kind of dreamy fucked up unicorn and rainbow world do you reside in if you believe that crap?
Crap you at least heard of Erin Brakovich

some cant associate them together, the idea of direct and indirect being equal in affect is beyond some

the causality of indirectly or directly neglecting of Japanese homeowner from the electrcity provider is that a harm is done to said owners family, if could be the family dog for all that matter

some dont see the actiosn of a personal choice as there responsibility, instead they blame it on the economy or the times . . . personal and ethical responsibility is long gone

Rob Roy said:

Keep in mind I'm not advocating pollution, I am advocating holding the polluter that cause harm be held responsible to restitute the victims if they exist.

In your example you have described an inconvenience, maybe even a major inconvenience, but where and when did the violence get inflicted in your example?
So are you favor of having third parties dictate to private people who they will or will not associate with or do business with? If private business or people are not free to set the terms of their business is it still "private" ? In business, for a fair transaction , there should be offer and acceptance, no?

Click to expand...

You fail to see freedom in relative terms, there are natural limits to "freedom" some are limits in the interest of an evolving society such as quotas and affirmaitive action - they are temporary but serve to right a wrong over time and alter the makeup and attitudes of a society. Some limits to freedom are in the direct interest to society such as forbidding false advertising, enforcing ingredient labels, demanding full disclosure.

What you are looking for is a sort of freedom that is not possible in a modern society. If I manufacture and sell a medication that has no effectiveness and could easily be taken rather than a legitimate medicine to the detriment of the purchaser, is that violence? If I and another person enter freely into a contract where I say that this sterile sea water will cure your cancer but only if you do not undergo traditional chemo therapy - has violence been done to the cancer victim? (that is a true story btw - my friend died as a result).

You presume certain things exist that do not, can not or will not.

Rob Roy, I am noticing that you are not addressing my identification of discrimination as harm. cn

ChesusRice said:

What kind of dreamy fucked up unicorn and rainbow world do you reside in if you believe that crap?
Crap you at least heard of Erin Brakovich

Click to expand...

Okay ? Please explain what your definition of violence is. By your comment I assume you think it encompasses neutral acts such as "failing to act" ?

Also what do Unicorns and rainbows have to do with each other ?