Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

But the impeachment was about what he had done as president.

I don't think that's relevant. There are two concepts at play to not prosecuting the president for crimes. One is to not disrupt the functions of government, which doesn't apply once he isn't in office. The second is to not make a president fear personal liability for things done from the office of the President, and none of what he did regarding January 6th was in his capacity as the president. It would be prosecuting a private citizen for things said and done on their own behalf.

And it really wasn't. Unless we have to assume that either Trump didn't realize that Biden was his political opponent and that him canceling aid Ukraine needed to survive moments before making the call was a very quirky coincidence. And ultimately even the cronies who refused to impeach him admitted the accusations against Trump were true.

It was neither ignorance of Biden nor coincidence. Trump did not instigate that situation. Ukraine had a new president entering office, one who ran on an anti-corruption platform, and whose election signaled continued movement of Ukraine away from Russia and toward the US and Western Europe. The sitting prosecutor general of Ukraine, hoping to buy the favor of the US President and thus secure his position into the future, sent an associate to Rudy Giuliani with information about Biden and his son. Trump then turned around and asked the new anti-corruption President of Ukraine to handle it. The only guilt Trump had in the situation was that his personal character is so awful, people around him believed he was making up crap to bully Joe Biden, but Trump didn't instigate any of it, the Ukrainians did.

 

[Buyetyen]

An oldie, but a goodie. (Wtf, a couple of months feels like eons ago.Time has slown to a glacial drip brushing against a precipice of suspended animation)

I'm not a big fan of the Abrahamic religions in general, but Islam was definitely onto something when they said, "No more prophets." Christianity never learned that lesson and as they so often do are making it everyone else's problem.

 

[Silvanus]

Well no it doesn't, because supply chain issues typically don't happen in the last stretch, which is where a government healthcare program does it's work.

The seeds of supply chain issues are often sown months or years in advance, for instance, if an industry gets complacent and used to ordering just what they believe they'll definitely need, in order to save money.

Here's why I think you're getting wonky. The American system is shit because people can't use it because they will go bankrupt if they try. But that being said, if I go to the hospital with a ruptured appendix, they will remove it and save my life. The American system isn't shit because you're less likely to receive good care in the hospital compared to other nations, it's shit because you're less likely to make it to a hospital in the first place compared to other nations. And if your argument is supply chains, then as I've been saying, the government's hand in supply chains is absurdly small.

That is not the sole reason the American healthcare system is godawful. It's well documented that quality-of-care differs dramatically from hospital to hospital, because there is no uniform standard. No functional body ensuring a certain standard is met. And they'll remove the appendix and save your life... before slapping you with an extortionate bill, because they're operated by private entities motivated by profit.

The government's hand in supply chains in the UK is only "absurdly small" if you arbitrarily exclude huge elements of the supply chain, such as purchasing and delivery.

And if we're talking about ventilators:

Covid-19: Government was too slow to respond to ventilator shortages, say MPs

The NHS managed to provide care for all patients affected by covid-19 who needed ventilators earlier this year despite the government being underprepared and slow in responding to hospitals’ needs, MPs have said. Good luck rather than design helped the NHS to care for patients with covid-19...

www.bmj.com

Covid: UK spent £569m on 20,900 ventilators but most remain unused

Government was right to prioritise speed over cost, says National Audit Office

www.theguardian.com

Scrambling happened everywhere, and everyone was causing shortages.

Oh, scrambling happened everywhere. What did not occur everywhere is a bidding-war driving the price up, and creating shortage even when even when there was full knowledge of how much was required. A problem created solely, and uniquely, by a heavily competitive, incoherently decentralised healthcare system.

Then by your own logic, should you not express your uninformed opinion on policy?

Lol, who the fuck has been arguing that people shouldn't express their opinions?

*and whole ass constitution writing

*Was done by elected representatives.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The seeds of supply chain issues are often sown months or years in advance, for instance, if an industry gets complacent and used to ordering just what they believe they'll definitely need, in order to save money.

Supply chain issues do happen because of slow movements (typically), but that ain't it. It happens through rampant consolidation and lax standards. Something the UK totally buys into, even the NHS.

That is not the sole reason the American healthcare system is godawful. It's well documented that quality-of-care differs dramatically from hospital to hospital, because there is no uniform standard. No functional body ensuring a certain standard is met. And they'll remove the appendix and save your life... before slapping you with an extortionate bill, because they're operated by private entities motivated by profit.

I did just say I'd go bankrupt doing it, but my point is is that if you're saying that a government is needed to put insulin on shelves, well no, they aren't.

The government's hand in supply chains in the UK is only "absurdly small" if you arbitrarily exclude huge elements of the supply chain, such as purchasing and delivery.

Those are absurdly small, because most of the delivery happens outside of the UK and purchasing isn't a particularly impressive feat, certainly not something you need a government to do.

Oh, scrambling happened everywhere. What did not occur everywhere is a bidding-war driving the price up, and creating shortage even when even when there was full knowledge of how much was required. A problem created solely, and uniquely, by a heavily competitive, incoherently decentralised healthcare system.

Literally your country contributed to it because they scrambled just as hard as everyone else. That right up there is the bidding war that drove prices up and created shortages.

Lol, who the fuck has been arguing that people shouldn't express their opinions?

Implicitly, if you believe people aren't smart enough to know policy to the point where their opinion is worthless, then you must therefore believe it's not worth sharing.

*Was done by elected representatives.

*Literally not in Cuba

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Agema]

It's not resorting to anything. It's the truth, and you know it. It's genuinely ridiculous that the position calling for change is considered conservative

It's bullshit, and you know it.

It is plain that in the real world conservatives tend to oppose abortion much more than progressives do. As this is the case, the way you define and/or think about conservatism clearly is not the same as just about anyone else thinks of it.

You don't need to be lucky or successful have healthcare in the US. You are less likely to be denied here care than most places with socialized medicine. You just might have a bill at the end, of which there are tons of programs to help you manage.

Again, the claims you are making here simply do not stack up against the reality that pre-ACA and to a significant extent post-ACA, huge quantities of people in the USA were de facto unable to get treatment for illnesses that Western European could, or were financially crippled by the bills if they did.

This is so well documented I am staggered that you are even arguing the case.

Second, social mobility is a relative measure, that says nothing about the individual's ability to improve their life, only shows changes relative to others. The ability for well off people to lose everything contributes equally to social mobility as people gaining wealth at the bottom.

Lose everything... like from their healthcare bills?

The implication of your argument is that because the children of the rich earn tons like their parents did, poor people improve themselves but still stay in low income brackets relative to their generational peers. This would suggest that we would expect a marked improvement in the salaries of the poor relative to the rich - i.e. a narrowing wealth gap. Is that actually what we observe? Quick answer: no. In fact, the salaries of below median jobs in the USA have been disturbingly stagnant since 1980. In the UK (which has marginally worse social mobility than the USA), the median household income has doubled (inflation adjusted) since 1980, where the USA median houshold income (inflation adjusted) has increased less than 50%.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That the idea of progress has been coopted to mean exclusively hedonism is a shame.

If your view of pro-choice is that it is justified by hedonism rather than the rights of women, then it becomes all too obvious that your anti-abortion stance is about punishing women for not being good little incubators and not any real concern over what you disingenuously call 'murder'.

 

[tstorm823]

It's bullshit, and you know it.

It is plain that in the real world conservatives tend to oppose abortion much more than progressives do. As this is the case, the way you define and/or think about conservatism clearly is not the same as just about anyone else thinks of it.

You're not acknowledging that you're using the word "progressive" but what you really mean is "hedonist".

This is so well documented I am staggered that you are even arguing the case.

I mean, a well documented lie is still a lie. There is lots of documentation implying Americans are unable to get health care, but it's not accurate. There are lots of opinion surveys and proxy variables used to justify such a claim, but the actual numbers aren't there.

The implication of your argument is that...

The statistic for social mobility does not measure what you want it to. That is what I'm arguing. That in order for the bottom % of people to escape the bottom %, others necessarily must fall to replace them. Economics is not a zero sum game, but social mobility measures are, which makes them not a reflection of anything meaningful.

Arguing about actual rises in income is better, but bragging that people in the UK were poor 40 years ago is not a good look.

If your view of pro-choice is that it is justified by hedonism rather than the rights of women, then it becomes all too obvious that your anti-abortion stance is about punishing women for not being good little incubators and not any real concern over what you disingenuously call 'murder'.

Do I need to go around the board and quote everyone who's said "the fetus can't feel pain and the woman can" or some variant thereof?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You're not acknowledging that you're using the word "progressive" but what you really mean is "hedonist".

Do I need to go around the board and quote everyone who's said "the fetus can't feel pain and the woman can" or some variant thereof?

Not feeling pain is hedonism? Are you a cenobite?

 

[tstorm823]

Not feeling pain is hedonism? Are you a cenobite?

Hedonism is the philosophy that moral good is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Someone determining the moral acceptability of killing based on the capacity of the dying thing to feel pain are employing hedonism.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Hedonism is the philosophy that moral good is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Someone determining the moral acceptability of killing based on the capacity of the dying thing to feel pain are employing hedonism.

Damn those hedonistic doctors, using anesthesia.

 

[Trunkage]

Hedonism is the philosophy that moral good is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Someone determining the moral acceptability of killing based on the capacity of the dying thing to feel pain are employing hedonism.

Think of it as objectism but slightly caring about other people

Anyway, another example would be vegans. In two ways. First, the carnivores willingness to 'ethical' kill so they can have a burger. Second, they're utter disregard to apply the same logic to plants. Thus are very willing to kill for bread/fruit. Fruitarians are just going around killing fetuses

'We weep for the blood of the bird, but not of the fish. Blessed are those that have a voice.'

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Damn those hedonistic doctors, using anesthesia.

Ok while I'm very Pro choice (saying this because that's what the wider conversation going on is not because my point relates to it so much)

Anesthesia doesn't stop you feeling pain, it stop your body registering it. Your body still feels the pain, the receptors are still set off they're just blocked from reporting. It's the whole "If a Tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it does it make a sound" argument.

Hell general anaesthetics somewhat just wipe your ability to record memories for a time. Useless thing, they wake you up in theatre after your operation, no-one remembers it but they do but due to the effects of the anaesthesia you don't record that memory and it can be up to 30 minute later before you really start recording again.

Sorry for the tangent just something I find fascinating in just how potentially weird the implications are around anaesthesia because yeh it's good but when you think about it the thing is pretty dark too like "Don't worry we're just switching off parts of your body and or mind for a bit"

 

[Seanchaidh]

Do I need to go around the board and quote everyone who's said "the fetus can't feel pain and the woman can" or some variant thereof?

It is excessively silly to boil down various arguments about who and what should constitute a legal person and have rights recognized by society as "hedonism". Yes, even in the sense that utilitarianism is "hedonist", which is how that word is used in like 0.5% of cases.

 

[tstorm823]

It is excessively silly to boil down various arguments about who and what should constitute a legal person and have rights recognized by society as "hedonism".

I'm not talking about "various arguments", I'm talking about one specific type of argument.

Damn those hedonistic doctors, using anesthesia.

I know you're trying to make me look silly, but you're not succeeding. Hedonism places the moral importance of pleasure and pain above even life and death. Anesthesia is not done at the expense of human life, abortion is.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I know you're trying to make me look silly, but you're not succeeding. Hedonism places the moral importance of pleasure and pain above even life and death. Anesthesia is not done at the expense of human life, abortion is.

Except my moral philosophy regarding abortion has zero to do with pain or pleasure, as repeatedly explained in the Texas v Abortion thread in exhaustive detail.

And it still doesn't mean that you're "progressive" in any definition of the word.

 

[Silvanus]

Supply chain issues do happen because of slow movements (typically), but that ain't it. It happens through rampant consolidation and lax standards. Something the UK totally buys into, even the NHS.

"Lax standards" are something far more likely in an unregulated system, without oversight, in which profit-motivated private entities are able to operate as they please. Exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid.

"Rampant consolidation" is so vague as to be ignored.

Neither of these were the cause of ventilator supply issues in the US, of course, which was purely caused by an unnecessary bidding war, brought about by individual health providers having to compete with one another.

I did just say I'd go bankrupt doing it, but my point is is that if you're saying that a government is needed to put insulin on shelves, well no, they aren't.

That's not what I said. We were talking about how inconsistent quality of care is, and how godawful the provision of healthcare in the US is. Because healthcare providers have no uniform standard, no oversight, no public-oriented motive. A direct result of privatised healthcare.

Those are absurdly small, because most of the delivery happens outside of the UK and purchasing isn't a particularly impressive feat, certainly not something you need a government to do.

I'm starting to wonder what exactly you do consider part of the "supply chain", if you arbitrarily exclude both purchasing and delivery.

Literally your country contributed to it because they scrambled just as hard as everyone else. That right up there is the bidding war that drove prices up and created shortages.

Purchasing bids from the NHS were not a significant contributor to ventilator shortages in other countries. That's patently untrue. And within the UK, the NHS dealt far better with the ventilator situation than did the US. Because the UK healthcare system was not competing with it-fucking-self.

Implicitly, if you believe people aren't smart enough to know policy to the point where their opinion is worthless, then you must therefore believe it's not worth sharing.

Explicitly, you don't understand my position if you think the above sentence has any relevance to it.

*Literally not in Cuba

*Literally yes in Cuba.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm not talking about "various arguments", I'm talking about one specific type of argument.

You're talking about a particular premise (about what constitutes a person deserving of rights) which you've misconstrued in a particular way (as about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain rather than having various capacities including the capacity to suffer, have preferences, think, communicate desires, and so on).

 

[Agema]

You're not acknowledging that you're using the word "progressive" but what you really mean is "hedonist".

I think that claim of "hedonism" is nothing but a bizarre confection of your own devising; it appears to stink of quasi-religious sexual puritanism. It is also ill-considered on various levels:

1) How much does any complaint of "hedonism" have meaning in a country that stated in defence of its independence a right "inherent and inalienable" of "the pursuit of happiness"?
2) What sense does the claim of "hedonism" make given extensive arguments based in human rights, personal freedoms, human development and economics argued just in the last few weeks?
3) Why the selectivity of this accusation, given all the pleasure-seeking activities which infict forms of harm that we could consider under our consumerist society?

I mean, a well documented lie is still a lie. There is lots of documentation implying Americans are unable to get health care, but it's not accurate. There are lots of opinion surveys and proxy variables used to justify such a claim, but the actual numbers aren't there.

So your argument is that virtually all the statistics and evidence points to the US healthcare system being both grossly inefficient and for much of the population inadequate, but it's just a "lie" because... you say so?

The statistic for social mobility does not measure what you want it to. That is what I'm arguing. That in order for the bottom % of people to escape the bottom %, others necessarily must fall to replace them. Economics is not a zero sum game, but social mobility measures are, which makes them not a reflection of anything meaningful.

Er... wtf?

Economics indeed is not a zero sum game. However, that argument exists within a certain context, usually the fact that trade is mutually beneficial, or that the economy is not static can can grow, thus everyone can theoretically benefit.

However, it bares no meaningful relation to the reality of job scarcity.

There are only so many jobs that pay more than $1 million a year (2021 dollars). It may fluctuate and should very gradually increase over time, but not that much. And I am willing to bet you that at any one time, the pool of people wanting jobs that pay $1million p.a. is vastly higher than the number of those jobs. So most of them have to settle for jobs paying less. And so on down the ladder until you get people mopping up shit (maybe literally) on the minimum wage - or if they're exploitable enough, less.

One would expect that in a world of perfect equality of opportunity and merit-based advancement, the chances of a child of poor parents to get a job paying $1 million year (or $100,000, or $50,000 or $20,000) to be roughly the same as a child of wealthy parents. But it isn't the case, or even close in the USA. And yet in a country in like Denmark, it is far more likely for that to occur. In other words, being born to a wealthy family affords massive advantages, or being poor grants huge disadvantages.

It's not hard to realise how resources provide advantages, and the lack of them disadvantages. Other countries do more to compensate for poverty, so by and large, their poor are less disadvantaged. It's not rocket science.

Arguing about actual rises in income is better, but bragging that people in the UK were poor 40 years ago is not a good look.

That is beyond pathetic. I feel embarrassed for you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"Lax standards" are something far more likely in an unregulated system, without oversight, in which profit-motivated private entities are able to operate as they please. Exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid.

"Rampant consolidation" is so vague as to be ignored.

Neither of these were the cause of ventilator supply issues in the US, of course, which was purely caused by an unnecessary bidding war, brought about by individual health providers having to compete with one another.

And competing with the UK, who also went on an unnecessary bidding war competing with other nations, because being a government buyer doesn't mean you're not just another buyer.

That's not what I said. We were talking about how inconsistent quality of care is, and how godawful the provision of healthcare in the US is. Because healthcare providers have no uniform standard, no oversight, no public-oriented motive. A direct result of privatised healthcare.

No, that's what you're talking about now to shift away from you saying that you have to have a government to put products in the hands of consumers.

I'm starting to wonder what exactly you do consider part of the "supply chain", if you arbitrarily exclude both purchasing and delivery.

I don't exclude them, I'm just pointing out that they're small parts of the supply chain. A supply chain is the series of trades that move from extracting raw materials to putting them in consumer's hands. Insulin for example is a global product that will travel thousands of miles and the materials will change hands dozens of times. The UK government has control of at best less than a hundred miles of that supply chain. The rest of it is completely out of the government's hands. And it's not just insulin, this is basically everything made. And like all chains, a supply chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A plastic and/or glass shortage for example might see an insulin shortage. The fuck is the UK going to do about that?

Purchasing bids from the NHS were not a significant contributor to ventilator shortages in other countries. That's patently untrue. And within the UK, the NHS dealt far better with the ventilator situation than did the US. Because the UK healthcare system was not competing with it-fucking-self.

It's not significant in the same way someone going to the store and buying 3 packages of toilet paper they don't need just in case doesn't contribute to a toilet paper shortage.

It absolutely did.

Explicitly, you don't understand my position if you think the above sentence has any relevance to it.

If you think you're too dumb to know how policies would play out, why should I listen to a damn thing you say? By your own admission, you're a bad source of information. I should just blow off anything you say.

*Literally yes in Cuba.

*Literally no