Originally posted by Petrus
Either way, most conservatives are catholic, and the catholic church does not believe in global warming. Thus, a lot of Republicans do not believe in global warming [and they're obviously all conservative].
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
No. What amount of mental hoops would make you draw that conclusion? I have a right to purchase the internet service I'm using right now. That does not mean that I have a right to the internet.Could it be because it doesn't work, drives up national debt, and gives shitty second rate service?
I'm not going to pick up on most of your arguments because I respect that most of them are personal opinion based, but this is just factually incorrect. It's also pretty prevalent at the moment.
Firstly, it's interesting that you claim public healthcare drives up the national debt. In terms of spending, the US spent roughly 17.1% of it's GDP on Healthcare compared to the 8.8% that the UK spends.
I think looking at details outlined in the Commonwealth Fund analysis of healthcare systems around the world is important when comparing the US's Healthcare System to that of the UK (or other countries with public healthcare). You define public healthcare as 'not working' and 'giving a shitty second rate service'. Let's see how far the figures agree with you, since we're beyond the realm of opinion.
Adult's Access to Healthcare
Next Day appointments easily available: (UK: 52%) (US:48%)
Very Easy/Somewhat easy to get after hours appointments: (UK: 69%) (US: 39%)
Experienced Access Barrier because of cost: (UK: 4%) (US: 37%)
Waited 2 months or more for a specialist appointment: (UK: 7%) (US: 6%)
So, accessibility speaks for itself. In terms of success rates of the respective healthcare systems, the UK has a slightly higher death rate when limited to Myocardial Infarctions, but barely. In terms of raw, preventable deaths though, the statistics are quite telling:
Mortality amenable to healthcare (amenable deaths per 100000): (UK: 86) (US: 115)
So in reality, your 'it drives up national debt, and gives shitty second rate service' couldn't be further from the truth. It's both cheaper, and stronger on the whole than a fully private service. You also act as if having public healthcare is the same as giving up private in it's entirety, which is simply incorrect. If you think the public healthcare system has a 'shitty, second rate service' there are plenty of private institutions available. Hell, if you'd permit me to use a fallacy, I value the NHS far more than my private healthcare given the personal experiences I have had with them both. My sister would have succumbed to cancer had she stayed with the private healthcare provider we were both with, leaving behind three kids, their treatment was lackluster at best and it's only due to the NHS's existence that she's around today. Having experienced both, I would most certainly not refer to it as 'shitty, second rate service'....
Though I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, and actual evidence to back it up...
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
People who gain validation from others they don't even know are called whores. I have never aspired to be a whore.
Never? Like, not even once?
Sure. Why not? It's not my business to tell you what you can and cannot buy. If you want to be stupid, that is your right.
Nah, I agree with that.
You mean those things that are already in place? There is nowhere that you can just go pick up a gun. And you can easily murder people with a lot of things. If you are willing to kill someone, I doubt a need to have a permit is going to stop you.
Actually, you can. How do you think mass murders in high schools and colleges got their guns? And what type of filters are you referring to? Are you saying it's not easy for an American to acquire a gun? Because it certainly at least shouldn't be.
Yeah, you can easily murder people with a lot of things. Is that honestly your argument as to why guns shouldn't be banned?
It certainly would've stopped people from committing mass murder in schools.
I believe we should examine the actual science out there, and the people who think it is clear cut one way or the other don't actually pay attention to the science. When I see enough evidence to draw a conclusion, I will make one. Now, unless you have a non authoritarian way of fixing this problem, I really don't see the point of asking me my opinion on it.
Problem is, a lot of people ignore the science and its argument for the sake of ignoring it. A lot of these people are conservatives and/or Republicans. As I said, I thought you were conservative. If you don't want to give your opinion, then don't give it.
This is the single most retarded sentence in this discussion. And that's really saying something. Most conservatives aren't Catholic in the United States. All Republicans aren't conservatives. I don't know about the Catholic Church's official opinion on the matter, but that's really irrelevant to the topic at hand so I don't even know what you bothered bringing it up.
Most conservatives aren't Catholic? I was under the impression that conservative views are tightly related to a lot of the Church's ideologies. What are most Conservatives then, if not Catholic?
I meant to say a lot, not all of the Republicans. It's a fact that a very high percentage of Republicans are indeed Catholic.
It's relevant because most Republicans are conservative, and a lot of conservatives and Republicans are Catholic...
So not really retarded at all, taking into account those factors.
So...liberals? Because they do that too. All the time.
Sure, but in general liberals do not ignore findings regarding these specific topics we're discussing.
No. What amount of mental hoops would make you draw that conclusion? I have a right to purchase the internet service I'm using right now. That does not mean that I have a right to the internet.
So, retarded pretty much? Comparing the internet to healthcare is truly far-fetched, considering the difference between free and competitive healthcare can literally be the difference between life and death.
Could it be because it doesn't work, drives up national debt, and gives shitty second rate service?
Well, could it be that these problems are actually fixable if the government is competent and concerned, and when fixed [and even as of right now], free healthcare systems could save thousands of lives of people who can't afford to pay for it? Is that not worth it?
Then you haven't been paying attention since the 1800s.
Sure, because contemporary liberals have the exact same mentality as those who lived in the 1800s.
Because when millions of people disproportionately commit crimes, it is only intelligent to give them more scrutiny than those that don't.
lolwat? Exactly which millions of people are you referring to?? Terrorist groups don't even reach thousands of members, let alone millions. 😬
Otherwise, it's a waste of resources especially when you know where the problem lies. As long as your rights aren't being violated, and they aren't, I don't care. Safety before privacy at that point.
Okay, so, the rights of the very high number of innocent Muslims whose entry to the US was banned by Trump just because they hail from a specific country, aren't being violated? Even when they have all the legal documents in place and there's absolutely no reason to prevent them from entering the USA? Right.
Because it's not the question you asked.
Clearly after learning you're not a conservative, the question was changed...
No, they have the privilege to be married. Marriage isn't a right. A right is something you are born with, endowed to you by whatever higher power or natural order you believe in. It is something that cannot be given or taken away. Privileges are something that is given to you simply for being. Being 18, and thus allowed to marry, is a privilege. Something being legal does not make it "right."
It's up to each person's interpretation; as far as I know there isn't true consensus on this. However, I found this:
"It's a fundamental right under the US federal Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia. That means that any infringement on the "right to marry" (the scope of which is somewhat open to interpretation) is subject to "strict scrutiny", which is the highest level of constitutional judicial review and means that the state must show that it has a "compelling purpose" to infringe on the right." - David Raynor, Founder Attorney at Accelerate Legal
The court in Loving stated the following:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Okay? I don't care if I'm called a homophobe, I care ultimately about being correct, not being accepted. Again, I am not a whore. My existence is not to please others. I want what is factually correct when dealing with other people.
Suit yourself, homophobe. 🙂
It does not bug me. I don't care about what other people do personally. I think the evidence shows for itself what these kinds of things often lead to. If you are okay with those consequences, all the power to you.
Fair enough, then.
No, they aren't. Neo-Cons are opening to bombing Syria. So was Obama, who last I checked wasn't a conservative. Bombing is something that does not exist on the political spectrum.
Eh, fine.
No, he is not. By literally any measure of the word. Trump is a populous.
Eh, I think Trump has displayed ideologies that could be considered conservative, but saying he's a popolous is fair, as well..
This statement within itself shows how bullshit this entire conversation really is. You obviously do care, otherwise you wouldn't assume I believe certain things that you assume conservatives believe that liberals don't. Unless you plan on asking me if I breath air next, because you heard some conservatives do that, you're full of it.
I never claimed that by thinking in a certain way you automatically become a conservative, or anything of the sort. But it is true that -- even though thinking in certain ways does not make you a conservative -- a lot of conservatives think along the same lines, whatever the reason for that is. Why is this so hard to understand, lol? So no, I really do not care, and I believe that most liberals do not think similarly to conservatives in those particular topics. If you don't want to answer the questions or think I'm full of it, then be my guest. I'm also not a whore. 🙂
Again, you are asking questions pertaining to an ideology because you believe most, if not all, members of that group believe a certain way. Don't try to weasel yourself out of such obvious thinking. It only detracts from you. Stick to your beliefs and show how they are right.
Um, yeah, you're right. I never denied it. I easily accept that it is true. I'm not trying to weasel myself out of anything.
That does not make me a conservative. If everyone was a liberal, liberal would be the conservative position. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
I know it doesn't, that comment wasn't made in relevance to me calling you a conservative. I'm just saying you don't seem liberal, either.
Being allowed to marry at 18 is a privilege. Cutting out what I said doesn't change what I said.
Originally posted by Selenial
I'm not going to pick up on most of your arguments because I respect that most of them are personal opinion based, but this is just factually incorrect. It's also pretty prevalent at the moment.Firstly, it's interesting that you claim public healthcare drives up the national debt. In terms of spending, the US spent roughly 17.1% of it's GDP on Healthcare compared to the 8.8% that the UK spends.
Adult's Access to Healthcare
Next Day appointments easily available: (UK: 52%) (US:48%)
Very Easy/Somewhat easy to get after hours appointments: (UK: 69%) (US: 39%)
Experienced Access Barrier because of cost: (UK: 4%) (US: 37%)
Waited 2 months or more for a specialist appointment: (UK: 7%) (US: 6%)So, accessibility speaks for itself. In terms of success rates of the respective healthcare systems, the UK has a slightly higher death rate when limited to Myocardial Infarctions, but barely. In terms of raw, preventable deaths though, the statistics are quite telling:
Mortality amenable to healthcare (amenable deaths per 100000): (UK: 86) (US: 115)
So in reality, your 'it drives up national debt, and gives shitty second rate service' couldn't be further from the truth. It's both cheaper, and stronger on the whole than a fully private service.
You also act as if having public healthcare is the same as giving up private in it's entirety, which is simply incorrect.
This is anecdotal. I care about statistics. If you think the NHS is doing well, I'd suggest a few more google searches than the ones you got to agree with your opinion. The range of care is limited. People die at a much higher rate. Foreigners leech of your system because of its accessibility without a need to pay back into it. Doctors are bleed off quicker than tax dollars. And the cost is only increasing. That isn't something I want in my country. Nor do I want to pay for everyone else's services.
Originally posted by PetrusActually, you can. How do you think mass murders in high schools and colleges got their guns? And what type of filters are you referring to? Are you saying it's not easy for an American to acquire a gun? Because it certainly at least shouldn't be.
They come from people banning the average citizen from having guns. Which is why gun free zones make up the vast majority of locations where these massacres take place. And no, it isn't easy for an American to acquire a gun. Easier than say, the vast majority of Europe, but not much to do with my point.
Yeah, you can easily murder people with a lot of things. Is that honestly your argument as to why guns shouldn't be banned?
It certainly would've stopped people from committing mass murder in schools.
Problem is, a lot of people ignore the science and its argument for the sake of ignoring it. A lot of these people are conservatives and/or Republicans. As I said, I thought you were conservative. If you don't want to give your opinion, then don't give it.
Liberals ignore the science concerning, ironically:
Global warming, anything involving the LGBT community, the differences between the genders, any many other things that hurt feelings. Don't start that science denial bullshit with me.
Most conservatives aren't Catholic? I was under the impression that conservative views are tightly related to a lot of the Church's ideologies. What are most Conservatives then, if not Catholic?
You do know there are more Christian denominations than Catholicism, yes? Stop acting obtuse.
I meant to say a lot, not all of the Republicans. It's a fact that a very high percentage of Republicans are indeed Catholic.
It's relevant because most Republicans are conservative, and a lot of conservatives and Republicans are Catholic...So not really retarded at all, taking into account those factors.
Sure, but in general liberals do not ignore findings regarding these specific topics we're discussing.
So, retarded pretty much? Comparing the internet to healthcare is truly far-fetched, considering the difference between free and competitive healthcare can literally be the difference between life and death.
Well, could it be that these problems are actually fixable if the government is competent and concerned, and when fixed [and even as of right now], free healthcare systems could save thousands of lives of people who can't afford to pay for it? Is that not worth it?
Sure, because contemporary liberals have the exact same mentality as those who lived in the 1800s.
lolwat? Exactly which millions of people are you referring to?? Terrorist groups don't even reach thousands of members, let alone millions. 😬
Aside from Israel, nearly every government in the Middle East is a totalitarian hell hole where upwards of 95% of the populace support Sharia Law and terrorist cells. There are millions of people who go out of their way to send money directly to groups like ISIS. You can ignore these facts, and then ***** about "Catholics" ignoring global warming, or you can accept the facts as they are presented.
Okay, so, the rights of the very high number of innocent Muslims whose entry to the US was banned by Trump just because they hail from a specific country, aren't being violated? Even when they have all the legal documents in place and there's absolutely no reason to prevent them from entering the USA? Right.
It's up to each person's interpretation; as far as I know there isn't true consensus on this. However, I found this:"It's a fundamental right under the US federal Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia. That means that any infringement on the "right to marry" (the scope of which is somewhat open to interpretation) is subject to "strict scrutiny", which is the highest level of constitutional judicial review and means that the state must show that it has a "compelling purpose" to infringe on the right." - David Raynor, Founder Attorney at Accelerate Legal
The bullshit idea that the Supreme Court gets to interpret our rights is one of the biggest problems with this country. Rights being subjective, again, makes them not rights at all. Something that is given can be taken away. If it can be taken away, you never had a right to it. Something above the opinions of any one man, or all men, must be the basis of rights, or mob mentality makes anything excusable. I do not want to live in a world such as this.
The court in Loving stated the following:"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Eh, I think Trump has displayed ideologies that could be considered conservative,
I never claimed that by thinking in a certain way you automatically become a conservative, or anything of the sort. But it is true that -- even though thinking in certain ways does not make you a conservative -- a lot of conservatives think along the same lines, whatever the reason for that is. Why is this so hard to understand, lol?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you do not have severe mental disabilities. Read what I said again. You made an assumption about what I should believe because you thought a certain way about me. You would have no reason to ask those questions unless you assumed it was something that was near universal for said group. Stop bitching about being misunderstood, or trying to worm your way out of making those assumptions. it's unbecoming.
So no, I really do not care, and I believe that most liberals do not think similarly to conservatives in those particular topics. If you don't want to answer the questions or think I'm full of it, then be my guest. I'm also not a whore. 🙂
I know it doesn't, that comment wasn't made in relevance to me calling you a conservative. I'm just saying you don't seem liberal, either.
And thus you assumed I was a conservative. Because if you're not a liberal, you're a conservative. Deny it all you wish, but that was the reasoning. You also assumed I was Republican, because if you're not a liberal, you're a Republican. Catholic, because if you're a Republican, you're Catholic, and a myriad of other such nonsense. Assumptions compounded on assumptions that truly made an ass out of you more than it did me. And that's really saying something.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
But starters, my countries population is larger than yours. So when actually comparing death percentages, you have 2.5 percent of Americans dying after health services compared to nearly 10 in Britain. That's ridiculous. Instead of just taking numbers, I'd suggest adjusting for population size. Again, your healthcare is nationalized. Yes, that means you have more access to it. I care more about dying than I do about having access to healthcare.
.... Can you please clarify where on earth you're getting these percentages?