Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 2428 Local time: 7:50 PM Location: Northern LA County, CA
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:22 am Post subject:
Moloth wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
CET wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
CET wrote:
Of course there are bad people, but most people have good intentions. Think of any act and you will inevitably find a good intention behind it.
okay. killing six million jews. give me the good intention behind it.
OK.
Ridding the world of a menace so the Aryan people can take their rightful place as masters of the world. He did it because he thought that was necessary to making the world a better place.
EVERY act is backed by a good intention.
Explain a rapist. Explain a child molester. I call into question the sentiment that every act is backed by a good intention.
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Does the pleasure gained from knowingly and intentionally hurting others count as a good intention in the context of CET's proclamation about all acts having good intentions? _________________ Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 Posts: 7247 Local time: 7:50 PM Location: Next door.
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject:
Moloth wrote:
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Moloth! Equivocation fallacy. How could you?
Anyway. CET can argue that the Nazi's thought they were doing good in the same sense that social programs are intended to do good, but that's beside the point.
The issue is-- IS it good. How should it be good, and why.
Talking about death camps as a well intentioned social program is a bit like talking about murderers who shot people because they thought they were demons-- as an anti gun control argument.
There is no point in arguing with comparisons that we all, already agree upon, as ludicrious. _________________ "-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 23071 Local time: 10:50 PM Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject:
cheapsuprise wrote:
Moloth wrote:
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Moloth! Equivocation fallacy. How could you?
lol... i was speaking directly and only from the psychopaths viewpoint, of course...
good and evil or subjective. its as simple as that.
I mean, staying on the Nazi track, one could say that exterminating the Jews did several good things (for the Nazi's): created jobs and and freed up job that the Jews once held. To the Nazi's, there were several GOOD things about the Holocaust.
Did the evil of killing, torturing, starving all of those innocent men, women and children outweigh whatever 'good' came out of it? hell no.
but we happen to see it from a larger picture... from the viewpoint of ALL of the people involved, not just the Nazis.
Zoom out a little further and it was nothing but a blip of a second on a speck of dust circling another speck of dust in the cosmos... _________________ -=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 12846 Local time: 7:50 PM Location: SoCal, USA
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Moloth wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
CET wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
CET wrote:
Of course there are bad people, but most people have good intentions. Think of any act and you will inevitably find a good intention behind it.
okay. killing six million jews. give me the good intention behind it.
OK.
Ridding the world of a menace so the Aryan people can take their rightful place as masters of the world. He did it because he thought that was necessary to making the world a better place.
EVERY act is backed by a good intention.
Explain a rapist. Explain a child molester. I call into question the sentiment that every act is backed by a good intention.
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Does the pleasure gained from knowingly and intentionally hurting others count as a good intention in the context of CET's proclamation about all acts having good intentions?
Child molesters don't believe what they're doing is bad. They think it's "natural and beautiful". Some just do it as a demonstration in dominance. Check out the NAMBLA website some time and see what some of these people think. _________________ Namaste,
CET
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 12846 Local time: 7:50 PM Location: SoCal, USA
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject:
cheapsuprise wrote:
Moloth wrote:
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Moloth! Equivocation fallacy. How could you?
Anyway. CET can argue that the Nazi's thought they were doing good in the same sense that social programs are intended to do good, but that's beside the point.
The issue is-- IS it good. How should it be good, and why.
It depends on how you define "good". _________________ Namaste,
CET
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 176 Local time: 9:50 PM Location: Chicago
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:26 am Post subject:
CET wrote:
On a side note: Privatized medicine, schools (both are unethical), and roads (just plain dumb) are the only parts of the Libertarian platform I disagree with. Other then that, read the party platform and I fall in line with everything else pretty well.
I'm 56 years old, and my personal observations of what has happened to the health-care system (since the 1960's) in the United States is the best example (to me) for getting the government out of the marketplace. While I was growing up there were free clinics, where poor people could get free medical treatment. Few people had financial problem, because of medical care (it was so cheap), then the Federal Government started to massively intervene into the Health Care System in the mid 1960's, and now there is the chaos of today.
Here is a link to an article by the late Harry Browne, which shows a little bit of the history of health-care in the United States.
Why not real health-care reform
Here is an excerpt from the article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are Republicans and Democrats arguing over ways to push government even further into health care? Why aren't they talking about real health-care reform? Why aren't the politicians trying to create a heath-care system in which:
* low-cost health insurance is available to virtually everyone -- including people with existing medical problems;
* doctors have the time to understand your problems and know you personally -- and even make house calls;
* a hospital stay costs only a few days' pay, rather than many months of your income;
* charity hospitals are available to take care of families that can't afford the low-cost hospitals; and
* free clinics take care of the everyday medical problems of people too poor to afford regular doctors.
Does this sound too good to be true? Does it sound like Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, or George Bush on the campaign stump -- making promises you know will never come true?
Actually, the health-care system I've described is the one we had in America until the mid-1960s. It was then that the federal government moved in -- with Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act, and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals, and health-insurance companies. That's when health care started going downhill. _________________
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 9:50 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject:
Shhhhhhhhhhh, Materialist. Posting facts like those will only cause someone like sjc to even further commit to his erroneous notion that the US healthcare system is purely free-market. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 Posts: 7247 Local time: 7:50 PM Location: Next door.
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject:
Moloth wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
Moloth wrote:
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Moloth! Equivocation fallacy. How could you?
lol... i was speaking directly and only from the psychopaths viewpoint, of course...
Sure, but you interchanged the *meaning* of "good". IOW, self pleasure is good. But a good intention, as far as a socialist legislator is concerned, benefits others.
It's like claiming that people masturbate for the same reason that they buy Girl Guide cookies.
That might in fact be true in one individuals case, but if we started the argument out by discussing the value of contributing to a good cause, trying to say masturbation is the same thing because it feels good, is an equivocation.
Otherwise, everything we wanted to do would be for a good cause by definition, hence there would be no reason to have the argument over it's VALUE in the first place.
Quote:
good and evil or subjective. its as simple as that.
Possibly but you can't use two different definitions for the same thing in the same argument.
CET wrote:
Quote:
The issue is-- IS it good. How should it be good, and why.
It depends on how you define "good".
WELL, unless we are totally changing the subject here, I assume that we have already excepted GOOD defined as what is good for society as a whole. I assume this because people who advocate UHC, Welfare, or sterilizing retarded people-- generally don't advocate these things because they are concerned for what is good for banana slugs, rocks, or there own sexual needs. _________________ "-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 176 Local time: 9:50 PM Location: Chicago
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Shhhhhhhhhhh, Materialist. Posting facts like those will only cause someone like sjc to even further commit to his erroneous notion that the US healthcare system is purely free-market.
Yep, it's amazing how many people blame the market for the problems, which where caused by supposed government solutions. _________________
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 1603 Local time: 11:50 PM
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject:
I see that the retards are still trying to defend their failure of a system. When will they learn that the so-called "free" market isn't the solution to everything. They're getting to sound more and more like theists everyday in they insistence on their delusional beliefs. I truly pity them all, especially KnoB. The poor stupid little beast that he is. _________________ America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 1603 Local time: 11:50 PM
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject:
Materialist99 wrote:
I'm 56 years old, and my personal observations of what has happened to the health-care system (since the 1960's) in the United States is the best example (to me) for getting the government out of the marketplace. While I was growing up there were free clinics, where poor people could get free medical treatment. Few people had financial problem, because of medical care (it was so cheap), then the Federal Government started to massively intervene into the Health Care System in the mid 1960's, and now there is the chaos of today.
The health care system in the USA is primarily privately run for profit. It was in their best interests to shut down ANY competition. You are confusing regulation with operation. The USA is the only Western nation NOT to have UHC. That is the problem. It is not the government's influence on the system but the private interests influence on the government. The solution is to limit or eliminate lobbying on this scale.
Canada's system is a prime example of how very wrong you actually are in reality. It still functions far better than the American privately operated system. The US system is getting worse while Canada's is getting better. _________________ America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 9:50 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject:
sjc wrote:
I see that the retards are still trying to defend their failure of a system.
Like the socialist UK NHS, which is denying a man treatment until he goes blind in one eye.
You realize that your insults without cause and cowardice regarding addressing arguments which you yourself have made have almost certainly destroyed your reputation. Congratulations. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 9:50 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject:
Materialist99 wrote:
I'm 56 years old, and my personal observations of what has happened to the health-care system (since the 1960's) in the United States is the best example (to me) for getting the government out of the marketplace. While I was growing up there were free clinics, where poor people could get free medical treatment. Few people had financial problem, because of medical care (it was so cheap), then the Federal Government started to massively intervene into the Health Care System in the mid 1960's, and now there is the chaos of today.
sjc wrote:
The health care system in the USA is primarily privately run for profit.
No, they are not. The majority of hospitals in the US are run as non-profits. In 2003, there were 2,984 non-profit non-government run hospitals in the US, against only 790 for-profit hospitals in 2003. That's a difference of 2,194. The ratio of non-profit to for-profit non government hospitals in the US in 2003 was about 4:1.
But, that will cause you to go all rabid-foaming, since you never do any research in the first place.
sjc wrote:
It was in their best interests to shut down ANY competition. You are confusing regulation with operation. The USA is the only Western nation NOT to have UHC.
Let's ask the guy in the UK who has to go blind in one eye before the UK's UHC (called the NHS) treats him if the UHC system there is good and humane. C'mon, why won't you address that? Are you scared? Will it destroy your idea that UHC's never ever never never ever never ever do anything inhumane?
sjc wrote:
Canada's system is a prime example of how very wrong you actually are in reality. It still functions far better than the American privately operated system. The US system is getting worse while Canada's is getting better.
Canada's works so well that the Canadian government is having to steal more money and channel it into the healthcare system in order to reduce wait times.
I love the internets. What would we ever do without the tubes? _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 2799 Local time: 3:50 AM Location: Behind the computer
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Moloth wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
CET wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
CET wrote:
Of course there are bad people, but most people have good intentions. Think of any act and you will inevitably find a good intention behind it.
okay. killing six million jews. give me the good intention behind it.
OK.
Ridding the world of a menace so the Aryan people can take their rightful place as masters of the world. He did it because he thought that was necessary to making the world a better place.
EVERY act is backed by a good intention.
Explain a rapist. Explain a child molester. I call into question the sentiment that every act is backed by a good intention.
The good intention is self pleasure. it makes them feel good, therefore its a good intention.
Does the pleasure gained from knowingly and intentionally hurting others count as a good intention in the context of CET's proclamation about all acts having good intentions?
I don't think it's even possible to exclude all people. There definitely some people that act with bad intentions. What the motive might be is another matter.
So to answer the question: No. _________________ "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
