tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post839143698365389791..comments2023-10-31T06:32:05.082-05:00Comments on Biblical Manhood: A Raging, Indoctrinated FeministAnakin Niceguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09175647581810782580noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-25646781893394234082008-09-18T19:39:00.000-05:002008-09-18T19:39:00.000-05:00Well Christina, I did what you said, googling US H...Well Christina, <BR/><BR/>I did what you said, googling US Health Care Quality, US Poverty, Immigration and Poverty, and French immigration policies, with and without quotation marks. And then I did the same, adding separately the terms immigrants and immigration. Nothing came up linking immigrant related poverty with any kind of increased burden on your health care system. If anything, immigrants are less likely to utilize health services (perhaps because they haven't yet gotten into the typical North American lifestyle choices yet!) <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that you're wrong, and certainly, not all immigrant populations are the same. And I am aware that illegal Mexican immigration has created problems. But I'm not convinced that it compromises your health care systemI to the extend you think it does (or will). In Canada, immigrant poverty tends to be temporary as people adjust to the larger culture. There has been some evidence that immigrants rely less on social services of all kinds because of their family and community supports.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-69482976673990576812008-09-18T13:55:00.000-05:002008-09-18T13:55:00.000-05:00Actually, Anonymous,Try this:1) Google US Health C...Actually, Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Try this:<BR/><BR/>1) Google US Health Care Quality<BR/>- Look for how poverty and economics affect the quality of health<BR/><BR/>2) Google US Poverty<BR/>- Look for how the majority of those in poverty are immigrants<BR/><BR/>3) Google Immigration and Poverty<BR/>- Get more information on those two things<BR/><BR/>4) Google French immigration policies<BR/>- Note how, in France, immigration policies have made it practically illegal<BR/><BR/>Then you'll see the correlation. It took a lot of research, and i didn't originally begin the research connectedly. I was researching Democratic Platforms - Social Health Care, Immigration, and Minimum Wage increases - to see what exactly people found so appealing about them. I discovered how intricately woven the three are and how they self-defeat eachother.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can conduct a thorough examination on those platforms and come to the same conclusion?Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-69427215697999695162008-09-17T23:02:00.000-05:002008-09-17T23:02:00.000-05:00Christina, I checked out your links and googled ar...Christina, <BR/><BR/>I checked out your links and googled around and couldn't find anything linking France's high health care ratings with decreased immigration. And I don't know where you get the idea that immigrants are a liability to the Canadian health care system (which mostly has to do with distribution issues related to the vast land mass that makes us the 2nd largest country in the world and many pockets of low population density -- and we have some "life style choice" issues of our own, thanks to "Tim Horton's Doughnuts" and spectator hockey, which are practically religions here), since as is the case with the US, despite their lower incomes, they are have lower rates of incarceration, welfare dependence, hospitalization, acute health care usage and other measures usually considered to be the consequences of poverty.<BR/><BR/>If a socialized system won't work in the states, it won't be the immigrants who tank it, it'll be the real parasites: the insurance companies and other entities in the US health care industry that feed off human suffering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-15277503383634851352008-09-17T22:34:00.000-05:002008-09-17T22:34:00.000-05:00"If the health care system were so great in Canada..."If the health care system were so great in Canada, the innovative cancer research would be performed there. The best physicians in the world would be flocking there. The best scientists in the world would be flocking there."<BR/><BR/>No doubt about it, if you want the best surgeons to separate your siamese twins or give you a heart lung transplant, the states is the place to be --although you'd wait longer for it, if you have no insurance. But that's only a partial measure of a health care system -- it only provides an example of the big stuff that wealth can potentially produce.<BR/><BR/>There are things that can override the so-called "laws" of economics (a field that has more habits than laws, if you will). Great scientists and physicians do flock to Canada, motivated by its quality of life (rated #1 by the UN). Sure, all countries experience some "braindrain", but most people prefer to remain closers to "home". Btw - only 45% of all drug innovations come from the US, so that stands to reason that at least more than half come from the remaining world medical community. And besides newer innovations are only a fraction of what quality medicine is about. <BR/><BR/>"Americans are paying higher prices for meds specifically because of the price controls your country imposes." Or so those drug companies would have you think. <BR/><BR/>"The best health care access in the world cannot change what people choose for themselves." I think you're underestimating the preventative power of good old basic health care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-6081485627025411772008-09-10T13:06:00.000-05:002008-09-10T13:06:00.000-05:00Wow...this conversation is still going?Actually, A...Wow...this conversation is still going?<BR/><BR/>Actually, Amir, France has the best health care in the world.<BR/><BR/>Trust me, I looked it up.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html" REL="nofollow">America is #37</A>. Canada is a little better than ours (coming in at #30). It rated on Availability, health, cost, and some other things that was lightly talked about <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>However, the stuff that I found also noted that the reason why American health care isn't the best is because the discrepancy between rich and poor is the GREATEST in the world out of all "rich" nations. Meaning, we have the greatest deviation between our richest and poorest people than any other rich nation.<BR/><BR/>I did some research and one of the reasons why France is SOOO good with its social care is because they've essentially outlawed immigration - its pretty stringent over there. Not so here. In fact, immigrants (legal and illegal alike) contribute the most to Canadian and US poverty. And I bet that's why Canada isn't the greatest, either.<BR/><BR/>If you want to argue for socialized healt chare, the democratic party needs to ditch their immigration platform. If they want immigration, they need to ditch the socialized health care platform. If they want either of those, they need to ditch the minimum wage platform.<BR/><BR/>Simply put, Anonymous for Socialized Health Care, it won't work here in america. It barely works for you guys. If you want the best health care in the world, do what France is doing.Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-69621879390460027402008-09-10T06:21:00.000-05:002008-09-10T06:21:00.000-05:00I WAS referring to health insurance (ie. health ca...<EM>I WAS referring to health insurance (ie. health care plan, or "health care", "care card", "medicare")</EM><BR/><BR/>No. You said "no health care". As I said, not having health insurance is not the same as having no access to health care.<BR/><BR/>My dad--an Iranian immigrant--had no health insurance when I was born. I spent my first six months in a hospital. My dad worked out payment arrangements with the hospital.<BR/><BR/>No insurance, but plenty of access.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I said: ""A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why..."<BR/><BR/>You said: <EM>Because our government will pay for it, that's why! A country that's small in terms of population will have a have "feast or famine" as far as waitlists go, so sometimes it's more cost effective to fly someone out of province or out of country. </EM><BR/><BR/>Now you are ignoring the laws of economics. <BR/><BR/>(1) For one thing, you have a shortage of health care because of the price controls that your government has imposed. That creates waiting lists. <BR/><BR/>If the health care system were so great in Canada, the innovative cancer research would be performed there. The best physicians in the world would be flocking there. The best scientists in the world would be flocking there.<BR/><BR/>Instead, they come to the United States. I wonder why...<BR/><BR/>Where are the best pharmacologists? They are here in America.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to your next point:<BR/><BR/><EM>Oh and as for looking across border, a lot of Americans do their shopping for meds through mail order businesses up here -- I wonder why?? </EM><BR/><BR/>Again, you are ignoring the laws of economics.<BR/><BR/>Americans are paying higher prices for meds specifically because of the price controls your country imposes. <BR/><BR/>We end up paying the difference. <BR/><BR/>Pharmaceutical companies will sell to you at your prices because they have substantial "sunk costs" that they still have to recoup. <BR/><BR/>Selling at a loss in Canada is better than not selling at all, especially when you have a freer market in America where you can sort of recover the difference.<BR/><BR/>If that weren't the case, then why are the best pharmacologists in America? Why aren't they in that great health care mecca known as Canada?<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that Canada doesn't have its strengths. It's a lot like an HMO. If all I need are my regular checkups, Canada is fine. If I have any serious illnesses, or--heaven forbid--cancer, America is the place to be.<BR/><BR/>And if I need heart surgery right now, America is the place to be.<BR/><BR/>As for Canadians being healthier, again that comes down to lifestyle choices. The best health care access in the world cannot change what people choose for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Is that freedom worth it? You bet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-23396141960436569752008-09-09T21:38:00.000-05:002008-09-09T21:38:00.000-05:00"You are the one who is wasting my time. With the ..."You are the one who is wasting my time. With the exception of the murder of federal agents and federal employees, murder--and degrees of homicide--are left to state and local governments to enforce" <BR/><BR/>I should just ignore this kind of game playing. But anyways...we're not talking about <I>law enforcement</I>, I'm talking about how laws like murder, a capital offense, get created in the first place. The degrees of homicide may be determined at the state level, but murder (I repeat) is a federal offence, as determined by the federal law (as it is in most western nations).<BR/><BR/>"As a Canadian, you might study a little more about law in the United States." Considering how notoriously uniformed Americans are about other countries (compared to vice versa), to that I say YOU FIRST. <BR/><BR/>"The pro-choice libertarians I know appreciate Ron Paul's approach. Why? Because his approach--even if it becomes law--results in a more equitable resolution that is anti-Statist...How is it anti-Statist?" Because it increases the likelihood that something that was once legal for all could then become illegal for many. I think the only thing pro-choice libertarians appreciate about Ron Paul is that he's the best you could hope for at this time, but he'll never get elected as president. <BR/><BR/>"A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why..."<BR/><BR/>Because our government will pay for it, that's why! A country that's small in terms of population will have a have "feast or famine" as far as waitlists go, so sometimes it's more cost effective to fly someone out of province or out of country. Oh and as for looking across border, a lot of Americans do their shopping for meds through mail order businesses up here -- I wonder why?? <BR/><BR/>"What difference does it make if you are talking about a screening colonoscopy versus a diagnostic one? If you have cancer and have to wait six months for the former, that's plenty of time for metastasis to set in."<BR/><BR/>To clarify, six months is the maximum recommended wait time for routine *screening*, according the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Practices, and I think it's rare that people wait that long. If it's a diagnostic colonoscopy, you'd get in a lot faster than that.<BR/><BR/>"Here in the States, people without insurance have access to basic health care that includes rudimentary screening...Most physicians in my area are willing to make payment arrangements for the uninsured." I'm not impressed.<BR/><BR/>"Oh, and one more thing, the crux behind Romney's highly-touted MassCare...they determined that the vast majority of the uninsured were uninsured by choice, and could otherwise afford the insurance." That's like asking the fox if the hen house door needs a latch on it.<BR/><BR/>"Health care prices didn't start skyrocketing before government started getting their meathooks into the system." Sure, if you elect officials on the sides of the insurance companies and the lawyers! That did not happen in Canada, where we actually spend less per capita on health care than the US.<BR/><BR/>"Which brings me back to the fundamental point: having no insurance is not tantamount to having no access to health care." I WAS referring to health insurance (ie. health care plan, or "health care", "care card", "medicare")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-28081512653011716422008-09-09T15:22:00.000-05:002008-09-09T15:22:00.000-05:00More red herrings...we're not talking about "degre...<EM>More red herrings...we're not talking about "degrees". Homicide is a federal offense, as it is in all states. Don't waste my time</EM><BR/><BR/>Anonymous: You are the one who is wasting my time. With the exception of the murder of federal agents and federal employees, murder--and degrees of homicide--are left to state and local governments to enforce. <BR/><BR/>The only time the federal government gets involved in such cases is when a suspect flees to another state, in which the FBI gets involved in tracking the suspect down. At which time the suspect is returned to the state to be tried in state court on state charges.<BR/><BR/>As a Canadian, you might study a little more about law in the United States. You might learn something.<BR/><BR/><EM>ine with me, but that's not in keeping with the libertarian anti-statist ethos because now there's a ruling in place that prevents the states from taking away freedoms and he wants to interfere with that -- most libertarians see through this, but hold their noses and support him anyways.</EM><BR/><BR/>The pro-choice libertarians I know appreciate Ron Paul's approach. Why? Because his approach--even if it becomes law--results in a more equitable resolution that is anti-Statist.<BR/><BR/>How is it anti-Statist? It gives voters ownership of the issue. That allows voters to provide direction to legislators, governors, and even state judges--who do not serve life terms--as to (a) the extent to which they wish to protect life in utero, (b) what enforcement mechanisms to employ in enforcing the law, and (c) what degree to punish said crimes.<BR/><BR/>Voter ownership would be a major advancement in dealing with the issue, compared to what we have today. Our current framework ties the hands of voters, offering no opportunity for resolving the matter as long as <EM>Roe v. Wade</EM> is in effect.<BR/><BR/><EM>If you have a job that pays for your sky-high health insurance. And if you don't you're probably going to put off those diagnostics. Our hospitals don't bill your plan for every Advil and cotton swab -- and at ridiculous cost. People in Canada don't go broke paying for their operations. </EM><BR/><BR/>A lot of them get those operations here. I wonder why...<BR/><BR/><EM>Bullshit. This shows how little you know about Canada and our health care system. Six month wait for diagnostic colonscopy? That's for a SCREENING colonscopy! And as for American survival rates for cancer, I'm aware that rates vary in terms of race and region. I would expect that the most advanced medical care that can be found would be in the US, but as they say, you get what you pay for. I'm just glad that the medical insurance I get doesn't place any restrictions on what doctor I see -- that's a kind of freedom I can enjoy.</EM><BR/><BR/>Now you are trying to have it both ways. <BR/><BR/>What difference does it make if you are talking about a screening colonoscopy versus a diagnostic one? <BR/><BR/>If you have cancer and have to wait six months for the former, that's plenty of time for metastasis to set in. <BR/><BR/>Here in the States, people without insurance have access to basic health care that includes rudimentary screening. <BR/><BR/>Here in Kentucky, the annual cost for such services is comparable to getting a tune-up of your car. Most physicians in my area are willing to make payment arrangements for the uninsured.<BR/><BR/>Even for dental coverage, my dentist has a quasi-insurance arrangement wherein any patient--insured or not--can opt to pay a monthly fee and that entitles them to a set of reduced rates, as well as the two free cleanings per year. And the "premiums" are reasonable.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, here in Kentucky we have some of the finest health care in the world, especially in Louisville. When it comes to surgery, diagnostics, and cancer research, they are as good as anyone. I know some of the physicians who trained and practiced in those facilities. It is very common for them to take people who have no insurance.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me back to the fundamental point: <EM>having no insurance</EM> is not tantamount to <EM>having no access to health care</EM>.<BR/><BR/>And yes, when it comes to cancer survival, the prognosis is great in the U.S. compared to other countries including Canada. <BR/><BR/>Even for the uninsured.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and one more thing, the crux behind Romney's highly-touted MassCare (which requires everyone to purchase an insurance plan) was that--when the state studied the issue--they determined that <EM>the vast majority of the uninsured were <STRONG>uninsured by choice</STRONG>, and could otherwise afford the insurance</EM>.<BR/><BR/>That leads to a significant part of American life: our society was predisposed to leaving fiscal responsibility to the individual. <BR/><BR/>I would submit that many of our impending government spending crises (social security, Medicare) exist as a result of government trying to do for people what they ought to be doing for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Health care prices didn't start skyrocketing before government started getting their meathooks into the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-90650201890013482362008-09-09T01:34:00.000-05:002008-09-09T01:34:00.000-05:00"Your last sentence is laughable, after all, with ..."Your last sentence is laughable, after all, with few exceptions--such as the killing of federal officials--WE ALLOW STATES to define and enforce codes against murder, manslaughter, and all degrees of homicide...If we allow states to do this for murder, manslaughter, and other degrees of homicide, then on what grounds would you suggest that it is not pro-life to allow states to include abortion in that same bucket?...Are you suggesting that all degrees of murder, manslaughter, and homicide be enforced federally?"<BR/><BR/>More red herrings...we're not talking about "degrees". Homicide is a federal offense, as it is in all states. Don't waste my time.<BR/><BR/>"Ron Paul is not only pro-life; he has been the most consistent author of legislation that would render Roe v. Wade inoperable." Fine with me, but that's not in keeping with the libertarian anti-statist ethos because now there's a ruling in place that prevents the states from taking away freedoms and he wants to interfere with that -- most libertarians see through this, but hold their noses and support him anyways.<BR/><BR/>"Actually, health care access has nothing to do with it, as Americans have excellent access to health care"<BR/><BR/>If you have a job that pays for your sky-high health insurance. And if you don't you're probably going to put off those diagnostics. Our hospitals don't bill your plan for every Advil and cotton swab -- and at ridiculous cost. People in Canada don't go broke paying for their operations. <BR/><BR/>"If you need a diagnostic colonoscopy in Canada, you'll be on a 6-month wait. And--as I've said--cancer survival rates in America are the best in the world." Bullshit. This shows how little you know about Canada and our health care system. Six month wait for diagnostic colonscopy? That's for a SCREENING colonscopy! And as for American survival rates for cancer, I'm aware that rates vary in terms of race and region. I would expect that the most advanced medical care that can be found would be in the US, but as they say, you get what you pay for. I'm just glad that the medical insurance I get doesn't place any restrictions on what doctor I see -- that's a kind of freedom I can enjoy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-67165329609948290072008-09-06T13:31:00.000-05:002008-09-06T13:31:00.000-05:00And you think there'd be less abortion if it were ...<EM>And you think there'd be less abortion if it were handed over to the states, as per the so-called "libertarian" platform? Not much. This is just passing the buck on a difficult issue. If you are not wholeheartedly against abortion on all legal grounds, you are NOT pro-life.</EM><BR/><BR/>Your last sentence is laughable, after all, with few exceptions--such as the killing of federal officials--WE ALLOW <STRONG>STATES</STRONG> to define and enforce codes against murder, manslaughter, and all degrees of homicide. <BR/><BR/>If we allow states to do this for murder, manslaughter, and other degrees of homicide, then on what grounds would you suggest that it is not pro-life to allow states to include abortion in that same bucket?<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that all degrees of murder, manslaughter, and homicide be enforced federally?<BR/><BR/><EM>Whatever. [Libertarians] are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Ron Paul is a vanity candidate, pandering to the Christian right, fooling only a few that what he's "pro-life" AND "pro-liberty".</EM><BR/><BR/>Ron Paul is not only pro-life; he has been the most consistent author of legislation that would render <EM>Roe v. Wade</EM> inoperable.<BR/><BR/><EM>And as for the Canadian health care system -- I'm Canadian, so don't even go there. Canadians are far healthier than their American cohorts and it has everything to do with the accessibility of our universal health care system</EM><BR/><BR/>Actually, health care access has nothing to do with it, as Americans have excellent access to health care. <BR/><BR/>If you need a diagnostic colonoscopy in Canada, you'll be on a 6-month wait. And--as I've said--cancer survival rates in America are the best in the world.<BR/><BR/>As for Canadians being healthier than Americans, you aren't even thinking critically enough, and are just parroting Michael Moore's talking points.<BR/><BR/>In fact, given that Michael Moore--being the millionaire that he is--has such access to health care, why is he so fat? Why is Rosie O'Donnell so fat? Why does Oprah Winfrey struggle with her weight? Kirstie Alley? Why did Marlon Brando die such a miserable death, mired in the hell of obesity?<BR/><BR/>It's about lifestyle choices.<BR/><BR/>Fact is, Americans have the unhealthiest lifestyles in the world. I happen to live in one of the most obese states in the union (Kentucky). And they live those lifestyles <STRONG>in spite of</STRONG> having access to the best health care in the world.<BR/><BR/>(I would also submit that part of the problem is that there is no insurance incentive for someone who is healthy to stay healthy, as the lardasses pay the same premium as I do.)<BR/><BR/>Do you honestly think that Kentuckians have no access to health care? They have great access to it. Trouble is, they also have great access--and preference--to McDonalds, Wendy's, Bob Evans, Cracker Barrel, Texas Roadhouse, Golden Corral, Ryan's Steakhouse...<BR/><BR/>One cannot discuss the health of Americans without accounting for chronic lardassity. <BR/><BR/>The last study I cited in my blog had the men at 33% and the women at 35%.<BR/><BR/>And even if you complain that the study uses BMI--which is not a good metric--that still does not account for the reality that, as a general rule, rising BMIs is an indicator of rising obesity.<BR/><BR/>Health care access does not cure obesity. That is, by and large, a lifestyle choice.<BR/><BR/>The First Law of Thermodynamics can be your best friend and your worst enemy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-7127349396292153222008-09-05T19:48:00.000-05:002008-09-05T19:48:00.000-05:00"Abortion: that is on the feminist, and I am not l..."Abortion: that is on the feminist, and I am not letting you get away with any attempted obfuscation....Abortion is a consequence of Nanny State federal government imposing feminist dogma on us, as that agenda was sold to the Supreme Court by the feminists."<BR/><BR/>And you think there'd be less abortion if it were handed over to the states, as per the so-called "libertarian" platform? Not much. This is just passing the buck on a difficult issue. If you are not wholeheartedly against abortion on all legal grounds, you are NOT pro-life.<BR/><BR/>"Libertarians are all over the map on abortion" Whatever. They are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Ron Paul is a vanity candidate, pandering to the Christian right, fooling only a few that what he's "pro-life" AND "pro-liberty".<BR/><BR/>And as for the Canadian health care system -- I'm Canadian, so don't even go there. Canadians are far healthier than their American cohorts and it has everything to do with the accessibility of our universal health care system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-40303584553264458822008-09-05T07:25:00.000-05:002008-09-05T07:25:00.000-05:00Oh, and one more thing, Anonymous...To answer your...Oh, and one more thing, Anonymous...<BR/><BR/>To answer your question: with respect to the availability of health insurance, <STRONG>yes</STRONG>. I'll still take more libertarian anti-Statism. <BR/><BR/>In fact, I would support rolling back portions of the McCarren-Ferguson Act, open up the health insurance market nationally, make provisions for Medical IRAs (with no upper limit on contribution), and allow Medical IRA monies to be used liberally, including for health club memberships.<BR/><BR/>And <STRONG>on abortion</STRONG>, libertarian anti-Statism might make for a more equitable solution, as that would get the issue out of the Supreme Court and the federal government and into the hands of voters, legislators, governors, and state court systems.<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't make a perfect solution, but it would be worlds better than the morass we have now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-22487168533678378882008-09-05T07:07:00.000-05:002008-09-05T07:07:00.000-05:00Anonymous asks:Are the gains to be found in libert...Anonymous asks:<BR/><EM>Are the gains to be found in libertarian anti-statism (abortion, relaxed gun laws, no health care) worth the body count?</EM><BR/><BR/><STRONG>Gun laws</STRONG>: yes. gun-related homicides--in percentage terms--are down 37% since 1981 (CDC), in spite of a climate of relaxed gun laws. <BR/><BR/><STRONG>No health care</STRONG>: You're being dishonest. You mean <STRONG>no health insurance</STRONG>. Our system--faults and all--is the best in the world, and there is far better access to health care here than there is in Nanny State Canada. <BR/><BR/>Our cancer survival rates--the best in the world--are a testament to that.<BR/><BR/><STRONG>Abortion</STRONG>: that is on the feminist, and I am not letting you get away with any attempted obfuscation. <BR/><BR/>Abortion is a consequence of Nanny State federal government imposing <STRONG>feminist</STRONG> dogma on us, as that agenda was sold to the Supreme Court by the <STRONG>feminists</STRONG>. <BR/><BR/>Libertarians are all over the map on abortion, but one thing they overwhelmingly support is getting the issue out of the federal government. <BR/><BR/><STRONG>Can't say the same for the feminists</STRONG>, who have handed us the 50+million death toll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-2887230028410833092008-09-04T18:56:00.000-05:002008-09-04T18:56:00.000-05:00No dice, Amir -- I'm turning this one right around...No dice, Amir -- I'm turning this one right around on you:<BR/><BR/>Are the gains to be found in libertarian anti-statism (abortion, relaxed gun laws, no health care) worth the body count?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-11665945789221174232008-09-04T13:09:00.000-05:002008-09-04T13:09:00.000-05:00Anonymous: You are again reflecting why you get no...Anonymous: You are again reflecting why you get no respect on these pages, or mine. <BR/><BR/>The feminist is principally responsible for the abortion slaughterfest.<BR/><BR/>Any "gains" attributable to feminism must be weighed against the body count.<BR/><BR/>Can we have a yes or no answer for the record: are the gains worth it?<BR/><BR/>Let me ask another question: how many babies have to die before those gains are no longer worth it?<BR/><BR/>Quit ducking the question, and answer up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-72769492665911722282008-09-03T23:09:00.000-05:002008-09-03T23:09:00.000-05:00"The problem, Savvy, is that you are insisting on ..."The problem, Savvy, is that you are insisting on defending something that is indefensible.... <BR/><BR/>The feminist carries principal responsibility for the abortion slaughterfest."<BR/><BR/>This is flawed logic. Savvy merely pointed out that there may some some aspects of feminism that are defensible (equal pay, etc.), but is does not follow that she must defend every cause ever fought by feminists (as if to support equal pay for equal work is to support abortion). <BR/><BR/>Although I don't agree with all her argumentation, she does deserve credit for pointing out that feminists are not entirely responsible for the proliferation of abortion, which clearly has its roots in LIBERTARIANISM, ergo, "right to privacy" on which Roe vs. Wade was based (even if many of today's libertarians don't necessarily support the R vs W decision).<BR/><BR/>Therefore, Savvy is right to ignore your moot question about whether the gains of feminism worth the losses of human life. Similar questions could be posed about libertarianism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-35898002345599932742008-08-26T15:50:00.000-05:002008-08-26T15:50:00.000-05:00Well, that's what she calls herself, anyway. She h...<I>Well, that's what she calls herself, anyway. She has found my blog via this post. <B>Of course, she couldn't let it go</B>--she offered her own commentary on her LiveJournal space (which, like many feminist blogs, does not have a very open commenting policy).</I><BR/><BR/>Hold on a moment. Providing commentary on blog entries they find is what EVERYONE does. It's, erm, what you're doing right now. What's with the snide comment "of course she couldn't let it go"? <BR/><BR/>YOU apparently can't let it go either, because you're doing exactly what she did. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, what's wrong with it, why should you "tsk tsk" someone for commenting about it? Your statement implies that it suggests obsessiveness on her part. But again, you are doing PRECISELY the same thing. Of course, you couldn't let it go, either. <BR/><BR/>What's the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-40920832205004908102008-08-25T09:12:00.000-05:002008-08-25T09:12:00.000-05:00To you I'm being evasive, to me it is a different ...<EM>To you I'm being evasive, to me it is a different issue--one which I explained and which I think has a place in rational discourse. You don't accept my answer, and I don't accept your question. It's that simple.</EM><BR/><BR/>The problem, Savvy, is that you are insisting on defending something that is indefensible. <BR/><BR/>The feminist carries principal responsibility for the abortion slaughterfest. You have gone out of your way to mitigate the feminist role in this, and in so doing are undermining your credibility in the argument.<BR/><BR/>Any "gains" attributable to feminism must be weighed against the body count. It's a matter of economics: cost versus benefit.<BR/><BR/>The argument about suffrage is not a trivial one. <BR/><BR/>Even though rolling back suffrage is not something I support--we are in this democracy thing for better or worse--it is fair to question whether any perceived benefits that feminists may present in any future initiatives will result in other unintended consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-3050635986149855452008-08-24T21:38:00.000-05:002008-08-24T21:38:00.000-05:00What I see is that others are allowed hyperbole an...What I see is that others are allowed hyperbole and I was not. My comments were misinterpreted quite often and I was talked down to more than anyone.<BR/><BR/>To you I'm being evasive, to me it is a different issue--one which I explained and which I think has a place in rational discourse. You don't accept my answer, and I don't accept your question. It's that simple.SavvyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380401063646153237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-88963082376548857542008-08-24T19:34:00.000-05:002008-08-24T19:34:00.000-05:00Savvy asks: What does it say about me? Is this a m...Savvy asks: <EM>What does it say about me? Is this a manner of insult? Why, yes, it may well be.</EM><BR/><BR/>By that, I meant that you were being needlessly evasive, which could be an indicator of an attempt to defend feminism. <BR/><BR/>I was seeking a clarification for the record.<BR/><BR/>Insult? Bah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-35032517313344211322008-08-24T19:22:00.000-05:002008-08-24T19:22:00.000-05:00No, Savvy, I was not offended at all. I was frustr...No, Savvy, I was not offended at all. I was frustrated because I assumed your comment where you defend your comments that you believed to be misunderstood was intended as your answer to my request for you to “assemble all of Triton’s insults directed at you”. I don’t think that my assumption was unreasonable but I accept that I was mistaken and that you did not intend that as your response. I felt no personal slight about the timing of your response, since as I explained <I>I thought you had answered</I> (and even if I thought you hadn’t I’d hardly be personally slighted). Certainly I haven’t been the only person in this discussion frustrated with your tendency to not answer questions directly posed to you. I was frustrated that it appeared as if you chose to defend what you had said instead of assembling “all of Triton’s insults directed at you”. I was hoping that by challenging you to back up your assertion that Triton had insulted you (aside from calling you naïve) that you would realize that in fact he had been reasonable. I had hoped that realization would allow you to consider how your responses may have been perceived. If you felt that my challenging you was meant to be hurtful or disrespectful I can only say that was not my intention and that I am sorry if you felt that way. It is apparent that you have felt frustrated in this discussion, I was trying to help you think about it a little differently. I accept that you don’t welcome that and I won’t trouble you further with it.Learnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089164231281806023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-16404385146658544412008-08-24T18:36:00.000-05:002008-08-24T18:36:00.000-05:00Triton-Complaining about "class" in America is a p...Triton-Complaining about "class" in America is a pretty naive thing to do,<BR/>1. I wasn’t “complaining” but that is a way of dismissing a statement.<BR/>2. My comment was dismissed as naïve.<BR/><BR/>Anon-It is downright silly to claim men controlled government during economic downturns; thus men are responsible.<BR/>- So my comment was downright silly? No, I was pointing out that women’s sufferage wasn’t the sole culprit.<BR/><BR/>Amir-Savvy: Can you not read?<BR/>-Why yes, yes I can. This is a way of saying I am illiterate. Very complimentary.<BR/><BR/>Christina-Savvy, your definition of Feminism is lacking.<BR/>You might as well have said my reason is lacking. Wouldn’t it have been polite to say that “the definition of feminism we are working with is X…”?<BR/><BR/>Savvy-This of couse, takes alot of money and people to maintain and enforce.<BR/>Triton-Nonsense.<BR/>-Nice. So I wrote nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Triton-Lott concludes that women's suffrage was the significant factor concerning state expenditures rather than WWI, SavvyD's protestations notwithstanding. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link I'd provided.<BR/>1. I read it.<BR/>2. I did not agree with it.<BR/>3. Call me a liar for not reading--or was that directed at Someone?<BR/><BR/>By the way, in calling his feet “Dodge feet” I was saying that he walks instead of drive a Dodge which is what you would have to do to avoid a publicly funded highway. It’s an expression in Mexico that doesn’t translate well.<BR/><BR/>Savvy-You didn't ASK any question because you have all the answers and women clearly flock to you because you're so incredibly smooth and sexy.<BR/>Triton-Classy as ever, SavvyD.<BR/>1. This was sarcastic, certainly on my part to indicate that the average woman would take offense and find this unattractive.<BR/>2. His response was not above mine because he was indicating that I was lacking in class rather than saying he didn’t appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Triton-You haven't even read what I provided. Why should I take the time to dig up more stuff you aren't going to read?<BR/>This is a way of saying that I lied. I was read but remained unconvinced because social science is still not empirical--meaning that it cannot be proven.<BR/><BR/>Farmer Tom-I read the entire thread, and one thing is very clear, Triton made an excellent case, and the response to that case was mostly personal insults, sarcastic or snide comments and a frequent childish, huh uh, Clearly this is a discussion between someone capable of rational thought and an emotional child who spews the pablum learned in the local grade school. <BR/>-How sweet. Can you see that was directed at me among others who did not agree?<BR/><BR/>Respectfully, you ducked the question by countering with another question: which freedoms are we discussing? The problem is that my version of the question was general, requiring only a general answer in kind. <BR/>1. So, I duck questions. I’m dodgy.<BR/>2. I reposted a list of freedom from Vox Popoli and there were actually no indications that anyone but me looked at it because no one referred to it. (Except Triton who posted it the first place.)<BR/><BR/>Christina-"Childish rebuttals, and name calling" Exhibit:<BR/>This produced a list, some of which were, as aforementioned accurate descriptions and not insults--particularly when they were directed at Lott’s work, the foundations of social “science” rather than at a person.<BR/><BR/>Christina--Savvy, for someone who so values the Scientific Method and will only accept that as proof of Triton's argument and dismissing Social and Political science as hogwash, you are incredibly good at dismissing the Scientific Method when it comes to your own debate style.<BR/><BR/>Engage as you wish to be engaged.<BR/><BR/>I will have to say though, Savvy, you did hold your own for quite a while there - then half way down you did resort to some really horrible means of discussion. Your arguments were still a bit out of focus and flawed, but you did well - until you stopped engaging Triton's arguments (even though he did address all your points), instead resorting to the blogosphere's version of stamping feet and insisting that you are right and he is wrong.<BR/>1. This was a very sweet and kind portrayal of me.<BR/>2. I explained the scientific method.<BR/>3. Down with Savvy!<BR/><BR/>Learner-Christina- thanks for typing or cutting and pasting all that out... it makes the point much more powerfully than my few sentences.<BR/>-Down with Savvy!!<BR/><BR/>Amir-Savvy: On the other hand, your refusal to answer Triton's question--or mine--says quite a bit about you. <BR/>-Down with Savvy! What does it say about me? Is this a manner of insult? Why, yes, it may well be.<BR/><BR/>Learner-I should have known better than to bite on that one. How naïve of me to think that you would answer my request Savvy. Perhaps your lack of response is because about the closest Triton came to insulting you in this discussion was to call your opinion naïve. It is curious to me that in a thread where Anakin relates the response a feminist made on her blog to one of his posts, and then responds to her points in a reasonable manner, that you choose to use engage in the discussion in the manner that you have. But, I see that you do not seem to be willing to consider that, so I will leave you to it.<BR/>-Um, so what I get out of this is that I’m purposely ducking, that someone only called me naïve and that gee, I must be deluded and *I* was the one doing the insulting when really I was at the beach then at my ex’s birthday party--clearly to avoid answering the question.<BR/><BR/>Now that I see it all stacked up, I am done with this thread and I hope *we* will all behave ourselves better on the next one.SavvyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380401063646153237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-2858887524939263362008-08-24T17:38:00.000-05:002008-08-24T17:38:00.000-05:00Learner, it seems to me that you have taken offens...Learner, it seems to me that you have taken offense where none was intended, like my not answering was a personal slight or something when in actuality I was out all day from 7 am until 11:30pm. I jumped online to check the location of an event. I found the message I received to be puposely hurtful and disrespectful to me.<BR/><BR/>However, it is not the first time offense was taken where none was intended in my previous post that were not insults but proper word and accurate word use. I confesed which ones were insults.<BR/><BR/>This is frustrating for me.SavvyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380401063646153237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-21601239069476030702008-08-24T14:01:00.000-05:002008-08-24T14:01:00.000-05:00Okay Savvy, I thought the comment you made after m...Okay Savvy, I thought the comment you made after mine was your response. Either way it doesn't really matter, I shouldn't have asked to begin with.Learnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089164231281806023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-28716471315365172482008-08-24T11:28:00.000-05:002008-08-24T11:28:00.000-05:00Savvy: It is a simple yes/no. The abortion holocau...Savvy: It is a simple yes/no. The abortion holocaust is a direct consequence of feminism. In this case, the feminists (women in particular) pioneered the cause, and men jumped on board later in the game. <BR/><BR/>(The Steinem mantra--"you'll screw more and enjoy it more"--drew a lot of men in, as well as the marketing for "women's rights". Those efforts, too, were the work of the feminists.)<BR/><BR/>That contrasts with the sexual revolution, in which men (in particular Alfred Kinsey) were the pioneers and the feminists jumped on board later in the game.<BR/><BR/>In the former case, the feminists are DIRECTLY to blame whereas in the latter, the feminist role was merely contributory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com