guy at school's esophagus was torn away from his stomach

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Oohhhhh...he is SO SMART guys. We really shouldn't bother even TRYING to refute his argument....I mean...anyone who can turn life into an algebra equation must be so smart we HAVE NO CHANCE.

:roll:

Hey...dissipate...how's the air waaaaaaaaay up there? Do we all look like ants down here or what?

:roll:

Obviously its not that simple, but simple minds only understand simple concepts. Thus, a simple concept must be used in order to convey a more complex idea to a simple mind.

Oh. My. God.

Get off your god damn high horse. You're obviously not half as intelligent as you think you are, or you wouldn't be spewing this utter nonsense equation bullsh!t that applies to nobody but yourself.

And you just admitted that you were full of sh!t. "Obviously its not that simple," are the words you used, I believe.

And you didn't simplify it, you stupified it. I suppose you better start handing out little booklets, "Dissipates Guide to Life".

Good Lord, go crawl back under your rock.

The principle remains. Merely the application of the principle becomes more complex, but is still feasible. It merely requires financial sense and some real world calculations of cost and risk. To say it is impossible to mitigate risk and cost, even on a less than wealthy income is ridiculous.

I've known many lower middle class people who had health insurance for themselves and their children, life insurance etc. and some savings. All of this greatly helped to mitigate the risk of their children being exposed to pain and suffering.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
Medicine has become a fvcking business, not service.

One of many reasons why I didn't persue medicine.

Exactly why I left $18000 semester DO school after 8 weeks. Not to mention the greedy punks I marticulated with who make Mcheal Milkin look honest.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Oohhhhh...he is SO SMART guys. We really shouldn't bother even TRYING to refute his argument....I mean...anyone who can turn life into an algebra equation must be so smart we HAVE NO CHANCE.

:roll:

Hey...dissipate...how's the air waaaaaaaaay up there? Do we all look like ants down here or what?

:roll:

Obviously its not that simple, but simple minds only understand simple concepts. Thus, a simple concept must be used in order to convey a more complex idea to a simple mind.

Oh. My. God.

Get off your god damn high horse. You're obviously not half as intelligent as you think you are, or you wouldn't be spewing this utter nonsense equation bullsh!t that applies to nobody but yourself.

And you just admitted that you were full of sh!t. "Obviously its not that simple," are the words you used, I believe.

And you didn't simplify it, you stupified it. I suppose you better start handing out little booklets, "Dissipates Guide to Life".

Good Lord, go crawl back under your rock.

The principle remains. Merely the application of the principle becomes more complex, but is still feasible. It merely requires financial sense and some real world calculations of cost and risk. To say it is impossible to mitigate risk and cost, even on a less than wealthy income is ridiculous.

I've known many lower middle class people who had health insurance for themselves and their children, life insurance etc. and some savings. All of this greatly helped to mitigate the risk of their children being exposed to pain and suffering.

You have to understand that I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying. You are saying that you should not have kids unless you can provide for them, and I agree with that.

But who the fsck are YOU to tell me or anybody else what "providing" is, and that health INSURANCE is a necessary part of those provisions in order to raise children "morally" without "pain and suffering"?!?! Do you have ANY idea how incredibly naive and moronic this sounds?!

I agree that the world would be a better place if everybody was oh-so-smart like your self-proclaimed genius self, but the fact that most of the worlds population is poor still remains.

Again, wake up and please never have children. I may not be rich, but I can guarentee you that my children will have a happy, loving home, and I will do my best to take the very best care of them I can.

You have no right to tell me otherwise, especially because of something as trivial as health insurance.

 

[Insane3D]

I've known many lower middle class people

You mean....you....ummm...got...near them? Weren't you afraid? I've heard stories about these "lower-middle class" but I thought they were dangerous. The only thing scarier than them, are those...*shudder* ..lower class people...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You really need to stop smoking cock and wipe the cum from your eyes. That way you'll actually be able to see that you're talking with a dick in your mouth.

Tell me, do you even pay for the hand lotion you jack off with?

Woot

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

I've known many lower middle class people

You mean....you....ummm...got...near them? Weren't you afraid? I've heard stories about these "lower-middle class" but I thought they were dangerous. The only scarier than them, are those...*shudder* ..lower class people...

Oh yeah and they wouldn't have been poor if they had planned their lives out and invested in the stock market with food stamps and saved a million dollars. And another thing, they can buy health insurance with food stamps.

E=mc^2 so I'm right.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Oohhhhh...he is SO SMART guys. We really shouldn't bother even TRYING to refute his argument....I mean...anyone who can turn life into an algebra equation must be so smart we HAVE NO CHANCE.

:roll:

Hey...dissipate...how's the air waaaaaaaaay up there? Do we all look like ants down here or what?

:roll:

Obviously its not that simple, but simple minds only understand simple concepts. Thus, a simple concept must be used in order to convey a more complex idea to a simple mind.

Oh. My. God.

Get off your god damn high horse. You're obviously not half as intelligent as you think you are, or you wouldn't be spewing this utter nonsense equation bullsh!t that applies to nobody but yourself.

And you just admitted that you were full of sh!t. "Obviously its not that simple," are the words you used, I believe.

And you didn't simplify it, you stupified it. I suppose you better start handing out little booklets, "Dissipates Guide to Life".

Good Lord, go crawl back under your rock.

The principle remains. Merely the application of the principle becomes more complex, but is still feasible. It merely requires financial sense and some real world calculations of cost and risk. To say it is impossible to mitigate risk and cost, even on a less than wealthy income is ridiculous.

I've known many lower middle class people who had health insurance for themselves and their children, life insurance etc. and some savings. All of this greatly helped to mitigate the risk of their children being exposed to pain and suffering.

You have to understand that I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying. You are saying that you should not have kids unless you can provide for them, and I agree with that.

But who the fsck are YOU to tell me or anybody else what "providing" is, and that health INSURANCE is a necessary part of those provisions in order to raise children "morally" without "pain and suffering"?!?! Do you have ANY idea how incredibly naive and moronic this sounds?!

I agree that the world would be a better place if everybody was oh-so-smart like your self-proclaimed genius self, but the fact that most of the worlds population is poor still remains.

Again, wake up and please never have children. I may not be rich, but I can guarentee you that my children will have a happy, loving home, and I will do my best to take the very best care of them I can.

You have no right to tell me otherwise, especially because of something as trivial as health insurance.

Who am I to tell you what "providing" is? I'm someone you obviously cannot refute in argumentation. The fact that you resort to ad hom attacks is a strong indicator of this.

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

 

[Zebo]

How do you guys fiqure it the lawyers?

Malpratice insurance, this covers all lawsiuts and still makes the insurance companies profits, is about 20% of a doctors salary which we absorb though added costs. 20%! Now that's just the doctors pay. Add in everyone else's pay nurses, physical therapists etc etc etc who have high salaries and pay zero malpractice, overhead, materials, profits and your "it's the lawyers" arguement gets even weaker. I've read 7% of medical costs are from liabity suits. 7% is a good price to pay for some protection from boneheads who may be incompitant or carless and fusk you or a family member up. And 7 points is an insignifigant portion of the expense.

Don't hear you bitching about the drug cartel, granted a monopoly and protected by the governement for XX years? Maybe that needs to be addressed again.

Don't hear you bitching about the union doctors have called AMA which has'nt opened a new medical school in 20 years dispite increases in USA population. They do this naturally to inflate wages. They also restrict class size at already open institutions for the same reasons.

Similarly for nurses/pharmacists/PT's etc they have cartels which restrict labor flow inflating thier wages.


Open your eyes a bit and you'll see plenty of BS going on other than lawyers which actually protects the consumer a bit dispite added costs.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

Otherwise, you could very well end up having a child with an asophogus detaching from their stomach and no way to provide the proper care for them, going back to the topic of the thread.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Oohhhhh...he is SO SMART guys. We really shouldn't bother even TRYING to refute his argument....I mean...anyone who can turn life into an algebra equation must be so smart we HAVE NO CHANCE.

:roll:

Hey...dissipate...how's the air waaaaaaaaay up there? Do we all look like ants down here or what?

:roll:

Obviously its not that simple, but simple minds only understand simple concepts. Thus, a simple concept must be used in order to convey a more complex idea to a simple mind.

Oh. My. God.

Get off your god damn high horse. You're obviously not half as intelligent as you think you are, or you wouldn't be spewing this utter nonsense equation bullsh!t that applies to nobody but yourself.

And you just admitted that you were full of sh!t. "Obviously its not that simple," are the words you used, I believe.

And you didn't simplify it, you stupified it. I suppose you better start handing out little booklets, "Dissipates Guide to Life".

Good Lord, go crawl back under your rock.

The principle remains. Merely the application of the principle becomes more complex, but is still feasible. It merely requires financial sense and some real world calculations of cost and risk. To say it is impossible to mitigate risk and cost, even on a less than wealthy income is ridiculous.

I've known many lower middle class people who had health insurance for themselves and their children, life insurance etc. and some savings. All of this greatly helped to mitigate the risk of their children being exposed to pain and suffering.

You have to understand that I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying. You are saying that you should not have kids unless you can provide for them, and I agree with that.

But who the fsck are YOU to tell me or anybody else what "providing" is, and that health INSURANCE is a necessary part of those provisions in order to raise children "morally" without "pain and suffering"?!?! Do you have ANY idea how incredibly naive and moronic this sounds?!

I agree that the world would be a better place if everybody was oh-so-smart like your self-proclaimed genius self, but the fact that most of the worlds population is poor still remains.

Again, wake up and please never have children. I may not be rich, but I can guarentee you that my children will have a happy, loving home, and I will do my best to take the very best care of them I can.

You have no right to tell me otherwise, especially because of something as trivial as health insurance.

Who am I to tell you what "providing" is? I'm someone you obviously cannot refute in argumentation. The fact that you resort to ad hom attacks is a strong indicator of this.

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

Address my critisizms, you ignorant high strung piece of sh!t.

OMG... you are truely clueless, aren't you? I have refuted your argumentation, YOU have not refuted MINE! I'm the only one that's tried to have a respectable conversation with you. You have not even addressed any of my points!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

Otherwise, you could very well end up having a child with an asophogus detaching from their stomach and no way to provide the proper care for them, going back to the topic of the thread.

WHO THE FSCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

Otherwise, you could very well end up having a child with an asophogus detaching from their stomach and no way to provide the proper care for them, going back to the topic of the thread.

WHO THE FSCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE?

On that note, who are we to tell a mass murderer to live their life? Well, we use the law, but what is the law supposedly based on? Ethics. Ethics dictate how to live one's life, not me.

 

[SuperGroove]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

Don't claim this as fact. It's your opinion.

Seriously though, how old are you?

 

[SuperGroove]

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

It is a luxury because it's not quite a public-access resource in the sense that it's not easily obtainable. And again, you are giving everyone here your opinion. I think parents should purchase health insurance for their kids too, but you're also saying that parents that don't buy health insurance for their kids are bad parents. I don't think that's true either.

Anyways...I have a final in Economics...i hate life right now because of it. I HATE SPRING FINALS! They're worse than Fall Semester finals!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperGroove

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

Don't claim this as fact. It's your opinion.

Seriously though, how old are you?

Wrong, it is fact.

People Afghanistan
Top of Page
Population:

28,717,213 (July 2003 est.)
Age structure:

0-14 years: 41.8% (male 6,123,971; female 5,868,013)
15-64 years: 55.4% (male 8,240,743; female 7,671,242)
65 years and over: 2.8% (male 427,710; female 385,534) (2003 est.)
Median age:

total: 18.9 years
male: 19.1 years
female: 18.7 years (2002)
Population growth rate:

3.38%
note: this rate does not take into consideration the recent war and its continuing impact (2003 est.)
Birth rate:

40.63 births/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Death rate:

17.15 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Net migration rate:

10.32 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Sex ratio:

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.11 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2003 est.)
Infant mortality rate:

total: 142.48 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 138.8 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)
male: 145.99 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 46.97 years
male: 47.67 years
female: 46.23 years (2003 est.)
Total fertility rate:

5.64 children born/woman (2003 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:

0.01% (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:

NA
HIV/AIDS - deaths:

NA
Nationality:

noun: Afghan(s)
adjective: Afghan
Ethnic groups:

Pashtun 44%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 10%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 13%, Uzbek 8%
Religions:

Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%
Languages:

Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism
Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
female: 21% (1999 est.)
total population: 36%
male: 51%
People - note:

large numbers of Afghan refugees create burdens on neighboring states

Text


Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

Otherwise, you could very well end up having a child with an asophogus detaching from their stomach and no way to provide the proper care for them, going back to the topic of the thread.

WHO THE FSCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE?

On that note, who are we to tell a mass murderer to live their life? Well, we use the law, but what is the law supposedly based on? Ethics. Ethics dictate how to live one's life, not me.

So now you're comparing mass murders to people who have children and can't afford health insurance!?!?!?!?

You have no ethics!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperGroove

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

Don't claim this as fact. It's your opinion.

Seriously though, how old are you?

Wrong, it is fact.

People Afghanistan
Top of Page
Population:

28,717,213 (July 2003 est.)
Age structure:

0-14 years: 41.8% (male 6,123,971; female 5,868,013)
15-64 years: 55.4% (male 8,240,743; female 7,671,242)
65 years and over: 2.8% (male 427,710; female 385,534) (2003 est.)
Median age:

total: 18.9 years
male: 19.1 years
female: 18.7 years (2002)
Population growth rate:

3.38%
note: this rate does not take into consideration the recent war and its continuing impact (2003 est.)
Birth rate:

40.63 births/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Death rate:

17.15 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Net migration rate:

10.32 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Sex ratio:

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.11 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2003 est.)
Infant mortality rate:

total: 142.48 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 138.8 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)
male: 145.99 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 46.97 years
male: 47.67 years
female: 46.23 years (2003 est.)
Total fertility rate:

5.64 children born/woman (2003 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:

0.01% (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:

NA
HIV/AIDS - deaths:

NA
Nationality:

noun: Afghan(s)
adjective: Afghan
Ethnic groups:

Pashtun 44%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 10%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 13%, Uzbek 8%
Religions:

Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%
Languages:

Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism
Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
female: 21% (1999 est.)
total population: 36%
male: 51%
People - note:

large numbers of Afghan refugees create burdens on neighboring states

Text


Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

Ummmmmm...........

Are you truely this ignorant? Have you ever stopped to think that your definition of "rich" or "successful" doesen't jive with, oh.. about 99% of the world's population?

I bet 100 bucks you're a spoiled rich kid who still depends on mommy and daddy. You have no concept of the real world.

I feel sorry for you. You have been very sheltered.

You do realize that oh, about .. 99% of the worlds population doesen't plan on having children? It's a byproduct of a natural human necessity, sex.

Something that I hope to God you never have. And if you do find someone that has been sheltered enough to even kinda-maybe buy into your incredibly naive and tunnel-visioned belief system, please use protection.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
Dissipate, your thoughts on this matter truely intrigue me. I did not think there could be anybody so incredibly out of touch with reality, not to mention stupid, that they would think it is OK, in America, Land of the Free, home of the brave, to discriminate based on income.

Shame on you, you ignorant fsck. Just because a family is poor does not mean they cannot provide their children with a healthy, loving home.

Besides, you've completely missed the point. So, every family should have health care. Yeah. But that costs money. What is the difference between spending money on health insurance or spending the money on medical bills? Unless your medical bills are in the tens of thousands of dollars, there isn't any.

The difference is that a couple hundred dollars a month is a huge bill to a poor family. They would not be able to survive if they had to pay it. So you know what they do? They take their chances, and pray nothing seriously wrong happens.

Again, you need to take a step back and take a SERIOUS look at reality, cause you sure aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

I'm not discriminating against anyone based on income. Perhaps in the future the average worker would only have to work one hour a year to provide all the basic necessities for their children. To say that having children is a right no matter what means a parent has to provide for that child is morally incorrect.

Huge bill or not to expose your children to risk by not providing health insurance is not morally acceptable, nor is requiring society to provide that health insurance. In one case you have exposed an innocent human to risk and potential harm, in another case you have impeded upon someone else's economic rights (or what I call the right to free exchange). Taking their chances and praying nothing serious happens is unacceptable with a capital U, for they have made it relatively probable that they will cause an innocent human pain and suffering.

I am living on the same planet, I just choose to apply simple logic within a philosophic context, while you seem to believe that one's actions justifies oneself taking that action.

You obviously have not lived in the real world long enough, because your train of thought is not realistic for 99% of the world's population. It may work fine in a perfect world, but this is Earth.

You are absolutely discriminating. You are saying that people who cannot afford health insurance should not have children, which is complete and utter bullsh!t. Health insurance is not a mandatory necessity, it is a luxury. A luxury that many cannot afford, especially if it does not come with job benefits.

A luxury? Health insurance is hardly a luxury in this country. In other times and places I would agree, but definately not in the U.S. in this day and age.

WTF? Maybe in your opinion.

Health insurance is most certainly a luxury, just like life insurance, or having a car, or even owning a god damn house for that matter. Are you really this stupid?

Ok, if it is a "luxury" that one cannot afford for themselves or their children then there is only one decision to make: do not have children.

Otherwise, you could very well end up having a child with an asophogus detaching from their stomach and no way to provide the proper care for them, going back to the topic of the thread.

WHO THE FSCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE?

On that note, who are we to tell a mass murderer to live their life? Well, we use the law, but what is the law supposedly based on? Ethics. Ethics dictate how to live one's life, not me.

So now you're comparing mass murders to people who have children and can't afford health insurance!?!?!?!?

You have no ethics!

Simple answer: nope. I used an example to show a point which was given at the end of the post: Ethics dictate how to live one's life, in extreme and even non-extreme situations. The same rules apply to anyone on the spectrum, where they land on the spectrum is only relevent in the sense that the punishment for violation of the laws of ethics varies accordingly.

 

[Insane3D]

dissipate -

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Simple answer: nope. I used an example to show a point which was given at the end of the post: Ethics dictate how to live one's life, in extreme and even non-extreme situations. The same rules apply to anyone on the spectrum, where they land on the spectrum is only relevent in the sense that the punishment for violation of the laws of ethics varies accordingly.

It is not unethical to have children without being able to afford health insurance.

If you believe that it is, that is a product of your upbringing, and it is your opinion. An opinion that 95% of everybody on this message board would not agree with, even given the generally immature(as in age) populace here.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperGroove

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Most of the world's population is poor because unfortunately, many people have violated the laws of ethics and brought children into a world of deplorable conditions.

Don't claim this as fact. It's your opinion.

Seriously though, how old are you?

Wrong, it is fact.

People Afghanistan
Top of Page
Population:

28,717,213 (July 2003 est.)
Age structure:

0-14 years: 41.8% (male 6,123,971; female 5,868,013)
15-64 years: 55.4% (male 8,240,743; female 7,671,242)
65 years and over: 2.8% (male 427,710; female 385,534) (2003 est.)
Median age:

total: 18.9 years
male: 19.1 years
female: 18.7 years (2002)
Population growth rate:

3.38%
note: this rate does not take into consideration the recent war and its continuing impact (2003 est.)
Birth rate:

40.63 births/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Death rate:

17.15 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Net migration rate:

10.32 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Sex ratio:

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.11 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2003 est.)
Infant mortality rate:

total: 142.48 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 138.8 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)
male: 145.99 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 46.97 years
male: 47.67 years
female: 46.23 years (2003 est.)
Total fertility rate:

5.64 children born/woman (2003 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:

0.01% (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:

NA
HIV/AIDS - deaths:

NA
Nationality:

noun: Afghan(s)
adjective: Afghan
Ethnic groups:

Pashtun 44%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 10%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 13%, Uzbek 8%
Religions:

Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%
Languages:

Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism
Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
female: 21% (1999 est.)
total population: 36%
male: 51%
People - note:

large numbers of Afghan refugees create burdens on neighboring states

Text


Let's look at the raw data. Population growth rate of 3.38% with a life expectancy of sub 50 years. Obviously people are having kids in deplorable conditions, and this is just one of many countries I could use as an example.

Ummmmmm...........

Are you truely this ignorant? Have you ever stopped to think that your definition of "rich" or "successful" doesen't jive with, oh.. about 99% of the world's population?

I bet 100 bucks you're a spoiled rich kid who still depends on mommy and daddy. You have no concept of the real world.

I feel sorry for you. You have been very sheltered.

You do realize that oh, about .. 99% of the worlds population doesen't plan on having children? It's a byproduct of a natural human necessity, sex.

Something that I hope to God you never have. And if you do find someone that has been sheltered enough to even kinda-maybe buy into your incredibly naive and tunnel-visioned belief system, please use protection.

Contraception should be used in all necessary situations, and in extreme situations abortion should be used. Although, I do not believe in abortion, it is preferable it to a lifetime of suffering.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Simple answer: nope. I used an example to show a point which was given at the end of the post: Ethics dictate how to live one's life, in extreme and even non-extreme situations. The same rules apply to anyone on the spectrum, where they land on the spectrum is only relevent in the sense that the punishment for violation of the laws of ethics varies accordingly.

It is not unethical to have children without being able to afford health insurance.

If you believe that it is, that is a product of your upbringing, and it is your opinion. An opinion that 95% of everybody on this message board would not agree with, even given the generally immature(as in age) populace here.

I don't care what the opinion of 95% of everybody on this message board is. Unlike many others, I do not base my opinion or even have my opinions influenced by the opinions of others. I have been known to have my opinions influenced by sound evidence and argumentation, however. Yet, here I have not seen any.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Contraception should be used in all necessary situations, and in extreme situations abortion should be used. Although, I do not believe in abortion, it is preferable it to a lifetime of suffering.

A lifetime of suffering? Where the hell do you come up with this crap?

So you believe that everybody born poor is destined for a life of suffering?! Where in the HELL have you grown up?