Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: On "Philanthropy" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
While I find many of your views agreeable, this is where you and I part company.

Is there any excuse... given your views... that you can offer for the bald fact that you possess material assets that exceed the assets of the majority of other humans? Deconstructing your argument leads me to the conclusion that you must forgo anything you currently possess until every other human being attains the exact same level of material wealth and livability that you possess.

I've read the other threads you alluded to and the duplicity of those who are attacking folks like Rob would be humorous if the sheer pathetic nature of their judgments wasn't so overwhelmingly obvious. Discussions of philanthropy and the morality of such ideas are nothing more than mental masturbation for those who are secretly envious of other people who achieve what they are either unable, or unwilling to achieve themselves.

Imagine this scenario...

One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:

One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?

Easy one. Socialized health care, both get health care.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
HavocIsHere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:

One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?

Easy one. Socialized health care, both get health care.


Total BS... and you know it.

One of the prime "arguments" proponents of socialized health care have is that in countries that have it private insurance is still being sold and used by those who can afford it. What this indicates is that some still have more than others. That those with wealth can still afford care that is better than the care provided by a socialized system.

That is in direct contrast to GAWD's philosophy... so let's assume we have exactly the same scenario in Germany, France, Canada or England and each child can get free treatment. But because of scarcity (which cannot be argued because the facts prove treatment is rationed) GAWD chooses to pay extra for his child to get treatment sooner and at better facilities.

The entire argument that socialized medicine removes inequality or the option for a person of means to access better service is a fabrication. No matter how you spin it... the people who earn more have more and since they have more they can afford better things. What do you propose? Taking what they have until everybody has exactly the same level of everything? Homes, clothes, health care, education, iTunes, DVD's, vehicles? All of it?

That's a pipe dream. Actually, it's a nightmare. You show me a socialized system that is so good nobody can actually buy anything better than they get for free and you might begin to have a valid argument.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Always bring a gun to a puppet fight
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
OverText is totally worth 100 units of imaginary, worthless currency
badge
What the Hell else am I supposed to do with GeekGold?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GAWD, I have long suspected that you secretly long for a jackbooted authoritarian to put liberty out of its misery and hoist us onto the anvil so that we can at long last be hammered into abject, miserable equality.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lebanon
Paris
flag msg tools
mb
DWTripp wrote:
HavocIsHere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:

One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?

Easy one. Socialized health care, both get health care.


Total BS... and you know it.

One of the prime "arguments" proponents of socialized health care have is that in countries that have it private insurance is still being sold and used by those who can afford it. What this indicates is that some still have more than others. That those with wealth can still afford care that is better than the care provided by a socialized system.

That is in direct contrast to GAWD's philosophy... so let's assume we have exactly the same scenario in Germany, France, Canada or England and each child can get free treatment. But because of scarcity (which cannot be argued because the facts prove treatment is rationed) GAWD chooses to pay extra for his child to get treatment sooner and at better facilities.


That's not how it works at all, the purpose of insurance is more often than not to cover the more "trivial" side of healthcare, like fancy glasses or aesthetic dentistry and so on. It has nothing to do with the quality of care.
Sometimes whether you go private or public, you get to be treated by the same practitioners, in the same clinic with the same equipment. The "private" thing is mostly just about queue dodging and non-vital care.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:


One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?


I like this scenario, as lets take it in the real world. Let's say both of these parties, those that get the tumor, and another 100 parties that will never get the tumor. But all parties have the same private health care insurance. So the insurance company figures out statistically the level of risk that all 102 parties will get this tumor that needs to be paid for, so they charge all parties a monthly amount to cover their risk plus a profit. Hence 100 other people are in essence PAYING for that surgery while those two pay only for a fraction of it.

But everyone in the equation is covered, and at the cost of everyone equally in the group.

In social healthcare, the payments will be based on the level of wealth you incur in society(which without this society you wouldn't have) MINUS the profit.

But the only difference is that the rich will pay a higher premium and the poorer will pay a lower premium, but again all are covered.

So in essence we are already in a social system, but one you choose the private industry to run. I say you are just choosing another kind of evil for another.

Because "no one" pays for health care at face value, unless they are foolish enough to opt out of health care insurance all together.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
chiddler wrote:


I just hope that you, unlike say, Glen Beck, are smart enough to understand that not everyone to the left of you agrees with GAWD. The 2 of you are so far apart that there's plenty of room to be way to the left of you AND way to the right of GAWD, so don't end up imagining that any supporter of a public option in healthcare is a hardline communist.


I don't think GAWD is a communist either. I believe him when he claims to be an anarchist. I just contend that the whole philanthropy argument is crap.

Quote:
I know you don't really think that. I suspect Beck doesn't really think that. unfortunately I know a fair percentage of the 'tea party' bozos imagine EXACTLY that.


For whatever reason there is an intense fascination with Glenn Beck. So much so that since I watched one of his full shows and then wrote a thread about it that he has now become sort of the flame bait that every liberal on RSP throws out to "prove" whatever it is they can't possibly prove with cogent debate based on sound reasoning.

DCAnderson quoted him enough that I actually have watched portions of several of his programs in the last week or so. I'm pretty amazed that the left-leaners here are so scornful of the guy. Yeah, he's weepy and maudlin. Yeah, he's kind of a mish-mash of entertainment and political commentary. Yeah, he's often a bit over the top.

But did any of you happen to see Obama in Minnesota yesterday? That was a public display of unbridled campaigning and emotional rhetoric with no purpose other than to combat the ideology (not the alternatives) of who Obama sees as his political enemies.

It was much more embarrassing and cringe-worthy than even Beck is when he invokes 'God and Country" as his central theme.

Essentially, RSP seems to be pretending that there is an easy "solution" to the inefficiency of human societies when it comes to how that society can best approach leveling unfairness. Shit... it's worse than that... part of the debate is coming to some sort of agreement on what "fair" actually means in a free market economy. There are dozens of alternatives to what Obama nebulously is promoting but none of them give the federal government the degree of control over allocating and regulating the health market that his vague plan appears to give.

All this makes the debate a false one with the left... they are attempting to frame their ideological opponents as nothing more than greedy capitalists who don't mind stepping on the underclasses to get their goodies when the truth is that most people I know or read about want our system to improve and make our society more healthy and fair.

But a sizable portion of us don't want ObamaCare. That doesn't mean we like what we have. We just don't want the Feds taking over to that extent.

Even threads about lofty philosophical concepts like philanthropy devolve into arguments over health care. That alone ought to prove that all ideological spectrums desire improvement.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
GAWD wrote:


I deny the very foundation of this scenario. Society should be so ordered and maintained such that no one's life should depend upon the amount of wealth they have or don't have.



This is the part I disagree with.

If its 'ordered', this implies someone to do the ordering PART. And all that does is change the tyranny from those who DO have the wealth and power to those doing the Order-ing- whomever those people might be.

Now, make it voluntary association of relationships- people helping others because they WANT to- thats an admirable and interesting goal. (Which is what I think you're really arguing for.)

Not a point of view I think I agree with, but one thats interesting to think about. But its an IDEAL- the idea of moving away from this 'statist' idea of harnessing 'state power' to solve political/social/cultural 'problems' (ie, take SIDES in these discussions and crush the opposing point of view) towards one of promoting individual and communal 'solidarity' and fraternalism. And while I'm unsure of the extent to which government may, or may not, be a necessary 'evil', I find such more thereotical discussions of interest.

Darilian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GAWD wrote:


I deny the very foundation of this scenario. Society should be so ordered and maintained such that no one's life should depend upon the amount of wealth they have or don't have.



Not only do I think this is idealistic, I think it is actually impossible.

If there is a tumor that needs to be fixed, it stands to reason that there is some smaller portion of society that is able to fix it. At some point, human greed will cause them to say "I'll fix it, but it will cost you" -- as soon as we make that first payment then we are down the path to where we are now.

What compels the doctor to treat the tumor? Benevalence is definitely an answer for some, but there probably will be a shortage of access to the treatment if that is all we rely on. Then we have to rely on some type of differential compensation that makes doctors feel like that skill is valued. Then we get back to the class system we effectively have now.

Human greed prevents all this from being anything but a fantastical pie in the sky scenario. Someone will always have to have the power.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
HavocIsHere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:

One of your children has a brain tumor that can be fixed. One of your neighbor's kids has an identical tumor. You possess just enough wealth to pay for the surgery of your child. In doing so aren't you condemning the neighbor's child to death? How do you reconcile scarcity of wealth in your argument? Do you let both children die in order to stay true to your idealogical belief?

Easy one. Socialized health care, both get health care.


Total BS... and you know it.

One of the prime "arguments" proponents of socialized health care have is that in countries that have it private insurance is still being sold and used by those who can afford it. What this indicates is that some still have more than others. That those with wealth can still afford care that is better than the care provided by a socialized system.

That is in direct contrast to GAWD's philosophy... so let's assume we have exactly the same scenario in Germany, France, Canada or England and each child can get free treatment. But because of scarcity (which cannot be argued because the facts prove treatment is rationed) GAWD chooses to pay extra for his child to get treatment sooner and at better facilities.

The entire argument that socialized medicine removes inequality or the option for a person of means to access better service is a fabrication. No matter how you spin it... the people who earn more have more and since they have more they can afford better things. What do you propose? Taking what they have until everybody has exactly the same level of everything? Homes, clothes, health care, education, iTunes, DVD's, vehicles? All of it?

That's a pipe dream. Actually, it's a nightmare. You show me a socialized system that is so good nobody can actually buy anything better than they get for free and you might begin to have a valid argument.

Maybe one day our HC system will cave in, but that's another matter. In the past, when I was making a lot of money, my office paid me a private insurrance. The difference was that, when I went to hospital, I was entitled a room for myself alone with no price supplement, a room with tv and cable; of course the doctors were the same.
I admit this might be hard to believe, maybe I am naive and you do not *want* to believe it, but our HC system provides us with the best possible healthcare.
Now of course I do not know if the proposed HC system in the US will be that good, but my point is that, unlike what I read here, socialized medecine works nicely.
We might discuss where it is not so nice, but that's besides this thread and have nothing to do with the quality of care.
In summary, here, your money cannot give you a better healt care; a little luxury, that's it.
So when you say that HC here is total bullshit, you do not know what you are talking about. If you are sincere, why not actually asking europeans? Because we are all communists maybe?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GAWD wrote:
You are assuming that something called "greed" is an intrinsic aspect of human nature ... further, you're assuming that there's something called "human nature" in the first place ...


Isn't that also a Christian assumption? Or am I misunderstanding your faith?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool. So what ought to circumscribe social possibilities and do you think Jesus gave any guidance there?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GAWD wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
GAWD wrote:


I deny the very foundation of this scenario. Society should be so ordered and maintained such that no one's life should depend upon the amount of wealth they have or don't have.



At some point, human greed will cause them to say "I'll fix it, but it will cost you" -- as soon as we make that first payment then we are down the path to where we are now.

...

Human greed prevents all this from being anything but a fantastical pie in the sky scenario. Someone will always have to have the power.


You are assuming at least as much as I am.

You are assuming that something called "greed" is an intrinsic aspect of human nature ... further, you're assuming that there's something called "human nature" in the first place ... finally, you're assuming that this "greed" which is inimical to "human nature" cannot/ought not be mitigated.

I deny all of the assumptions you're making and look forward to a time when others do to. So that, rather than basing our politics on limiting assumptions about "human nature," we instead enact the politics that resembles as closely as possible our ultimate desires for a better society.


While mine is an assumption that has millenia of observation backing it. I suspect that greed was "selected" for -- up to some breaking point -- in an evolutionary sense. Having everyone being equal doesn't inflate the chances of your genes being passed on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Page
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
In social healthcare, the payments will be based on the level of wealth you incur in society(which without this society you wouldn't have) MINUS the profit.


Sorry to pick out one sentence from your post, but it jumped out at me. Isn't this statement just nonsense?

What makes you say without this society I wouldn't have the level of wealth I have? Sure if there was no society at all I wouldn't have the level of wealth, but there must be many parts of society that either have no effect, or are actually detrimental to my level of wealth. There must be many other forms of "society" under which I would have more wealth. It seems ridiculous to imply that all of "society" is responsible for my wealth.

As an illustration, imagine you live on an island or tiny community with 10 people. You are very sickly and 8 of the people work hard to look after you and provide for you needs. The last person does nothing to help you and in fact comes to your house and sodomises you with a broomhandle once a day. Do you owe your wealth to this society, or just to the 8 people who help you? What do you owe to the last person? Does your answer change if I tone down the hyperbole, and the last person just does nothing for you one way or the other; or if you are a (or even the most) productive member of society?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mistermarino wrote:
GAWD, I have long suspected that you secretly long for a jackbooted authoritarian to put liberty out of its misery and hoist us onto the anvil so that we can at long last be hammered into abject, miserable equality.

Thumb for vocabulary.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GAWD wrote:
stuff...

antonym = misanthropy

...stuff


I don't believe the opposite of love is hate.

I believe it is indifference.

But maybe that's just me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
DNA results:Scottish, Dutch, English, Irish, German, French, Iberian Peninsula = 100% American!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
GAWD wrote:
stuff...

antonym = misanthropy

...stuff


I don't believe the opposite of love is hate.

I believe it is indifference.

But maybe that's just me.


Actually indifference is worse than hate. It is equivalent to being lukewarm, which Jesus said would cause him to "spew out of His mouth" such type of followers, preferring them to be hot or cold.

It seems the reliance of philanthropy in our a society would encourage an indifferent attitude by those of means toward those in need.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chiddler wrote:

I'm indifferent to 99.999% of the human race. All you saying it would be better to actively hate humanity?

thats insane.


I never implied better. We were talking opposites.

Love is intense care of the others well being. You will take steps to show interest. Indifference is not caring at all. Hatred is also intense caring. You will take steps to display that interest.

Indifference is not care at all - neither for harm nor good.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chiddler wrote:


Yes you did

"indifference is worse than hate": - therefore, hate is better than indifference. You didn't just imply it, you said it!


Dude.

Learn to read.

That wasn't my post.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chiddler wrote:
Geosphere wrote:
chiddler wrote:


Yes you did

"indifference is worse than hate": - therefore, hate is better than indifference. You didn't just imply it, you said it!


Dude.

Learn to read.

That wasn't my post.


yeah - but i wasn't responding to your post in the first place!

You responded to my response to somebody else's post, so you got it wrong first!


Oh yeah? You wanna step outside?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Get a motel room to do your philanthropy things, guys.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Sanders
United States
Henderson
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
DNA results:Scottish, Dutch, English, Irish, German, French, Iberian Peninsula = 100% American!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chiddler wrote:
caltexn wrote:
Geosphere wrote:
GAWD wrote:
stuff...

antonym = misanthropy

...stuff


I don't believe the opposite of love is hate.

I believe it is indifference.

But maybe that's just me.


Actually indifference is worse than hate. It is equivalent to being lukewarm, which Jesus said would cause him to "spew out of His mouth" such type of followers, preferring them to be hot or cold.

It seems the reliance of philanthropy in our a society would encourage an indifferent attitude by those of means toward those in need.


I'm indifferent to 99.999% of the human race. All you saying it would be better to actively hate humanity?

thats insane.


Well, I'd interpret your indifference as disinterest instead. I would wager that if you saw one of those 99.999% in some kind of distress and you had the means to help, you would. You would have a sudden interest in helping that neighbor (love). But if you were coldly indifferent, you would allow suffering. And further, if you hated that person, you could still choose to overcome your hatred and help, or not. At least there is the potential.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.