America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

If the land is made by The Great Spirit and given to the native peoples and animals, and the Euro-Man comes and steals it by force, how does that sit with the Great Spirit?

He should appear and claim his property rights.

 

[Dotini]

He should appear and claim his property rights.

By force? By fire, flood and plague? Is this what you want?

 

[TenEightyOne]

By force? By fire, flood and plague? Is this what you want?

I took some of this to the Human Rights thread as per @Famine's suggestion, there's enough going on in America as it is

 

[Famine]

It depends on context. Such a question needs to be in context.

Not really. Context is justification for the act. That's later in the process.

You are trying to catch me on a certain answer...

Not really. I'm trying to get you to see the connection.

And you did, but for some reason don't seem to want to acknowledge it:

If that person stole someone from you in the first place.

You left that one hanging without the context, so it appears that you'd call the act "stealing".

Now we've finally got to the point that you'd use the term "stealing" to describe taking something from someone, by threat of force, with the intent of permanently depriving them of it, we can move on to context.

1. A man is held prisoner, at gunpoint, by someone who wants to take, against his will, with the intent to permanently deprive (steal) £400 from him.
2. A man is held prisoner, at gunpoint, by someone who wants to take, against his will, with the intent to permanently deprive (steal) £400 from him.

Is it your contention that one of these is entirely acceptable because it's the state, and the other is not acceptable because it's an individual? If so, which is it, and why is it okay when the state is doing it? You can refer to @Danoff's earlier comments and signature when you start to type something like "voted for" or "democracy".

Edited for heinous, unintentional misspell!

I thought your fingers needed a Hall's Mentholyptus.

Nope, without any social construction there are no rights, only actions. It takes the recognition of a right for it to exist. You may think you have a right but you need an agreement that it's observed.

Rights don't need to be observed to exist. Rights need to be observed to be defended, and that's what law is for. Arguably rights are more important when they aren't observed than when they are, and even more so when it's law that is denying them - such as when you can be legally a slave, legally raped and legally killed... for being raped.

Indeed, and sorry for going off the topic. However, I note that there continues to be much discussion after our exchange in which you continue to take the position that removal of property (including currency) as being against one's rights...

Well, I hadn't quite got there yet, but it is somewhere down the line.

It's not really off-topic per se, but the Human Rights thread is the place where that discussion has been held in earnest for a number of years and thus a place more likely to already contain the points and counterpoints being made here. It's just somewhere you can read up on the entire discussion (and the characters involved in it!) rather than halfway through it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not really. Context is justification for the act. That's later in the process.
Not really. I'm trying to get you to see the connection.

And you did, but for some reason don't seem to want to acknowledge it:

You left that one hanging without the context, so it appears that you'd call the act "stealing".

Now we've finally got to the point that you'd use the term "stealing" to describe taking something from someone, by threat of force, with the intent of permanently depriving them of it, we can move on to context.

1. A man is held prisoner, at gunpoint, by someone who wants to take, against his will, with the intent to permanently deprive (steal) £400 from him.
2. A man is held prisoner, at gunpoint, by someone who wants to take, against his will, with the intent to permanently deprive (steal) £400 from him.

Is it your contention that one of these is entirely acceptable because it's the state, and the other is not acceptable because it's an individual? If so, which is it, and why is it okay when the state is doing it? You can refer to @Danoff's earlier comments and signature when you start to type something like "voted for" or "democracy".

I thought your fingers needed a Hall's Mentholyptus.

Rights don't need to be observed to exist. Rights need to be observed to be defended, and that's what law is for. Arguably rights are more important when they aren't observed than when they are, and even more so when it's law that is denying them - such as when you can be legally a slave, legally raped and legally killed... for being raped.

Well, I hadn't quite got there yet, but it is somewhere down the line.

It's not really off-topic per se, but the Human Rights thread is the place where that discussion has been held in earnest for a number of years and thus a place more likely to already contain the points and counterpoints being made here. It's just somewhere you can read up on the entire discussion (and the characters involved in it!) rather than halfway through it.

Firstly I apologise again for my badly written english.

You entered an abstract hypothetical situation without context. It does not matter if i call it stealing/reclaiming/taking etc. In your own perception forcefully contribute to a nations healthcare system (which provides failsafes if you cannot afford it making it free) is comparable to taking something from someone forcefully. That is indeed your right, but I didnt enter this discussion to define my definition or yours of your own moral views on my nations healthcare. Is your motivation to change my views or are you just curious on how I view these things?

I was just stating I believe that a citizen of a welfaring country should have a right to free or affordable basic healthcare within their legal sytem. Which defination of rights of you using? I was taught that legal rights are defined by a countries laws/constitution. Right or wrong and the abstract form of "rights" are defined by a group of people who reach concencus about it. These are not set in stone and open for interperatation and therefore prone to chaos, hence the neccesity of rules and/or laws to define them.

I will definately visit the human rights thread, but i was only commenting on the topic of the american healthcare system. It is just strange that a majority of americans accept that there are americans out there dying because they cant afford basic healthcare.

 

[ryzno]

I will definately visit the human rights thread, but i was only commenting on the topic of the american healthcare system. It is just strange that a majority of americans accept that there are americans out there dying because they cant afford basic healthcare.

But they aren't. Everyone has to be seen at a public/ government subsidized hospital. They have to treat you even if you are broke. They'll send a bill sooner or later and guess what? You don't have to pay it and after 7 years it's removed from your credit history.
We also don't pay for births. Me, my girl and my son were all born at Grady and just like my parents we didn't pay a cent when we had our son and we never received a bill.
My Georgia natives here can confirm the pride in some of being born at Grady. It's a requirement to call yourself a true Atlantan.

But I wouldn't recommend going to Grady for a cut or cold, you'll be there forever. Unless you're pregnant or LITERALLY on deaths door they take their sweet time.

 

[Famine]

You entered an abstract hypothetical situation without context.

Nope. I asked you to define the act of taking something from someone by threat of force with the intent of depriving them of it with an appropriate word. That's not a hypothetical.

As I said before, context is justification, so that comes much later in the process. You want to jump to the end without walking through any of the steps, for some reason.

It does not matter if i call it stealing/reclaiming/taking etc.

It matters greatly. Once you've established what that act is, we can carry on with the conversation - and as you seemed to define the act as "stealing", I tried to continue. You keep wanting to jump to the end without walking through any of the steps, for some reason.

In your own perception forcefully contribute to a nations healthcare system (which provides failsafes if you cannot afford it making it free) is comparable to taking something from someone forcefully.

Is that my perception? I don't recall stating that. I recall starting the conversation by quoting you saying "It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good.".

You've since agreed that the "contribution" is in fact not optional, and refusing to contribute results in prosecution, which may end up with the "contribution" being taken anyway (with extras) and/or the loss of liberty. You've agreed that the money is taken under threat of force. You seem to have agreed that taking money from someone under threat of force is "stealing". The next step is the question of if it's your contention that it's okay for the state to perform an act you'd define as "stealing" but not okay for an individual to do it. That seems to be where we have stalled.

That is indeed your right, but I didnt enter this discussion to define my definition or yours of your own moral views on my nations healthcare.

I haven't mentioned healthcare, much less your own nation's healthcare, in my responses to you, save for the question of why you only pay the bare minimum of tax required by law (where law = force) when you have drawn a direct line between reducing tax revenue and "sacrifices on healthcare".

I have been specifically addressing your comment that taxation "isn't theft, but a contribution to the greater good.".

Is your motivation to change my views or are you just curious on how I view these things?

Neither - you'd have to be receptive to having your views changed in order to change your views. I'm just interested in your absolute that taxation "isn't theft, but a contribution", and why that's built on shaky foundations. But for some reason you only seem to want to look at the building...

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope. I asked you to define the act of taking something from someone by threat of force with the intent of depriving them of it with an appropriate word. That's not a hypothetical.

As I said before, context is justification, so that comes much later in the process. You want to jump to the end without walking through any of the steps, for some reason.

It matters greatly. Once you've established what that act is, we can carry on with the conversation - and as you seemed to define the act as "stealing", I tried to continue. You keep wanting to jump to the end without walking through any of the steps, for some reason.

Is that my perception? I don't recall stating that. I recall starting the conversation by quoting you saying "It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good.".

You've since agreed that the "contribution" is in fact not optional, and refusing to contribute results in prosecution, which may end up with the "contribution" being taken anyway (with extras) and/or the loss of liberty. You've agreed that the money is taken under threat of force. You seem to have agreed that taking money from someone under threat of force is "stealing". The next step is the question of if it's your contention that it's okay for the state to perform an act you'd define as "stealing" but not okay for an individual to do it. That seems to be where we have stalled.

I haven't mentioned healthcare, much less your own nation's healthcare, in my responses to you, save for the question of why you only pay the bare minimum of tax required by law (where law = force) when you have drawn a direct line between reducing tax revenue and "sacrifices on healthcare".

I have been specifically addressing your comment that taxation "isn't theft, but a contribution to the greater good.".

Neither - you'd have to be receptive to having your views changed in order to change your views. I'm just interested in your absolute that taxation "isn't theft, but a contribution", and why that's built on shaky foundations. But for some reason you only seem to want to look at the building...

What steps? Are there official steps to define a certain act? You are going over my head here. We are walking in circles because I can not follow you in some of your reasoning. Perhaps I lack in education or intellegince, but in my view context is the first question I ask when somebody forcefully takes something from another person.

I somewhat understand what you are trying to do. Your definition does define theft, but has just as much meaning as: depriving a living being forcefully of its life = murder. But what is your point? What do you want me to say, what isnt said?

 

[Famine]

What steps? Are there official steps to define a certain act? You are going over my head here. We are walking in circles because I can not follow you in some of your reasoning.

I'm taking you back to first principles. Once the principles are established, we can then add layers of complexity onto them to arrive at the end product. It's important to do this to understand what it is you're discussing - or in your case what you're denying.

You're continually leaping ahead to the end of the process, without considering either the first principles or any of the layers in-between.

Perhaps I lack in education or intellegince, but in my view context is the first question I ask when somebody forcefully takes something from another person.

Context is among the last layers. You can't establish context for an act until you've established what the first principle of the act is.

I somewhat understand what you are trying to do. Your definition does define theft, but has just as much meaning as: depriving a living being forcefully of its life = murder. But what is your point? What do you want me to say, what isnt said?

"Murder" is a contextual act. "Killing" would be the first principle. "Murder" would come some way after, once you'd established that it was a human, that it was a human other than yourself, that you intended to kill them, you achieved your intent and there were no circumstances to justify the action. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.

As you can see, there's great many steps from "depriving a living being forcefully of its life" until you get to "murder". Just like there's a great many steps from "taking something from someone, by force, with the intent to permanently deprive" to "but hospitals?".

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm taking you back to first principles. Once the principles are established, we can then add layers of complexity onto them to arrive at the end product. It's important to do this to understand what it is you're discussing - or in your case what you're denying.

You're continually leaping ahead to the end of the process, without considering either the first principles or any of the layers in-between.

Context is among the last layers. You can't establish context for an act until you've established what the first principle of the act is.

"Murder" is a contextual act. "Killing" would be the first principle. "Murder" would come some way after, once you'd established that it was a human, that it was a human other than yourself, that you intended to kill them, you achieved your intent and there were no circumstances to justify the action. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.

As you can see, there's great many steps from "depriving a living being forcefully of its life" until you get to "murder". Just like there's a great many steps from "taking something from someone, by force, with the intent to permanently deprive" to "but hospitals?".

What theory are these principles and processes based on? But what is the point of your questioning? To teach me about this process?

I made that example to explain the importance of context and just skip the first principle. In you reasoning stepping on a plant = killing.

 

[Famine]

What theory are these principles and processes based on? But what is the point of your questioning? To teach me about this process?

All knowledge is based on information built on top of first principles. The point of the questioning is, to repeat myself:

I'm just interested in your absolute that taxation "isn't theft, but a contribution", and why that's built on shaky foundations. But for some reason you only seem to want to look at the building...

If you're not interested in examining the foundations to be sure the building is safe, just say so and I'll stop bothering.

We've started on the foundations, but it seemed to hit an uncomfortable note and you went right back to talking about the building and what the rooms are used for. Right now you're asking the equivalent of why the foundations are even important compared to the building.

I made that example to explain the importance of context and just skip the first principle.

And it backfired somewhat, given that you mis-labelled an act due to not understanding the principles behind it...

In you reasoning stepping on a plant = killing.

Only if you kill it. Otherwise it isn't. I mean, I went round the garden last week spraying the weeds with stuff to kill them. It's called weedkiller. Its job is the killing of weeds.

So, back to stealing...

 

[Joey D]

Thank you for making a bit less ignorant about the details of the US healthcare system. How did the operating cost get so expensive by governement interference? T

The rules associated with it.

First, they look for any and all ways to deny reimbursement to healthcare systems. Is one thing missing from your doctor's documentation? Denial. Didn't get prior-auth for a needed procedure? Denial. Didn't jump through hoops by getting a series of unneeded tests? Denial. And the list goes on and on and on. It also changes every year and many of the changes are arbitrary and seem to change for the sake of change. Never mind the monumental cluster when the Affordable Care Act went into place.

Due to all this, it makes health care expensive. You're getting a bunch of stuff done you don't need and the government is denying certain things without any real cause which means the hospital either needs to get the money from the patient or just eat the cost...which they do for the most part.

Not to mention it's expensive to maintain all of this. I work with electronic medical records and the amounts of changes we need to make thanks to the government require us to have an 8 story building filled with several hundred IT staff just to manage all of it...and we're just one hospital. One of the previous companies I worked for had 70 hospitals across the US and we had nearly 2,000 employees just to maintain the electronic medical records.

Also since we are in the IT industry we need to be paid like it too, so these healthcare systems need to pony up some serious coin to keep senior level analysts or otherwise they'll jump ship. Thankfully, I can pretty much anywhere in the US and get a job though (why I choose Utah is still a mystery to me ).

Electronic medical records are excellent for patient safety and helping coordinate your care among all the physicians in a system (and for the most part outside the system too). But they are expensive and the government more or less requires you to use them. It really should be the choice of a healthcare system whether they want to use it or not and let the patient decide if it's an important safety feature or not (personally I'd never go to a place with paper charts).

All of this doesn't even touch on lawsuits and malpractice insurance costs, which are astronomical. If you're a raging alcoholic and die from liver failure, that's not the doctor's fault, it's yours and your family shouldn't be able to sue because of it. Or rather your family should be able to sue, but they shouldn't get awarded a dime.

 

[PocketZeven]

All knowledge is based on information built on top of first principles. The point of the questioning is, to repeat myself:

We've started on the foundations, but it seemed to hit an uncomfortable note and you went right back to talking about the building and what the rooms are used for. Right now you're asking the equivalent of why the foundations are even important compared to the building.

And it backfired somewhat, given that you mis-labelled an act due to not understanding the principles behind it...

Only if you kill it. Otherwise it isn't. I mean, I went round the garden last week spraying the weeds with stuff to kill them. It's called weedkiller. Its job is the killing of weeds.

So, back to stealing...

You are not answering the question. You are citing these principles and foundations as if they were common knowledge? Please refer me to your source, so perhaps I can better understand you state of mind.
Where does this process come from and why are you applyin them right now? You are adding context to my earlier statement just like I did to further nuance if it is killing or not. In your principles stepping on an ant is killing just like stepping on a flower. Isnt the establishment if the intentiont to kill is there are not the second step in your process? The foundation is that the plant is killed. Am I correct?

The rules associated with it.

First, they look for any and all ways to deny reimbursement to healthcare systems. Is one thing missing from your doctor's documentation? Denial. Didn't get prior-auth for a needed procedure? Denial. Didn't jump through hoops by getting a series of unneeded tests? Denial. And the list goes on and on and on. It also changes every year and many of the changes are arbitrary and seem to change for the sake of change. Never mind the monumental cluster when the Affordable Care Act went into place.

Due to all this, it makes health care expensive. You're getting a bunch of stuff done you don't need and the government is denying certain things without any real cause which means the hospital either needs to get the money from the patient or just eat the cost...which they do for the most part.

Not to mention it's expensive to maintain all of this. I work with electronic medical records and the amounts of changes we need to make thanks to the government require us to have an 8 story building filled with several hundred IT staff just to manage all of it...and we're just one hospital. One of the previous companies I worked for had 70 hospitals across the US and we had nearly 2,000 employees just to maintain the electronic medical records.

Also since we are in the IT industry we need to be paid like it too, so these healthcare systems need to pony up some serious coin to keep senior level analysts or otherwise they'll jump ship. Thankfully, I can pretty much anywhere in the US and get a job though (why I choose Utah is still a mystery to me ).

Electronic medical records are excellent for patient safety and helping coordinate your care among all the physicians in a system (and for the most part outside the system too). But they are expensive and the government more or less requires you to use them. It really should be the choice of a healthcare system whether they want to use it or not and let the patient decide if it's an important safety feature or not (personally I'd never go to a place with paper charts).

All of this doesn't even touch on lawsuits and malpractice insurance costs, which are astronomical. If you're a raging alcoholic and die from liver failure, that's not the doctor's fault, it's yours and your family shouldn't be able to sue because of it. Or rather your family should be able to sue, but they shouldn't get awarded a dime.

That still does not explain how the costs for the exact same procedure is so much more expensive in the US. And I think healthcare here in the netherlands also has very strict procedures and regulations. And I am sure the quality in healthcare is not much below or above the US. I cannot answer these questions as I am no expert in the field. You however seem to have more knowledge of the inner workings and I therefore highly recommend to research European healthcare systems.

edit: added response to @Joey D
edit 2 cleaned up post

 

[Famine]

You are not answering the question.

I mean... I did. Quite directly:

All knowledge is based on information built on top of first principles.

Everything you know, think, do and own came about from a basic principle with knowledge built upon it afterwards. Sometimes, and very rarely these days, we'll discover a new fundamental below what we thought was the establishing principle, and have to re-examine the knowledge that built upon the original.

Where does this process come from and why are you applyin them right now?

I'm not even sure what you're asking now... Are you asking where the fundamental process of acquiring all knowledge comes from and why it's being applied to knowledge you proclaimed?

You are adding context to my earlier statement just like I did to further nuance if it is killing or not.

Nope. You decided that taking a living being's life by force was murder. It isn't. Murder is several layers of context above that and requires several other things such as a non-self victim, intent, success and the lack of any factors (self-defence, for example) justifying it. And commonly time taken too.

n your principles stepping on an ant is killing just on a flower.

Uhhh... what?

Isnt the establishment if the intentiont to kill is there are not the second step in your process?

Intent is a layer of complexity. It's not the fundamental act. The act is killing. Whatever you kill - a person, an ant (what?), a flower - stopping it from being alive when it was alive in the first place is killing. It doesn't matter whether it was an accident or you yelled "DIE, EVIL FLOWER! DIE!" before you did it (unless you're a Jainist), because that's just extra layers of complexity beyond the basic principle - something was killed.

The foundation is that the plant is killed. Am I correct?

If something is killed and you killed it, you killed it, yes.


So, back to "stealing"?

 

[PocketZeven]

I mean... I did. Quite directly:

Everything you know, think, do and own came about from a basic principle with knowledge built upon it afterwards. Sometimes, and very rarely these days, we'll discover a new fundamental below what we thought was the establishing principle, and have to re-examine the knowledge that built upon the original.

I'm not even sure what you're asking now... Are you asking where the fundamental process of acquiring all knowledge comes from and why it's being applied to knowledge you proclaimed?

Nope. You decided that taking a living being's life by force was murder. It isn't. Murder is several layers of context above that and requires several other things such as a non-self victim, intent, success and the lack of any factors (self-defence, for example) justifying it. And commonly time taken too.

Uhhh... what?

Intent is a layer of complexity. It's not the fundamental act. The act is killing. Whatever you kill - a person, an ant (what?), a flower - stopping it from being alive when it was alive in the first place is killing. It doesn't matter whether it was an accident or you yelled "DIE, EVIL FLOWER! DIE!" before you did it (unless you're a Jainist), because that's just extra layers of complexity beyond the basic principle - something was killed.

If something is killed and you killed it, you killed it, yes.


So, back to "stealing"?

Your reasoning and theory about these principles must have an origin. Which author, philosopher or teacher teacher teached you these principles. I am not aware of these principles. You must have gotten them from somewhere? Or did you think of them yourself? You are claiming these are fundamental but to be fundamental doesnt there have to be concencus that it is fundamental?

I mistakenly used the word murder, but corrected it in my last answer to your post. Please do not use my mistaken use of some words (remember english is not my first language) as reference.

So to wrap up:
Government taking taxes/contributions = stealing
Stepping on a plant = killing

Is that what you were trying to point out?

 

[Famine]

Your reasoning and theory about these principles must have an origin. Which author, philosopher or teacher teacher teached you these principles. I am not aware of these principles. You must have gotten them from somewhere? Or did you think of them yourself? You are claiming these are fundamental but to be fundamental doesnt there have to be concencus that it is fundamental?

Something is fundamental if it cannot be broken down any further. I mean, that's literally the definition of the word - fundamental means base, foundation, primary or original, from "fundare" meaning "to found". Oddly it's also a root of the word "fundament", which means arse.

In fact I can break down the act of taking something from someone, by force, with the intent to permanently deprive them of it further - it just doesn't get to any useful point for the discussion. The basic principle would be taking something. That would just be the act of taking something. Taking something from someone would also just be taking, as at this point we've not established anything beyond that. Taking something from someone with the intent to permanently deprive them of it is getting into the territory of usefulness, as it changes the act to one of ownership - denying the ownership of the first person (whether they had it or not) in perpetuity. And since we started with the consequences of refusing to comply, we could add in the "by force" component.

And that's where we'd got to, before you wanted to start looking at the finished building rather than continue with the foundations.

I mistakenly used the word murder, but corrected it in my last answer to your post. Please do not use my mistaken use of some words (remember english is not my first language) as reference.

I've only used the words you've used. At no point have I used words you haven't used and I've not seen any edits that correct "murder" to "killing" in any posts, or any suggestion it was the wrong word before now.

So to wrap up:
Government taking taxes/contributions = stealing
Stepping on a plant = killing

Is that what you were trying to point out?

Nope. In fact I directly countered one of those things already.

Do you want to go back to the foundations or not? Only I feel that I'm rather wasting my time trying to walk you through the beginning as you keep trying to run to the end like that's the only important part.

 

[PocketZeven]

Something is fundamental if it cannot be broken down any further. I mean, that's literally the definition of the word - fundamental means base, foundation, primary or original, from "fundare" meaning "to found". Oddly it's also a root of the word "fundament", which means arse.

In fact I can break down the act of taking something from someone, by force, with the intent to permanently deprive them of it further - it just doesn't get to any useful point for the discussion. The basic principle would be taking something. That would just be the act of taking something. Taking something from someone would also just be taking, as at this point we've not established anything beyond that. Taking something from someone with the intent to permanently deprive them of it is getting into the territory of usefulness, as it changes the act to one of ownership - denying the ownership of the first person (whether they had it or not) in perpetuity. And since we started with the consequences of refusing to comply, we could add in the "by force" component.

And that's where we'd got to, before you wanted to start looking at the finished building rather than continue with the foundations.

I've only used the words you've used. At no point have I used words you haven't used and I've not seen any edits that correct "murder" to "killing" in any posts, or any suggestion it was the wrong word before now.

Nope. In fact I directly countered one of those things already.

Do you want to go back to the foundations or not? Only I feel that I'm rather wasting my time trying to walk you through the beginning as you keep trying to run to the end like that's the only important part.

You are definately wasting your time, because I have trouble understanding your motivations. Are you correcting my language, teaching me about fundamentals? what is the endgame?

So you got it from the dictionary? I am asking specifically where did you learn these theories about fundamentals? I want to learn more about the principles you adhere. I have never heard of such deconstruction to fundamentals and principles in steps in all of my highschool and collegeyears. Is this a specific philosophy from a certain greek thinker?

In my previous post i did not use the word murder anymore, but killing. I didnt edit that part in the original post, because it would have confused others when they would have read your reaction to it. As english is perhaps my fourth language I mistakenly used murder instead of killing. But I did use the word killing in my previous post.

So what do you call taking by force? What is the next step?

 

[Famine]

because I have trouble understanding your motivations.

I'm taking you back to first principles. Once the principles are established, we can then add layers of complexity onto them to arrive at the end product. It's important to do this to understand what it is you're discussing - or in your case what you're denying.

Are you correcting my language, teaching me about fundamentals? what is the endgame?

To get you to examine what you said, so that you can understand that what you said was wrong and why it is wrong, with your own thought processes as your guide.

So you got it from the dictionary? I am asking specifically where did you learn these theories about fundamentals? I want to learn more about the principles you adhere. I have never heard of such deconstruction to fundamentals and principles in steps in all of my highschool and collegeyears. Is this a specific philosophy from a certain greek thinker?

Have you ever heard of a building being built from the roof down?

All knowledge is built from first principles. If the first principles are wrong, the knowledge is wrong - even if the steps from the principles to the knowledge are right.

In my previous post i did not use the word murder anymore, but killing. I didnt edit that part in the original post, because it would have confused others when they would have read your reaction to it. As english is perhaps my fourth language I mistakenly used murder instead of killing. But I did use the word killing in my previous post.

And I quoted "murder" where "murder" was used, and "killing" where "killing" was used. I didn't put anything into your posts that you didn't.

You are definately wasting your time,

Yeah, I figured. You're telling me that the fifteenth floor will be used as a marshmallow factory, and I'm trying to tell you that your building is on a beach next to a river delta.

 

[PocketZeven]

To get you to examine what you said, so that you can understand that what you said was wrong and why it is wrong, with your own thought processes as your guide.

Have you ever heard of a building being built from the roof down?

All knowledge is built from first principles. If the first principles are wrong, the knowledge is wrong - even if the steps from the principles to the knowledge are right.

And I quoted "murder" where "murder" was used, and "killing" where "killing" was used. I didn't put anything into your posts that you didn't.

Yeah, I figured. You're telling me that the fifteenth floor will be used as a marshmallow factory, and I'm trying to tell you that your building is on a beach next to a river delta.

So what exactly was i wrong about? I guess our ways to tackle a discussion are too far apart. It was interesting to have had a look on your brain. I tried to ask you, where did your theories/philosophy came from and only through my own research I managed to answer the questions you chose to ignore.

You claim my statements were wrong based on a philosophical deconstruction? I would rather you just tell me what was wrong and why and what I should have said according to you opinion. As I already established English is my fourth language and therefore mistakes can be made. Correct me when I am wrong but do not judge or quote me when I accidently use the wrong grammar or vocabulary, without the chance to explain my intention.

And how is all knowledge built from first principles?

Edit: added reaction

 

[Famine]

So what exactly was i wrong about?

We've done this one:

It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good.

only through my own research I managed to answer the questions you chose to ignore.

We've done this one as well:

All knowledge is based on information built on top of first principles.

Everything you know, think, do and own came about from a basic principle with knowledge built upon it afterwards. Sometimes, and very rarely these days, we'll discover a new fundamental below what we thought was the establishing principle, and have to re-examine the knowledge that built upon the original.

Have you ever heard of a building being built from the roof down?

All knowledge is built from first principles. If the first principles are wrong, the knowledge is wrong - even if the steps from the principles to the knowledge are right.

The circles you say we're going in are only there because you keep going round them.

I would rather you just tell me what was wrong and why and what I should have said according to you opinion.

You can't get there without, by yourself, reexamining the steps you took to get there. You don't seem to want to - it all appears to be about what's built rather than how you build it.

 

[PocketZeven]

We've done this one:


We've done this one as well:



The circles you say we're going in are only there because you keep going round them.

You can't get there without, by yourself, reexamining the steps you took to get there. You don't seem to want to - it all appears to be about what's built rather than how you build it.

I was referring to your use of Aristotle as the answer to my question you were ignoring. You are treating first principle philosophy as the answer and origin to all knowledge. Yet it is just a methodology. You either didnt pay attention at philosophy 101 or you read the wrong book.

I stand by my statement (which is an opinion), that healthcare should be a right to all people.

 

[Famine]

I was referring to your use of Aristotle as the answer to my question you were ignoring.

I haven't mentioned Aristotle.

You are treating first principle philosophy as the answer and origin to all knowledge. Yet it is just a methodology.

I repeat, did you ever hear of a building made from the roof down?

You either didnt pay attention at philosophy 101 or you read the wrong book.

Neither. Next guess? Try one without attempting to give me some negative characteristics.

I stand by my statement (which is an opinion), that healthcare should be a right to all people.

That statement has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

That aside, nothing can be a right if it requires other people to provide it for you, as that would prevent them from having the right to their own labour.

 

[PocketZeven]

I haven't mentioned Aristotle.

I repeat, did you ever hear of a building made from the roof down?

Neither. Next guess? Try one without attempting to give me some negative characteristics.

That statement has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

That aside, nothing can be a right if it requires other people to provide it for you, as that would prevent them from having the right to their own labour.

I asked you 4 times where did you get this theory of "fundamentals" and "first principle". You ignored these questions every time. I eventually researched it that you got it from Aristotle.

How was I building a building from the roof down?

The statement started the discussion on which you chose to deviate to philosophic methodology to prove a certain reaction I posted was wrong. If there is concencus by all the people in a nation/ community, then yes it can be a right. I was stating my opinion that in a community/nation all the citizens should have a right to basic healthcare. You answer by stating it cant be a right because that would prevent people having the right to their own labour?

 

[Famine]

I asked you 4 times where did you get this theory of "fundamentals" and "first principle". You ignored these questions every time.

I answered them every time. I just quoted three of my answers three posts ago.

Just because you don't like the answers and think there must be more to it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

I eventually researched it that you got it from Aristotle.

Nope. Never studied Aristotle, never learned Aristotle, don't care to. Had I "got it from Aristotle", I'd have answered "I got it from Aristotle".

Just because you don't like the answers and think there must be more to it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

How was I building a building from the roof down?

I mean, I've only said it about six times now. I appreciate you may have completely missed that, as you missed my answers to your questions.

I'm talking to you about the foundations. Foundation and fundamental have the same root - fundere. You don't want to talk about the foundations, you want to talk about the finished building and what the rooms are used for. But if your building isn't built on sound foundations, it doesn't matter - it will collapse.

This is why people do not build buildings from the roof down. This is why people make sure that the foundations - the fundamentals - are suited to the task before they put a building on top of it.

The statement started the discussion on which you chose to deviate to philosophic methodology to prove a certain reaction I posted was wrong.

Nope. I hoped that you would be able to examine the foundations on which you'd made a flawed statement and come to understand why it was flawed.

I didn't mention healthcare, but you keep wanting to run to healthcare because it's the building and you want to focus on the building. At this point I think it's deliberate - since we've now been on this all day and not the fundamental principles behind taking things away from people - and you don't really want to examine how you could possibly be wrong.

If there is concencus by all the people in a nation/ community, then yes it can be a right.

Rights are not subject to majority vote. Read @Danoff's signature again.

I was stating my opinion that in a community/nation all the citizens should have a right to basic healthcare. You answer by stating it cant be a right because that would prevent people having the right to their own labour?

Nothing can be a right if it requires you to ignore other rights. Healthcare can't be a right as it requires doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, therapists, research scientists (and so on) to work for you and not have the right to their own labour - which people do have the right to, because their body is not yours to own, it's theirs (and requires no-one else to provide it). Requiring people to work for you is slavery.

But for more on this head to the Human Rights thread, where this is all detailed and discussed. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Healthcare can't be a right as it requires doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, therapists, research scientists (and so on) to work for you and not have the right to their own labour - which people do have the right to, because their body is not yours to own, it's theirs (and requires no-one else to provide it). Requiring people to work for you is slavery.

Requiring people to work for you implies that it's against their will. Can you give any examples of medics who have been enslaved to their positions or could we agree that they all made the career choice (and their own investment of time and commitment) to be doing what they're doing? If those medics work for the NHS (which all UK citizens have a legal right to access) then it is the organisation which has to accept the clients and the rights of the individual medics to hang up their stethoscopes and walk away is preserved.

 

[PocketZeven]

I answered them every time. I just quoted three of my answers three posts ago.

Just because you don't like the answers and think there must be more to it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

Nope. Never studied Aristotle, never learned Aristotle, don't care to. Had I "got it from Aristotle", I'd have answered "I got it from Aristotle".

Just because you don't like the answers and think there must be more to it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

I mean, I've only said it about six times now. I appreciate you may have completely missed that, as you missed my answers to your questions.

I'm talking to you about the foundations. Foundation and fundamental have the same root - fundere. You don't want to talk about the foundations, you want to talk about the finished building and what the rooms are used for. But if your building isn't built on sound foundations, it doesn't matter - it will collapse.

This is why people do not build buildings from the roof down.

Nope. I hoped that you would be able to examine the foundations on which you'd made a flawed statement and come to understand why it was flawed.

I didn't mention healthcare, but you keep wanting to run to healthcare because it's the building and you want to focus on the building. At this point I think it's deliberate - since we've now been on this all day and not the fundamental principles behind taking things away from people - and you don't really want to examine how you could possibly be wrong.

Rights are not subject to majority vote. Read @Danoff's signature again.

Nothing can be a right if it requires you to ignore other rights. Healthcare can't be a right as it requires doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians, therapists, research scientists (and so on) to work for you and not have the right to their own labour - which people do have the right to, because their body is not yours to own, it's theirs (and requires no-one else to provide it). Requiring people to work for you is slavery.

But for more on this head to the Human Rights thread, where this is all detailed and discussed. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

The methodology clearly has its origins from Aristotl. So who did you learn it from? (which was the question that wasnt answered)

I said concencus and did not mean voting. Requiring people to work for you is not slavery when that person is compensated for his/her time. But I think we have to distinct different views on this particular subject and it is difficult to explain without making mistakes and not speaking in my native tongue.

We are clearly living in two different bubbles. You refuse to see it from my perspective and visa versa. But it was interesting to read someone tangle such a subject from your particular point of view.

 

[Imari]

Requiring people to work for you is not slavery when that person is compensated for his/her time.

Yeah, no.

If you require me to work for you when I don't want to, it doesn't matter how much you compensate me. You're forcing me to work against my will. That is slavery.

Slavery with compensation is still slavery. I think you'll find the black American slaves in the south tended to be fed and housed. Hey, compensation! They weren't slaves at all! Right? I think not.

It's slavery when you don't have the right to say no. It's the employment equivalent of rape. Rape is still rape if you slip her a hundred bucks afterwards.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yeah, no.

If you require me to work for you when I don't want to, it doesn't matter how much you compensate me. You're forcing me to work against my will. That is slavery.

Slavery with compensation is still slavery. I think you'll find the black American slaves in the south tended to be fed and housed. Hey, compensation! They weren't slaves at all! Right? I think not.

It's slavery when you don't have the right to say no. It's the employment equivalent of rape. Rape is still rape if you slip her a hundred bucks afterwards.

You just added some context to your original statement. So now I agree with you on this particular statement you made. But I was referring to certain european system where the healthcare providers are not slaves.

edit: posted earlier by accident

 

[Imari]

You just added some context to your original statement. So now I agree with you.

What? My original statement? Which one is that? My previous post was two pages ago.

Tell me you're not confusing me with Famine. I'm not purple, for starters.

 

[PocketZeven]

What? My original statement? Which one is that? My previous post was two pages ago.

Tell me you're not confusing me with Famine. I'm not purple, for starters.

Yes I mixed you guys up! Famini and Imari both have an A and 2 I's in them. My sincere apology!