Re: capitalist religion

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Tue Jul 24 2001 - 08:13:09 MDT

>From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU>

>>Brian Williams commented:

>>I would say you are incorrect.

>#### The word "incorrect" is out of place here. What I voiced was
>a moral statement, an expression of what I perceive as right,
>proper, ethically imperative, as opposed to merely "correct". Your
>opinion, obviously different, is not more "correct", but
>indicative of a totally divergent attitude towards fellow humans.

The statement "I would say you are incorrect" is clearly an

>>We agree.

>### Are you using pluralis maiestatis?

Merely agreeing on a point.

>#### Some persons, through no fault of their own, cannot afford
>medical treatment (what if you have a stroke at age 16?). Kids or
>no kids, they can't pay. Are you saying that they are useless,
>discardable, by definition not worthy of being helped? Would you
>let them starve amid plenty?

There are provisions for such people, but I do not support
enlarging those provisions and creating a class of people who stop
striving to better themselves.

I encourage and even insist on personnal responsibility.

>>Don't need to know.

>#### You don't want to know about the suffering of others, lest it
>disturb your afternoon nap?

I don't need to know about their personnal financial status since
in my eyes they are responsible for themselves.

Sadly I'm always too busy at work during the week to enjoy an
afternoon nap. Probably because I'm paying for someone else's bad

>>>I think that a workable and fair system would offer tiered,
>>>government-standardized but privately run insurance plans to all

>>You're not talking government standardized, you're talking
>>government subsidized.

>#### No, it's subsidized AND standardized

I don't have a problem with standardized, but I do with the
subsidized part.

>>I vote no.

>#### Why should your idea of fairness be respected if you don't
>care about, literally, the life and death of innocent people? It
>is a heartfelt conviction of the vast majority of humans, that an
>innocent person (= who didn't get in trouble through his own
>stupidity, laziness, etc.) has to be helped when in need. Are we
>all "unfair"?

Oldest debate tactic in the book, accuse the other side of
something and force them to defend.

I do care about people and as I stated here in the U.S there are
provisions, but I do not support an enlarging of these provisions
when every piece of evidence we have says it will be to the long
term detriment of all involved.

>>With my help, administered with a gun to my head, no thanks.

>### Well, at least no innocent persons would die, except if you
>moved about too much and the jackbooted government thug, holding
>the gun while taking the money, would decide to bump you off as a

>(I am being sarcastic here)

Obviously we part company on this note.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:55 MDT