NY Times - Overhaul Will Lower the Costs of Being a Woman

[Lurker]

Ddrak,

How is this...

Heaven forbid we improve things for half the population. If you truly are so self-centered and greedy, you do not want to improve things for your mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters or grandmas...because it might cost you a little more, well, they should be so proud to have someone like you in their lives.

substantively different from this...

I think it's a basic function of society to provide care for the sick and I'm fully aware that it means those less at risk are paying for the basic health of those more at risk.

You both reach the same conclusion and try to shame or "guilt" the people ranting against "entitlement whores". You were more subtle and less direct but the message is basically the same. To use your words, were you making a valid point using rational arguments or was it just emotional idiocy? Because I don't see any difference and your lashing out at Harlowe seems very strange.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You're implying that females get lower quality healthcare, which isnt the case. Harlowe tossed out a red herring by using the term "improve", which is a bit dishonest, since we're talking about financial costs, not about healthcare quality. I think what Harlowe meant to say is that she thinks one gender should subsidize the other.

That's the real sexism in the thread.

[Ddrak]

Lurker,

The statements are substantively different in a number of ways:

i) Most important: My statement is presented as opinion without deriding those who believe differently. I simply think that basic health care is a function of society. It doesn't make someone who thinks differently a "self-centered" or "greedy" person for holding an alternative societal view. There's definite merits in saying people should fend for themselves.
ii) My statement isn't laced with guilt trips at all, and I'm not sure what makes you think it is.
iii) My statement doesn't make any specifics as to race, gender, age or anything else.
iv) As Harlowe correctly identified, her statement was snide, jackassish, condescending and whiny. Mine wasn't.

It's the same difference between saying "I believe governments should minimize welfare" to "Entitlement whores are leeches on society". If you seriously can't tell the emotional and semantic differences then, um, wtf?

Dd

[Lurker]

I think it's a basic function of society to provide care for the sick and I'm fully aware that it means those less at risk are paying for the basic health of those more at risk.

Can you explain why you believe this?

[Partha]

i) Most important: My statement is presented as opinion without deriding those who believe differently. I simply think that basic health care is a function of society. It doesn't make someone who thinks differently a "self-centered" or "greedy" person for holding an alternative societal view. There's definite merits in saying people should fend for themselves.

I would say human society disagrees with you, from the moment the first tribe was formed.

[Ddrak]

I think it's a basic function of society to provide care for the sick and I'm fully aware that it means those less at risk are paying for the basic health of those more at risk.

Can you explain why you believe this?

I assume we're talking about the first part of the statement ("I think it's a basic function of society to provide care for the sick") - there's not much to debate about the second part.

I think society has an expectation to spend a reasonable effort into maintaining the well-being of the society through maintenance of members of that society. I think it promotes a better functioning society and a more cohesive system. I feel that maintaining a constant state of do-or-die competition between members will lead to the fragmenting of society into smaller competitive groups which maintain their own well-being over the larger whole, which in turn disadvantages the whole.

Other theories say that the smaller competitive groups results in a faster improvement as the less effective groups die off.

It's a matter of where you believe the needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many.

Partha's correct, but how big a tribe is too big?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha's correct, but how big a tribe is too big?

Dd

When it ceases being a tribe.

I don't say that glibly. Different social constructs impose different social pressures. One can't take mores based on tribal value systems and correlate them to mores based on a global inter-dependant economic models. The relevance is non-conforming.

When someone tries to make a modern issue relate to a primal urge, that someone is being dishonest. We don't exist like that anymore. There is little relevance between our tribal history and our global inter-dependance.

[Partha]

When someone tries to make a modern issue relate to a primal urge, that someone is being dishonest. We don't exist like that anymore. There is little relevance between our tribal history and our global inter-dependance.

Erm, you missed the point. The point being, humans have ALWAYS been interdependent - we are pack/herd animals. Modern civilization as we know it does not exist without cooperation, and the mere fact that you are sitting where you are sitting in what you're sitting while you're looking at your computer is the sum product of thousands of humans at the very least - almost none of which you will share 'tribal history' with. The myth of Randism is just that, and for people to ignore the fact that their basic existence is owed to a communal lifestyle predicated on improving conditions for everyone with some fantasy that some people deserve to live and others to die for factors both in your control and beyond your control is a form of sociopathy.

[Harlowe]

Ddrak, you are such a huge hypocrit in how you deal with my remarks vs. men that behave the same way here. Your responses have been extremely whiny as well. Not a whine about it, you aren't going to bring tears to my eyes, it's just an observation on your behavior. You go from zero to asshole if you don't like something I say.

The myth of Randism is just that, and for people to ignore the fact that their basic existence is owed to a communal lifestyle predicated on improving conditions for everyone with some fantasy that some people deserve to live and others to die for factors both in your control and beyond your control is a form of sociopathy.

Well said Partha.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If you look at Partha's statement without blinders on, you'll see the fallacy of it.

He makes the claim that we're all interconnected, just like we were in a tribal society, and that decisions of who lives and who dies somehow weren't made by tribal members, which is complete bullshit. There was a heirarchy of who ate and who didn't. Warring tribes killed each other. Breedings were arranged in most tribal societies. Women and children really got the short end of the stick in most tribes (most tribes value sons over daughters). Life and death were absolutely controlled by just a few in the tribe, and Partha's portrayal of tribal life as some bucolic commune is fantasy.

[Ddrak]

Ddrak, you are such a huge hypocrit in how you deal with my remarks vs. men that behave the same way here. Your responses have been extremely whiny as well. Not a whine about it, you aren't going to bring tears to my eyes, it's just an observation on your behavior. You go from zero to asshole if you don't like something I say.

Nope - I deal with everyone the same. You only pay attention when I treat you that way and don't mind at all when I tell Partha/Jecks/Embar/Torakus/whoever the exact same things when I'm on your side of the discussion. In short, you got butthurt and can't cope so have to resort to attacking me rather than my arguments.

Whiny? Uh, nope. Examples please. You're just making shit up (and whining too, whether you've got tears or not), Harlowe. In fact, your whole posting on this thread has been beneath your usual intelligent discourse.

I go from zero to asshole if I don't like something ANYBODY says. You're not special at all. Get over it.

Dd

[Lurker]

You are on Harlowe's side of the discussion; you just didn't like her tone and accused her of arguing by guilt trip.

Given your answer to my question, do you really believe that the people ranting against "entitlement whores" in the context of this thread are doing so for the noble goal of "faster improvement as the less effective groups die off"? Is that even a noble goal, or is it pure selfishness?

[Ddrak]

You are on Harlowe's side of the discussion; you just didn't like her tone and accused her of arguing by guilt trip.

I dunno about sides, but yes. This discussion seems to have more sides than my dice collection.

Given your answer to my question, do you really believe that the people ranting against "entitlement whores" in the context of this thread are doing so for the noble goal of "faster improvement as the less effective groups die off"? Is that even a noble goal, or is it pure selfishness?

First part: I think they are indirectly. I suspect they more hold to the belief that redistribution of wealth is generically bad and if they thought it through then they'd hit to the core goal of improvement through competition (go go Bab5 Shadows). I really don't think they are trying to be selfish in their motives, but more offering "tough love" in something they think will help people either come to grips with "personal responsibility" or suffer for not.

I don't think they're just complaining because their taxes are going to sick people, at least I hope not. I do tend to believe people aren't indiscriminately sociopathic.

Second part: I dunno about "noble" - that tends to imply caring and self-sacrifice. Improvement through competition is really about the ends justifying the means and I find that fundamentally distasteful. Not selfish, just amoral. Of course, it's a grey scale - sometimes you do let people suffer to learn a lesson because it's more effective, but in the case of health care it's often more serious than just a little suffering.

Dd