HOLY F-ING SHIT!
First, let me handle the obvious: Your replies (bagorange and dbill) seem to indicate that you are under the illusion that I am a bible-thumpin’ Warrior of God who has forsaken sex that I might instruct you wicked men in the holy ways of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
Nothing could be further from the truth: Although I see some value in religion, its benefits are too often obscured by the sensationalist presentation of the dark lacunae therein. This post is not about that, so engage me on what I mean another time instead of hurling rage.
Now, on to the meat of your ignorant commentary.
My original post in this thread was a rebuttal to the notion that obesity rates were the result solely of a medical condition and should be treated as such. When the lifestyle and eating habits of the Japanese are compared to that of an American (as you did), you can see the difference: The Japanese culture has always been one to favor moderation and motion, the Americans favor excess consumption and sedentary lifestyle . This is made more clear when you factor in uniquely American phrases as “Couch Potato” “Supersize” and “Armchair quarterback” to describe a great mass of humanity that would rather sit on their couch—inactive and not burning calories—than go out for a walk with their (also fat) dog.
Oh, they could move if they wanted to. I, for one, know I should be working more on managing my lifestyle to include more “healthful” decisions, but ultimately, I choose where I spend my precious time. Sometimes I think it’s better spent replying to threads on slashdot in the hope blind hate gives way to understanding. In any event, the point is Americans are known for excess, and their exaltation of it despite possible consequence. A cure for disease or obesity is only an operation or pill away. And it’s sad that the mindset is “fix it down the road” instead of “keep an eye on the little shit before it becomes big shit” Zen way of thinking.
As evidence,I presented the words and actions of the person who is the face of the current healthcare debate in America. Actual words, spoken by the president, carefully researched because I wanted the quote to be accurate—Because it matters.
Words DO matter. Believe it or not, they are supposed to mean something.
What Barry clearly meant was that abortion should exist as a birth control measure. Read the words back again because I cross checked this quote a few times to ensure I got it right and couldn’t be accused of misrepresenting this position:
“I’ve got two daughters.” = “I have two kids”
“I am going to teach them first of all about morals and values” = “I will teach them right from wrong, and about paying for your actions”
“But, if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” = If they ignore my teachings, and spread their legs at the wrong time, maybe even promiscuously, it’s cool with me if they scrape their innards or imbibe chemicals (organic food, but not people? Really, Barry?) to prevent a natural consequence of their action. To Protect them from The payment for their deeds.
Now, it’s bad enough B.O. equates a baby with punishment (I’m sure his daughters love that phrasing), and I suppose for a lot of people children are. The point I’m trying to make is that having a baby should NOT be a “punishment,” nor should pregnancy be taken lightly. It’s not just life, but the continuation of life, of human life, and to regard it as just so much bad tissue is abhorrent. I find it ironic that the crowd that generally loathes the death penalty has no problem with abortion as birth control.
What you read (“permitting abortion is handing responsibility to the state”) is absolutely not what I wrote, and the fact you read it that way loudly proclaims your inability to grasp the concept I am trying to convey, which is this: All kinds of risky behavior is given a nod and wink in our society, that behavior damages us all, and pretending that it doesn’t is only making things worse.
I admit the wording of my third paragraph is confusing, and I did conflate his actions on health care regulations with his infamous “baby as punishment” speech. For that I apologize, but I do not retract it. As previously stated, he has affirmed his belief in abortion as birth control, and now, in action, forcing abortificant coverage in “federally approved” insurance plans does, in fact, place abortion under state control.
Because, you see, federally approved insurance plans are eligible for subsidy. (A subsidy in this instance is money from the government to cover the costs the recipient cannot, not a two year contract for an iPhone 5s). By its nature, a subsidy is paid for by people who do not agree with what’s being subsidized. Some will, some won’t, but that’s what it is, and there is no evading that. The Action the Democrats, and Obama took is to force every insurer—and by extension, every coerced, unwilling consumer—to provide a service that not everyone agrees with, and that even less people agree is a valid form of birth control.
How would you feel if you had to pay a tax to ensure all gay people were sterilized and “cured” of their “disease”? Perhaps a proper use of your money would be to put down blind people because they are every bit as inconvenient (at this point, anyway) as Malia’s 2-month baby-bump. You are so concerned with what I think of abortion you feel the need to force your opinion as my law, and THAT is the moral hazard of Obamacare. Just because the guy you like now runs the country, things can turn on a dime and what you call a poetry slam today is tomorrow’s “terrorist militia.”
Now, you seem pretty certain I”m wrong about free condoms, but I notice you left out the part about banker bailouts. Aside from confirming your ability to see only what makes you mad, your choice in clippings demonstrates a willing ignorance to the existence of human nature, and what I wrote. As readily as a banker will take extra and bigger risks if she knows the government will bail her out, providing free condoms sends the message that it’s okay to throw down whenever. How much this affects people can’t be clearly determined (And, yes, I am aware of studies and have looked into it previously).
When you wail about how media is force-feeding people, then ignore that same media’s entreats to sexual care-free hedonism, you’re being intellectually dishonest. You can’t say people behave one way at media’s behest, but not the other way, it doesn’t fly. It’s human nature. In a similar misdirection, you, bagorange, have misrepresented what I wrote by ignoring the intention I had in linking risky banking to free condoms: If you think there’s a “free” way to not pay for your risky behavior you will more likely do it.
It’s human nature, and indeed, kind of a long standing theme in literature. Statistically significant, I’d say
In other words, your are more likely to jump out of an airplane if you have a parachute than if you don’t. Well, Duh. This goes for Banking and Banging. I don’t think the state—me—should have pay for the parachute. If you want to jump, you pay for it, that’s your cost of living, and why we’re all pissed at the bankers and their paid-for politicians.
As far as I know, there is no reliable statistic on “likelihood of risks taken when offered free condoms,” and that wasn’t the point of the original post. That being said, I do take issue with your straw-man: I never said access to contraception is a bad thing, nor have I implied it doesn’t help prevent pregnancy, and STD’s. And, really, where have I said that no one should have access to contraception, or abortion for that matter? The point here is FREE—as in beer— contraception, which isn’t really free but paid for by the state and, therefore, by people who don’t agree with the policy.
Hey, if YOU want to give out condoms, and YOU want to engage the community, by all means do so. I’m pretty cool about that, and glad you do because, as you say, it reduces STD’s and unwanted preggers. But don’t drag my wallet into it, I’d much rather have more money to spend on MY health—My responsibility. If I have money left over, or, more importantly, TIME, I’ll spend it on helping other people, preferably those that are actually working to raise themselves (in every sense of the word) rather than blindly throwing money to the wind.
Now, you prattle on about presuming I”m “Christian”, complete with scare quotes to indicate your settled prejudice. Aside from being bigoted and intolerant, this demonstrates even more your stubborn refusal to address the point of my comment: people who live badly should have to pay for it themselves. Why should your hypothetical less-well-off person, that “not rich” guy, have to pay for Slobbo Gorilla’s unnecessarily high healthcare costs?
Even worse, it removes the nobility of helping others. How sad. Instead of enticing good works by pointing out the need for it you rely on forcing people to do you bidding so you can feel good about yourself. Would you really appreciate being forced to subsidize the life-long HIV treatments of a hypocritical evangelist who should have know better? Really?
Finally, let’s revisit this whole “Socialist” thing, shall we? My critique on that point is about the Doctor/patient relationship, and how a third party in between will necessarily drive up price and reduce quality of care. Beyond that, you aver that Nixons expansion made things better? Just because Nixon expanded state involvement in healthcare doesn’t make it automatically better. He covered up a break-in of DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, and severed our last connection to a gold standard, allowing the Federal Reserve to so wholly control the monetary supply. By your reasoning, you’re cool with that? I guess that’s why Obama continues Bush’s drone war in the mid-east, and expanded surveillance?
Saying that somebody else did it so it must be okay is a kid’s game. You bring up England, ignoring people who despise that system, you turn a blind eye to the countries that are hemorrhaging cash because socialist policies keep ‘em in the red, all to buttress your weakly made point. Those that do fare better for their citizens either forbid chewing gum or demand exorbitant taxes that would chafe the most die-hard liberal’s diet for iPads and phat rides. Or both.
But you ignore the elephant in the room: putting more bureaucracy in the mix will make it worse, not better.What we had just before the ACA was not only Nixon’s fuck-up, it was the HMO legislation of the 80’s, more meddling in the 90’s, and for god’s sake, George Freakin’ W Bush’s dipshit antics in the 00’s. And, Merciful Mohammed, you even completely ignored my commentary on the legal structure that enabled and enables insurance companies to do what they’ve been doing for years to come under the auspices of law.
Nothing says bigot more than ignoring outright the protestations of what you obviously consider an inferior class. Except, maybe, misrepresenting their position so you can feel like you got your digs in.
Kind of like a racist.