O'Reilly Explains Canada's Health System -Fucking Hilarious!

[Samuel]

They are using freedom to mean freedon of action, which is bullshit. Freedom for sane people means freedom from arbitrary restraint.

It is the difference between the government banning citizens from making their own nukes and the government banning citizens from dying their hair blue.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder how common BillO's sort of "logic" really is. I recently had a run-in with some idiot from a small town called Regina, which has a murder rate several times as high as the murder rate of Toronto. When I refuted his bullshit about Toronto's high violence level with the statistical murder rate of his own home town, he retorted that "Per-capita murder rates are highly misleading in this case because Regina has a much smaller population than Toronto".

They teach the concept of mathematical averages in grade 7 or 8 around here. I can only take this to mean that a lot of people are literally operating at a math skill level below grade 8.

[Rawtooth]

That sort of "logic" is very common from what I have seen. People really are that stupid. It would be interesting to do a study though and see if it's wide-spread or not.

[ray245]

They teach the concept of mathematical averages in grade 7 or 8 around here. I can only take this to mean that a lot of people are literally operating at a math skill level below grade 8.

Considering the fact that a large amount of people throw away what they learned in school once they enter the work force, I won't be surprised if so many people cannot remember the concept of mathematical averages.

[Samuel]

They teach the concept of mathematical averages in grade 7 or 8 around here. I can only take this to mean that a lot of people are literally operating at a math skill level below grade 8.

Considering the fact that a large amount of people throw away what they learned in school once they enter the work force, I won't be surprised if so many people cannot remember the concept of mathematical averages.

I know, but this is extremely basic. It is like not being able to understand fractions. Are people really that dumb?

[Serafina]

They teach the concept of mathematical averages in grade 7 or 8 around here. I can only take this to mean that a lot of people are literally operating at a math skill level below grade 8.

Considering the fact that a large amount of people throw away what they learned in school once they enter the work force, I won't be surprised if so many people cannot remember the concept of mathematical averages.

I know, but this is extremely basic. It is like not being able to understand fractions. Are people really that dumb?

Well...somewhat. They would propably understand it IF they thought about it - but they do not do it, because their "conclusion" fits their beliefs.
Of course, there ARE some pretty stupid people who would be unable of thinking about it.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

They all seem to view the morality of a certain action in terms of the method in which it's obtained, rather than the end result. If 10,000 people are saved through government intervention, then that's bad because the government is limiting choice and personal responsibility. If 10,000 people die through government inaction, then that's the natural order of things because those people are taking personal responsibility for the choices that they made.

The vast majority of people I've seen deal with the subject believe the concept of the end justifying the means (as in, any consequential ethics system) is only used as a whitewashing justification for morally bankrupt people. I think in most people's minds, actions and intents are what define the ethics of a situation, rather than results, despite the fact that those systems have to be convoluted to give typical results (killing is wrong, but eating meat is okay; killing is wrong, but war can be justified, etc.). There's also the general feeling that inaction carries no moral weight, so you get these sorts of feelings.

[Surlethe]

I wonder what US life expectancy is when the South is taken out of the average.

In any case, it is silly to build a positive argument for universal health care solely on a direct comparison of life expectancies because there are so many lifestyle factors that influence the death rate but in turn do not directly depend on the quality of that health care - for example, eating habits, air pollution, car accident rates, etc. Better to build a case on things like the 2003 New England Journal of Medicine article that shows the Canadian system spends significantly less, or the 2007 Open Medicine study that showed little to no difference in quality of care between the Canadian and US systems.

[Themightytom]

Thats the worst part of the healthcare debate, is that we LITERALLY have to explain why no system with no chance of success should be replaced by a system with both a chance of failing AND a chance of success.

It seems like a bizarre pascal's wager actually O.o

I was in class the other night and we were discussing substance abuse treatment statistics and the instructor had found a comparative study detailing how much it costs to send someone to prison for using a controlled susbtance versus how much it would cost to put them in a substance abuse treatment center versus a nonmedical detox and it became pretty obvious we are ejaculating resources into a justice system statistically proven to fail.

[Patrick Degan]

True. The same person also told me that a shop having a sign at the front saying "it is a condition of entry to this store that your bags may be checked as you leave" violated your basic freedom of choice - namely, the freedom to make the choice to steal from that shop, because you might get caught.

They all seem to view the morality of a certain action in terms of the method in which it's obtained, rather than the end result. If 10,000 people are saved through government intervention, then that's bad because the government is limiting choice and personal responsibility. If 10,000 people die through government inaction, then that's the natural order of things because those people are taking personal responsibility for the choices that they made.

To boil it down to it's most basic: the lolbertarian concept of society and rights/freedoms is that of a child's —being the unlimited license to do whatever the fuck they please at any time in any place. Anything less than that is "government oppression" or "socialism".

[Simon_Jester]

Well...somewhat. They would propably understand it IF they thought about it - but they do not do it, because their "conclusion" fits their beliefs.

This is a factor. For nearly every person, there are some issues on which the little voice in your head that goes "Wait. Shit. That doesn't make any sense. Did I just say that?" gets turned off.

To boil it down to it's most basic: the lolbertarian concept of society and rights/freedoms is that of a child's —being the unlimited license to do whatever the fuck they please at any time in any place. Anything less than that is "government oppression" or "socialism".

There's a nasty tendency to combine this with the mistake of assuming that "freedom" means my freedom, specifically, to do whatever it is that I want. Thus, the hypocrite reasons, my state can have a "right" to own slaves, but the slave does not have a "right" to choose not to be owned.

Question: do you believe there is a difference between the thing you call lolbertarianism and the thing that some (somewhere) call libertarianism? Is there non-stupid libertarianism, in your opinion?

[Elfdart]

In a discussion on another forum I heard what I believe to be the best lolbertarian response to this:

America's low life expectency is a consequence of the freedom of Americans to choose unhealthy lifestyles (and murder each other), and that countries with longer life expectancies were so because they were socialist hellholes where healthy diet was imposed by The Government.

Does this fucktard really think the French government (for example) forces people to stop drinking, smoking and eating fatty foods?

[Patrick Degan]

Question: do you believe there is a difference between the thing you call lolbertarianism and the thing that some (somewhere) call libertarianism? Is there non-stupid libertarianism, in your opinion?

Classical libertarianism was orignally a socialistic movement: essentially predicated upon the theory of creating a system of voluntary association for group benefit without a state authority. It was about as unworkable as any other form of anarchism because, in the end, you do need a state mechanism to organise society and enforce the laws that bind it into a cohesive whole and (ideally) protect the lives and liberties of the people, but as opposed to what we deride here as "lolbertarianism", libertarian socialism (and it's cousin, left-libertarianism) recognises the concept of society and the greater good of the whole even while also advocating maximum practicable individual liberty. This is pretty much how libertarianism is understood in the rest of the world. Only in the United States, it seems, when the name and ideology were co-opted by anticommunist John Birchers, free-market radicals and Randroids did it mutate over the years into lolbertarianism.

[Surlethe]

It should be noted that even within "lolbertarianism" there is a wide range of beliefs. You have relatively 'soft' libertarians like Friedman - and even within the 'soft' libertarian camp, there are different schools of thought, such as the Monetarists and the Austrians - and then the 'hard' lolbertarians like Rand. An econ prof told me last year that Randroids sometimes attack Friedman for being a socialist(!) simply for acknowledging that government has to exist and interfere in the workings of the private sector.

[Darth Wong]

To boil it down to it's most basic: the lolbertarian concept of society and rights/freedoms is that of a child's —being the unlimited license to do whatever the fuck they please at any time in any place. Anything less than that is "government oppression" or "socialism".

Indeed. It is hard to look at the ravings of lolbertarians and visualize anything other than a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because he can't have everything he wants. They view government as a parent, but like a stupid spoiled child, they are incapable of recognizing any good that they receive from this relationship; they only see the control, and rail against it.

Really, you can make pretty much any institution look bad if you rant continuously about its negative side while ignoring its positive side. One could easily rant for hours about the evils of the police, in the same manner.

[Vympel]

Ah what the hell, it's hilarious and on topic re: libertarianism

(from the same guys who brought you the Texas secession video)

[TheKwas]

I wonder how common BillO's sort of "logic" really is. I recently had a run-in with some idiot from a small town called Regina, which has a murder rate several times as high as the murder rate of Toronto. When I refuted his bullshit about Toronto's high violence level with the statistical murder rate of his own home town, he retorted that "Per-capita murder rates are highly misleading in this case because Regina has a much smaller population than Toronto".

They teach the concept of mathematical averages in grade 7 or 8 around here. I can only take this to mean that a lot of people are literally operating at a math skill level below grade 8.

Regina's per-capita murder rate can be misleading in some cases because minor year-by-year variations (say an increase of 4 murders overall) can lead to relatively large differences in that years per-capita murder rate. However, considering that Regina's rate consistently hovers around double Toronto's, the person in question is not only terrible at math, he's extremely ignorant of just how bad his own city is (probably because he's white and lives in the North-end).

Lastly, Regina is a city, not a small town.

[Aaron]

Canada has a healthy diet? Poutin anyone?

I know that's a joke but poutine isn't a universal thing. I never even heard of it before I moved to Ontario.

[Darth Wong]

Regina's per-capita murder rate can be misleading in some cases because minor year-by-year variations (say an increase of 4 murders overall) can lead to relatively large differences in that years per-capita murder rate. However, considering that Regina's rate consistently hovers around double Toronto's, the person in question is not only terrible at math, he's extremely ignorant of just how bad his own city is (probably because he's white and lives in the North-end).

He kept pointing out how he can walk down his street at night without fear of being stabbed. Of course, he refused to believe that I can do the same, and in fact I routinely do, since I've never gotten stabbed while walking my dog at night. That whole "I can walk down my street without being afraid" line is actually an appeal to his own emotional state rather than any kind of empirical facts, which is unfortunately how these peoples' minds work.

Lastly, Regina is a city, not a small town.

You know you're speaking to a Torontonian. Regina is a small town

[Junghalli]

The vast majority of people I've seen deal with the subject believe the concept of the end justifying the means (as in, any consequential ethics system) is only used as a whitewashing justification for morally bankrupt people. I think in most people's minds, actions and intents are what define the ethics of a situation, rather than results, despite the fact that those systems have to be convoluted to give typical results (killing is wrong, but eating meat is okay; killing is wrong, but war can be justified, etc.). There's also the general feeling that inaction carries no moral weight, so you get these sorts of feelings.

I think you're right. You can see this demonstrated very well when you invoke scenarios where consequentialist ethics would require unsavory acts to achieve a greater good. You get tons of people howling about how such an act is totally unjustifiable and you're a sick fuck for defending it, even though the consequences of not doing it are worse than the consequences of doing it. There are tons people who seem to think that "doing the right thing" is only tangentially related to how much suffering your actions actually create and prevent.

Partially you can probably thank popular fiction for that, as authors often like to shade their villains with some degree of Well Intentioned Extremist or Knight Templar, but I think also our brains just aren't really wired for consequentialist ethics. Rather like critical and scientific thought, rational ethics is a learned skill that takes effort and has a tendency to contradict the things we instinctively "know" by gut feeling.

[Samuel]

I think you're right. You can see this demonstrated very well when you invoke scenarios where consequentialist ethics would require unsavory acts to achieve a greater good. You get tons of people howling about how such an act is totally unjustifiable and you're a sick fuck for defending it, even though the consequences of not doing it are worse than the consequences of doing it. There are tons people who seem to think that "doing the right thing" is only tangentially related to how much suffering your actions actually create and prevent.

The fun part is where you bring up warfare afterward. You have to love cognitive dissonance.

as authors often like to shade their villains with some degree of Well Intentioned Extremist or Knight Templar,

In all due fairness it is partially because villians who think they are doing the right thing are more interesting that complete monsters. After all, it done well, it bring up an important question- How do you know they are wrong?

[Junghalli]

In all due fairness it is partially because villians who think they are doing the right thing are more interesting that complete monsters. After all, it done well, it bring up an important question- How do you know they are wrong?

Plus it's pretty realistic. I don't doubt many Nazis (for example) genuinely believed they were doing the right thing.

[LaCroix]

In all due fairness it is partially because villians who think they are doing the right thing are more interesting that complete monsters. After all, it done well, it bring up an important question- How do you know they are wrong?

Plus it's pretty realistic. I don't doubt many Nazis (for example) genuinely believed they were doing the right thing.

To my knowledge (talks to my grandparents) most were totally unaware of the cruelty. They did see some guys cleaning streets in the beginnings and thought they had to do communal work for something. Later, they were told that the people were deported to the US or work camps. But they thought hard factory labor, not stuff like the camps actually were. The propaganda was massive, and most did think that they were actually doing the world a favor.

Just think what would have happened if someone would have started to arrest all bankers in mid-crisis. I believe most people would have gone with that, or the communist whitch hunts in the US. People are easily led onto a slippery slope, and once they are on it, only few manage to jump off.

[ray245]

They all seem to view the morality of a certain action in terms of the method in which it's obtained, rather than the end result. If 10,000 people are saved through government intervention, then that's bad because the government is limiting choice and personal responsibility. If 10,000 people die through government inaction, then that's the natural order of things because those people are taking personal responsibility for the choices that they made.

The vast majority of people I've seen deal with the subject believe the concept of the end justifying the means (as in, any consequential ethics system) is only used as a whitewashing justification for morally bankrupt people. I think in most people's minds, actions and intents are what define the ethics of a situation, rather than results, despite the fact that those systems have to be convoluted to give typical results (killing is wrong, but eating meat is okay; killing is wrong, but war can be justified, etc.). There's also the general feeling that inaction carries no moral weight, so you get these sorts of feelings.

Exactly. Most people don't attempt to understand why is something good or bad. They view those who attempt to do so as people who has too much free time on their hands or take things too seriously.

This isn't something that is exclusive to Americans only.

[Lord MJ]

To be fair about the "intents."

My opinion on the matter is that "actions" are ethically neutral. "Results" are the most important. And "Intents" (well reasonable intents anyway) do have an influence on the ethics of a course of action. For example if someone has the intent to cause a positive result, he has a reasonable and informed belief that those positive results will occur, and instead a harmful result occurs, has he really done anything unethical?

Unfortunately the way our society looks at things, in that actions are more important than results in determining right and wrong, committing an action that is considered "wrong" due to a positive intent, that produces a harmful result, are considered the worst crimes (aside from commiting an action that is considered wrong, with bad intentions that causes harmful results.) Because not only are you committing a "wrong" action, the results produced are harmful.

The flaw in this reasoning is that someone committing an action that is viewed as perfectly fine, with bad intentions, that produces a harmful result is viewed as less wrong (or possibly even perfectly fine) than a harmful result produced by good intentions.