[gemeaux333]

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

That's not how insurance works. In what other industry do you insure against routine consumption as opposed to disaster? That is literally why prices are astronomical. Catastrophic insurance is the only health insurance that should exist.

Anyway Insurances are supposed to help anyone paying for them and have issues, not only those who have no problem, and this is where American Healthcare system is all wrong : cost a lot and bring low to no protection, refusing to cover because of pre-existing conditions, searching for falacious pretexts to deny cares even if it involve racism and sexism,, and from what anyone can gather the whole reality of this system is even worst than expected ans how its described in SICKO : if these insurences cannot ensure their benefits, they arbitrarily break contracts
And I won't mention the all brazzen hussies that are the representatives of these insurances, lately even one of them was bragging like "after all the efforts we put into evilising the healthcare system of other countries, we successfully lead the peoples of our country into the present disaster"

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

Sounds like communist propaganda but ok.

So predictable, but outside of US, any politician recognise the usefullness, healthiness and necessity of an universal healthcare no matter their policial sensibility !
And before you ask I am a conservative in my country, and being conservative doesn't prevent peoples of the right wing to have social, liberal and ecological components in their society project, the famillial/earth/heart/soul bound capitalism/liberalism is the only one worth to be mentionned, not this globalization/corporate/speculative monstrousity that is ravaging the world since 2007 (and possibly even before) !

[Hendricks266]

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 01:12 PM, said:

How do you think oxygen travels through a cloth mask? It's a permeable material.

Not sure if bait. Materials can be selectively permeable. Would you run a car without an oil filter? This reminds me strongly of idiots from my elementary school who knew for sure that deoxygenated blood in your veins is blue because veins look blue under your skin, duh!

[Jimmy]

High Treason, on 28 July 2020 - 01:31 AM, said:

Dude you don't fucking know me wahahhauhahfankenike (pukes on floor).

Yeah, nah, car drivers are total pussies, they smirk until you get off the bike, then they lock themselves in and try to hide under the steering wheel. They'll miss anyway because they're driving drunk, apparently. Kinda hard to catch a bike in a city, there's traffic and I can sail by it because filtering is legal here, there's literally nothing to stop me doing 40 along the edge of the opposing lane if the road is wide enough.

Cringe.

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 05:29 AM, said:

>wants the government out of the driver harassment business
>refuses to make compromises to put the responsibility back on the driver

The responsibility remains on the driver. If you drive recklessly, you are breaking the law. If you kill someone, you have broken the law. It's simple.

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 05:39 AM, said:

While I agree with Jimmy on principle, I think some things are just a matter of culture. There's a good argument to be made that driver's licenses are a restriction on personal freedoms. But they're accepted as a way of life in every civilized country and they probably help make the roads safer. Probably.

It's not a good argument. I'd believe it was about safety if the government didn't use it as an opportunity to make money off of it.
You didn't need a license to drive a horse and carriage. The founders didn't make any provisions for restrictions on travel. Licenses are inherently unconstitutional. The government maintains that driving is a "privilege." From where does this power to arbitrate such a thing come from? Am I really supposed to believe the founders couldn't have imagined future methods of travel?

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 06:19 AM, said:

i don't completely disagree with him
what i do disagree with is complaining about a problem, then automatically rejecting every possible solution short of burning the entire thing to the ground.

Might as well join the drum-circle at the portland courthouse

The problem is that the thing exists. Getting rid of it is the only solution.

I believe in law and order. The first step to law and order is making yourself lawful and orderly. If everyone learned and understood Natural Law then the world would be a better place.

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 06:49 AM, said:

Universal healthcare is not perfect, but have at least the merit to allow everyone to get cured when he is sick

Alfie Evans.

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 06:49 AM, said:

for the good reason that everybody is human and dignity and security always comes first ... true life is about what you give, not what you get !

These are meaningless platitudes. In over half of the world you'd be lucky not to get grabbed by some criminal and have you penis chopped off and shoved in your mouth. The world is not a place of safety. Your sense of safety is privileged and misguided.

Danukem, on 28 July 2020 - 11:11 AM, said:

Also, you do realize that we have accepted all kinds of regulations and inconveniences that don't offer much protection, right? People put up token resistance at first, then they give in and accept it. That's why I half-joked that in 10 years you will be saying that the mask requirement is fine.

Accepting tyranny does not make it right.

ck3D, on 28 July 2020 - 01:32 PM, said:

Which is equally important, isn't it?

Why is other people's health my responsibility. If you're so sickly that you cannot go into public places unless you're making everyone else's lives less, you're better off dead.

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 02:41 PM, said:

Anyway Insurances are supposed to help anyone paying for them

No it's not. Insurance companies are running a business. You're just dumb enough to fall for their marketing.

Hendricks266, on 28 July 2020 - 02:42 PM, said:

Would you run a car without an oil filter?

I'm sure a woman has done this.

[Danukem]

As for oxygen moving through masks -- the point is that you get the biggest viral loads in the larger droplets that people cough or exhale in their breath. A proper mask will admit only the smallest of those, which means if you do get it when wearing a proper mask, you are not getting a large viral load all at once. As discussed in the article I linked earlier, the latest research suggests that masks do help by reducing both the frequency and severity of infections compared with not wearing a mask. The reduction in severity is likely a result of the viral load being lower when the infection starts -- it takes time for the body to mount an effective response, and a lower initial load gives the body more time.

Healthcare works do not necessarily have time to follow the latest science and like all human beings they prioritize their day-to-day experience, which is anecdotal. I have several such acquaintances myself, and their views on covid are diverse. They are constantly in contact with a self-selected sample of people who got ill, who of course are going to tell them they were wearing masks. That tells us nothing about how severe those infections would have been had those people not worn masks or about all the people who successfully avoided symptoms because they wore masks and didn't have to seek medical care.

[Forge]

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 02:56 PM, said:

The responsibility remains on the driver. If you drive recklessly, you are breaking the law. If you kill someone, you have broken the law. It's simple.

you can play twister all day if you want. Your prerogative.

not talking about breaking laws and what should / should not be a law.

taking something inherently dangerous and multiplying that danger by an enormous magnitude should be prevented. If the drunk idiot was only a danger to themselves, I wouldn't give a fuck. The problem is, they are selfishly increasing the danger to everyone else, and they have no right to do that.

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 02:56 PM, said:

The problem is that the thing exists. Getting rid of it is the only solution.

I believe in law and order. The first step to law and order is making yourself lawful and orderl

conflating rules for safety with laws

by your convoluted thought process, it'd be perfectly fine to drive 90 through school zones right after school is released and ignore the pedestrian crossing right of way.
Shouldn't be a law, so who cares if a few kids die. I got to go fast.

Sorry chief. I can't sign up for that. I'd rather you be discouraged from doing that and letting the kids live, instead of letting you do you and punishing you afterwards.
Same applies to other danger multipliers - like drunk driving.

[Radar]

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 02:41 PM, said:

Anyway Insurances are supposed to help anyone paying for them and have issues, not only those who have no problem, and this is where American Healthcare system is all wrong : cost a lot and bring low to no protection, refusing to cover because of pre-existing conditions, searching for falacious pretexts to deny cares even if it involve racism and sexism,, and from what anyone can gather the whole reality of this system is even worst than expected ans how its described in SICKO : if these insurences cannot ensure their benefits, they arbitrarily break contracts
And I won't mention the all brazzen hussies that are the representatives of these insurances, lately even one of them was bragging like "after all the efforts we put into evilising the healthcare system of other countries, we successfully lead the peoples of our country into the present disaster"

So predictable, but outside of US, any politician recognise the usefullness, healthiness and necessity of an universal healthcare no matter their policial sensibility !

Sounds like grade A communist propaganda. Never mind the exaggerated shortcomings you listed because your own healthcare systems kill people daily. The reality is European healthcare is entirely subsidized by American R&D. If America adopted a single-payer healthcare system today, your own countries would be screwed. We're the driving force behind world innovation. We own the majority of patents in medicine and technology. We're a top destination for medical tourism. But Europeans are universally ignorant about this. "Who needs a market-based healthcare system? Who needs a military? We are so secure and peaceful without any of that. HAahaha dumb Ameritads!" Amuse all you want; America is the primary force protecting Europe from crumbling.

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 02:41 PM, said:

And before you ask I am a conservative in my country, and being conservative doesn't prevent peoples of the right wing to have social, liberal and ecological components in their society project, the famillial/earth/heart/soul bound capitalism/liberalism is the only one worth to be mentionned, not this globalization/corporate/speculative monstrousity that is ravaging the world since 2007 (and possibly even before) !

Still haven't realized that socialism is a force for globalization and corporatism.

Hendricks266, on 28 July 2020 - 02:42 PM, said:

Not sure if bait. Materials can be selectively permeable. Would you run a car without an oil filter? This reminds me strongly of idiots from my elementary school who knew for sure that deoxygenated blood in your veins is blue because veins look blue under your skin, duh!

No freaking duh dude. But gemeaux333's own "science" is wrong. Moisture can travel through masks. COVID-19 can travel through masks.

[Jimmy]

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 03:47 PM, said:

you can play twister all day if you want. Your prerogative.

not talking about breaking laws and what should / should not be a law.

taking something inherently dangerous and multiplying that danger by an enormous magnitude should be prevented. If the drunk idiot was only a danger to themselves, I wouldn't give a fuck. The problem is, they are selfishly increasing the danger to everyone else, and they have no right to do that.

Right, that's why you charge them with reckless driving, because that's what they are doing wrong.

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 03:47 PM, said:

conflating rules for safety with laws

What exactly am I conflating? I'm not against punishing drunk drivers. I'm against DUI laws.

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 03:47 PM, said:

by your convoluted thought process, it'd be perfectly fine to drive 90 through school zones right after school is released and ignore the pedestrian crossing right of way.
Shouldn't be a law, so who cares if a few kids die. I got to go fast.

This is a strawman. I would never advocate something like this.

[Hank]

Fox, on 28 July 2020 - 01:04 PM, said:

I'm not an expert, but it looks obvious to me that a barrier in front of you is going to protect you.

As MusicallyInspired wrote, (most) masks don't protect you.

https://www.wsj.com/...d=hp_lead_pos10
While some types of masks are more effective than others, public-health officials say any face covering, even a bandanna, is better than nothing.
And then it continues on which type and mask does what, and which type of mask may even protect you.

In short, you are supposed to wear a mask to protect others from yourself. The buzz word is asymptomatic people who may spread the virus, or if you are actually sick. Yet, like the lockdowns failed, so may those masks.

[Hendricks266]

The efficiency of a non-N95 mask can be improved by making sure the top edge is form-fitting to your nose and face by use of a metal strip. I got a 5-pack of washable cloth masks at the store for $7 with such a metal strip built in, and with a snug fit I can tell the mask is filtering air by how it bulges and retracts as I breathe. I have homemade masks too that lack a strip and for those I use a strip of aluminum foil folded repeatedly.

[Forge]

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 03:52 PM, said:

Right, that's why you charge them with reckless driving, because that's what they are doing wrong.

i would rather nobody's life was unnecessarily put in additional danger -thus prevention
proactively prevent drunk driving instead of reactive after somebody's already dead
and we don't need law enforcement involvement to do that


your conflating safety, and rules for safely operating a motor vehicle, with laws and cops cracking down on people
those two things are exclusive

we don't need draconian government extortion in order to force us to obey their unnecessary laws, but that doesn't mean people should be able to drive around any way they please without consideration for safety of themselves and especially the safety of others.

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 03:52 PM, said:

This is a strawman. I would never advocate something like this.

there is no difference between driving drunk and speeding recklessly - both put lives besides the driver's in danger.
so you do advocate for dangerous, potentially deadly behavior.
your stance is to punish after the fact. Somebody has to die first. I'd rather take steps to prevent that (without law enforcement involvement).

[Jimmy]

How do you punish someone for doing something before they do it? Sounds like 1984.

[Forge]

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 04:37 PM, said:

How do you punish someone for doing something before they do it? Sounds like 1984.

>conflates prevent with punish

[Danukem]

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 04:37 PM, said:

How do you punish someone for doing something before they do it? Sounds like 1984.

If you want to say that drunk driving is a form of reckless driving and should be punishable as reckless driving, then I don't know why there is still a debate. You are agreeing that it is punishable, just not as drunk driving per se.

I have the same objection to "hate" crimes. If something is a crime, then it's a crime -- I don't care whether the perpetrator hates the victim or not. Punishing the "hate" part is punishing a thought, and it can't be proven anyway.

[Jimmy]

Forge, on 28 July 2020 - 05:26 PM, said:

>conflates prevent with punish

Your point isn't clear so it's the only thing to assume.

Danukem, on 28 July 2020 - 05:36 PM, said:

If you want to say that drunk driving is a form of reckless driving and should be punishable as reckless driving, then I don't know why there is still a debate. You are agreeing that it is punishable, just not as drunk driving per se.

Yes. The charge already exists and covers the problem.

Danukem, on 28 July 2020 - 05:36 PM, said:

I have the same objection to "hate" crimes. If something is a crime, then it's a crime -- I don't care whether the perpetrator hates the victim or not. Punishing the "hate" part is punishing a thought, and it can't be proven anyway.

It's just the state assuming power it doesn't have so it can abuse people it doesn't like. Just like DUIs.

[Fox]

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 01:12 PM, said:

How do you think oxygen travels through a cloth mask? It's a permeable material.

A droplet is bigger than an oxygen molecule.

That said, masks aren't perfect, they just increase your protection.

[Forge]

furry master race

can't get sick if everyone in the yiff pile is wearing their fursona head

Fox, on 28 July 2020 - 06:57 PM, said:

they just increase your protection.

[High Treason]

Nah, furries just prefer to have their diseases enter through a different orifice is all.

[gemeaux333]

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 03:50 PM, said:

Sounds like grade A communist propaganda. Never mind the exaggerated shortcomings you listed because your own healthcare systems kill people daily. The reality is European healthcare is entirely subsidized by American R&D. If America adopted a single-payer healthcare system today, your own countries would be screwed. We're the driving force behind world innovation. We own the majority of patents in medicine and technology. We're a top destination for medical tourism. But Europeans are universally ignorant about this. "Who needs a market-based healthcare system? Who needs a military? We are so secure and peaceful without any of that. HAahaha dumb Ameritads!" Amuse all you want; America is the primary force protecting Europe from crumbling.

Pure bullshit, US laboratories are only removing dust from old patents, the only peoples doing any research there are universities, and France doesn't need any patent from the USA to work their medicine : we have our own historical patents and laboratories and they are way more productive, and the experiences from the nazis have strongly alowed the medical science to progress in europe way more than US ever did in an entire century !
And French Healthcare system is way less expensive than US one by a mile, both on the grounds of money and human lifes !

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 03:50 PM, said:

Still haven't realized that socialism is a force for globalization and corporatism.

Socialism is settling in big cities and nothing more ! They despise territories, their culture, their history and moral values, peasant world have no point for them ! There is no future in big cities, if you loose your land, you loose your soul !

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 03:50 PM, said:

No freaking duh dude. But gemeaux333's own "science" is wrong. Moisture can travel through masks. COVID-19 can travel through masks.

Pure bullshit again, moisture don't go through mask more than anything else aforementionned, especially if you wash with regularity !

[gemeaux333]

https://www.facebook...32080851293978/

[Danukem]

gemeaux333, on 28 July 2020 - 09:30 PM, said:

Pure bullshit, US laboratories are only removing dust from old patents, the only peoples doing any research there are universities, and France doesn't need any patent from the USA to work their medicine : we have our own historical patents and laboratories and they are way more productive, and the experiences from the nazis have strongly alowed the medical science to progress in europe way more than US ever did in an entire century !

https://www.ncbi.nlm...02/pdf/1075.pdf

That's just false. The USA creates far more new drugs than other countries, and not just "removing dust from old patents". More than a third of pharmaceutical innovation in the entire world is done in the USA. The next country down the list is the UK, which produces a fraction of what the USA does. France is reponsible for about 5%.

This is not surprising, when you consider that the USA is one of the few countries in the world where companies are allowed to make profits that more than make up for their research investments.

Quote

Objectives. We explored whether the United States, which does not regulate
pharmaceutical prices, is responsible for the development of a disproportionate
share of the new molecular entities (NMEs; a drug that does not contain an active
moiety previously approved by the Food and Drug Administration) produced
worldwide.
Methods. We collected data on NMEs approved between 1992 and 2004 and
assigned each NME to an inventor country. We examined the relation between
the proportion of total NMEs developed in each country and the proportion of
total prescription drug spending and gross domestic product (GDP) of each
country represented.
Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending
and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the
development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few
other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or
prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other
countries innovated less.

Depending on how you parse the data, the difference is even more dramatic: https://xconomy.com/...ts-complicated/

EDIT: I forgot to mention something very important, which is that a lot of research conducted at universities is paid for by for-profit companies. That includes public universities. So it's essentially corporate research -- the companies are just using the infrastructure of the universities to get it done, which makes sense.

[ck3D]

/Defiatron\, on 28 July 2020 - 02:56 PM, said:

Why is other people's health my responsibility. If you're so sickly that you cannot go into public places unless you're making everyone else's lives less, you're better off dead.

It doesn't have to be your responsibility but in the context of a community life, it has the option of being one of your concerns. Now being the next man too, I'm definitely in no position to say everyone should do this or that - on the daily, I too have some behaviors that are fundamentally selfish (in that they have more to do with my own natural right to individuality than the absolute common good), yet that I would probably go beyond reason to defend because I believe in my own abilities of control over the situation to render them harmless for anyone but possibly me. So on this very topic, you may not have to reaffirm your stance with me because I've read your posts and all considerations of form and occasional personal disagreement aside, I think I can visualize what you picture the stakes are and what you're trying to watch over and in that sense your critical thinking is legitimate.

For clearer communication and an overall better grasp on everybody's stance on the situation, I think it'd be good to mention how every single government has been presenting the situation to its people a different way. In a sense, the pandemic didn't even get to exist as an actual event before it was already being recuperated by literally everyone with an agenda (be it economical or political - that's potato/potato). Thus it is no wonder why everyone has been given different clues and no one is interpreting the situation the same on a cultural level. From what I've observed (far from just in this thread), it's definitely a concern to many in the U.S. that the whole hype surrounding Covid might be one more excuse for a direct attack on their fundamental rights, most likely because it was presented as one more of those spectacular catastrophic events designed to both polarize people and be blown out of realistic proportion for manipulation purposes from the get-go. Whereas in Europe, maybe due to a bigger variety of institutions communicating on the topic or a different form of governmental distrust, it seems be considered a better-safe-than-sorry type of situation by default and then wearing a mask only represents as much as wearing boots when there's supposedly a flood of shit outside and you don't want to risk being the guy smearing it around your friends' house. Then it doesn't affect one's ability to make a choice for themselves, or turn them into sheep - it's just something to do when in doubt. Anyway it's important to remember that we all have different not just interpretations, but basic representations of every aspect of the subject matter here depending on where we happen to be based. And that's where the core interest of this whole communication resides, otherwise it would only be an echo chamber vs. echo chamber, team vs. team fight and that's how your end up with truly sterile voices and the death of civilization.

It's pretty funny how the situation was presented here, too. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was some early communication over how masks weren't necessary and didn't do shit for as long as the industry wasn't able to match demand with supply. Then funds were unlocked, masks became available en masse and suddenly the official discourse changed onto how masks were crucial and really worked. Also national lockdown was only declared the very night after the municipal elections country-wide - up to that point everyone had been actively encouraged to go gather (in schools) to go vote despite the pandemic, and in the blink of an eye we got this paranoia-inducing presidential speech on how 'we're now at war'. Honestly when you're in the midst of such nonsense, it becomes obvious why people's clues can be all over the place and tempting to just give up on even trying to believe anything you hear and instead go back to relying on just basic logic and instincts such as empathy because everyone's agenda is so out there in plain sight that buying it makes no sense.

Here, as of recently, everyone legally has to wear masks in enclosed public places (like it was brought up earlier) but that's really due to our own people fucking up since the end of lockdown in the first place, at least in part. People have been gathering on café terraces with not the trace of a hint of consideration for social distancing in hundreds, when not gathering on packed beaches in thousands. It gets scary when you know you can carry the virus all the while being asymptomatic yet bring it onto your close ones. Paying the price for the stupidity of others suck, but sometimes wishing for the contrary is expecting too much. I kind of slack on the practice myself - I keep reusing the same few masks and only wear them inside shops where I legally have to. I just wash my hands coming back home, but that's just because I try not to be the dirty animal I can be. Still seeing friends although it's tempting to stay away from the wilder and more social ones, as well as the most vulnerable; still traveling around the country and doing things like normal. The mask only becomes a minor annoyance when you have to wear it non-stop, say, on a six-hour train ride; personally I'm not too concerned about the carbon dioxide as realistically we don't need any mask or even pandemic to breathe in tons of equally toxic shit on the streets on the daily. Again, it's more of a common sense thing and where one personally chooses to draw the line. Really, the only difference in my daily life but the awareness of a few new behaviors and factors to consider is the economy in general having tanked, but the situation has also been exploited by most actors as a fallacious excuse to reorientate or recuperate budgets. It's only natural at this point to stop believing (all) the hype, and instead nurture one's individualistic tendencies, which doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with being completely careless.

[Radar]

I'm not saying a single-payer healthcare system can't "work", as these systems do exist in Europe for better or worse. But they are enabled in these countries due to their low population, homogeneous (white) culture, and America being the source of the plurality if not majority of world healthcare innovation, not to mention healthcare subsidies.

[gemeaux333]

Danukem, on 28 July 2020 - 09:59 PM, said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...02/pdf/1075.pdf

That's just false. The USA creates far more new drugs than other countries, and not just "removing dust from old patents". More than a third of pharmaceutical innovation in the entire world is done in the USA. The next country down the list is the UK, which produces a fraction of what the USA does. France is reponsible for about 5%.

This is not surprising, when you consider that the USA is one of the few countries in the world where companies are allowed to make profits that more than make up for their research investments.

Depending on how you parse the data, the difference is even more dramatic: https://xconomy.com/...ts-complicated/

EDIT: I forgot to mention something very important, which is that a lot of research conducted at universities is paid for by for-profit companies. That includes public universities. So it's essentially corporate research -- the companies are just using the infrastructure of the universities to get it done, which makes sense.

Dead wrong and wopping lies ! Laboratories in US are only removing dust and making profit over old patents, if there's medical research and new medicines its only because of universities, any honest/serious expert admit it, and Laboratories methods are just as underhanded as when embargo were blocking essential medicines for Cuba !

R A D A Я, on 29 July 2020 - 03:27 AM, said:

I'm not saying a single-payer healthcare system can't "work", as these systems do exist in Europe for better or worse. But they are enabled in these countries due to their low population, homogeneous (white) culture, and America being the source of the plurality if not majority of world healthcare innovation, not to mention healthcare subsidies.

Dead wrong and wopping lies too ! Healthcare systems in europe are bound to history, created after World War II and by necessity, they are definitly not bound to any demography, ethnicity or medical progress matters, and subsidies are also a part of the Sweiss healthcare (that would be a good alternative in the US if a soft transition was chosen) !
No country in europe would have been crazy enough to let USA take a too big place in the post WWII reconstruction efforts !

And when it comes to medical tourism, Canada, France, Germany, or even Cuba will always be more attractive than the US healthcare system only acting as a scarecrow, any person in the right mind would never even risk spend vacations or doing tourism in there without having suscribed a proper insurance in their own country, no one is crazy enough to take the risk of having to pay a 500/600k $ bill if an accident that need hospitalisation happens !
And how would you explain/justify that the bad guys in Guantanamo bays are way better insured than medium class citizens (at this rate, better be the bad guys), and that any medicines in Cuba only costs a few cents when the sames are costing hundreds of dollars in US and litterally creepling already low wages while the necessity of these medicines aren't decreasing over time ? And when it comes to the aforementionned medicines that used to be blocked in Cuba because of embargo, nothing justify having children not having access to these as no children have any ideology !

A simple lesson from Aleida Gevarra (the daughter of the Che Gevarra), who is a nurse herself and a quiet reasonable person despite the reputation of her father : the more wealth a country is producing, the better a country must take care of the well being of its citizens !

[Aristotle Gumball]

Just a quick aside, but I don't think we should ban people who offend us, but people who are stupid. I'm an intellectual elitist (can I be a nazi and a communist at the same time?). I have no issue with right wingers and some of them can attest to the fact that I can "agree to disagree" without resorting to ad hominems (hello Ninety-Six), but I fucking hate people who do this:

Hendricks266, on 27 July 2020 - 12:59 PM, said:

In order, Jimmy's post consists of:

• unfalsifiable claim
  
• false claim + opinion on methods
  
• unsubstantiated claim
  
• questioning my claim, fairly
  
• false claim
  
• declining an invitation to elaborate

R A D A Я, on 28 July 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

Sounds like communist propaganda but ok.

First give a warning, followed by posts being removed, and finally a ban. I'm not offended by views, but by people who cannot or are unwilling to employ reason when they argue.

[MusicallyInspired]

Dude. Nobody cares how you'd run this place.

I will say that both my wife and sister have been mandated not to use cloth masks at work because they aren't near as effective at filtering as official ones.

[Aristotle Gumball]

MusicallyInspired, on 29 July 2020 - 07:41 AM, said:

Dude. Nobody cares how you'd run this place.

Well, I don't care that you don't care, so I'll keep talking about it I guess.

I also think we should re-decorate and replace the giant nuclear symbol with a hammer and sickle.

[Forge]

Danukem, on 28 July 2020 - 09:59 PM, said:

More than a third of pharmaceutical innovation in the entire world is done in the USA.

This is not surprising, when you consider that the USA is one of the few countries in the world where companies are allowed to make profits that more than make up for their research investments.

part of the problem (besides not letting medicare negotiate prices), is that the US citizens have to pay big pharma more because of advertising costs, and the US citizens also have to cover the costs of big pharma selling their products to foreign nations that can negotiate and get the product for dirt cheap.

They don't care if they sell their pills in France for $1 at a 50% loss when they can charge US citizens $6 and make a 200% profit. Taken into consideration population and medication usage; they're still making billions of dollars.

Big pharma also throttles the flow of cheaper generics in the US.

[Danukem]

@Cart: I think your standards would exclude too many people. gameaux333 for example just replied to my peer-reviewed linked article and summary by declaring it a bunch of lies, reiterating the claim about universities while ignoring that I had just addressed that very point in my post that he was quoting. Nevermind that any google search will confirm what I was saying. My point is, if you ban the people who won't engage in real critical thought/debate (either because they refuse or because they are incapable) then you will end up banning a lot of people and probably create a worse culture than the one you are trying to cleanse. I also don't think there are many people in the world who can be trusted to ban all and only those who don't use reason. I would barely trust myself to do that, and in my experience even most highly intelligent people will be biased in application. They will be biased when the standards are low, too, but at least erring on the side free expression. Yes, it's annoying to have idiots shouting at you from time to time, but I still think it's better than the alternative you propose (that's not to say that there is no middle ground alternative, though).

[Forge]

Danukem, on 29 July 2020 - 08:20 AM, said:

if you ban the people who won't engage in real critical thought/debate

the first person on the chopping block is Dan, for taking cheap bait that was pushed through the railing

dicks out for Dan

[Danukem]

Forge, on 29 July 2020 - 08:40 AM, said:

the first person on the chopping block is Dan, for taking cheap bait that was pushed through the railing