3 ms·

Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as:

by timje1 13y ago

Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."

netcan 13y ago
I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.
mattlutze 13y ago
I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.
- netcan 13y ago
  Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.

by timje1 13y ago

Seconding your objection. "in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system..." To most of the world this reads as: "in first world nations..."

netcan 13y ago

I don't even see it as a nonsensical statement. Public healthcare does create a public interest in public health and a minor conflict with free society. But to extrapolate from that places with public health are slave societies where everything goes so stop complaining about freedom is the most annoying kind of extremist logic. It's like listening to mullahs and rabbis talk about how since you are all a debaucherous bunch anyway with your shorts and music videos, surly you shouldn't be complaining about child molesters.

mattlutze 13y ago

I can't reply to netcan unfortunately -- this isn't a conclusion that the British people are a "slave society", that's a distraction. I'm saying that, if a government has the power to make decisions that affect the heath of its population, it's probably going to make decisions under the guise of that power. I'm not saying that I think it's a good decision - I feel quite in line with the majority voice here that it's a Bad Idea.

netcan 13y ago
Sorry to pull the conversation in an uncivil direction. If you do think this is a bad idea why would you voice that opinion. If I can restate it in a less divisive way it's that as the UK Government is responsible for health, they need to have a say on (all?) things which potentially affect the mental health of UK citizens. You are (I assume based on your rhetoric) against public health services on those grounds - the loss of freedom. That frames the whole discussion in an extremist way: IE that those of us rejecting censorship are extremists and we see a choice between welfare societies (which are what the public want in most of Europe) with benefits like public schooling & healthcare or a free society without censorship. That's what I mean by extremist. I also think it's a false choice. We can have healthcare and a free internet. The connection between those two things would be difficult to explain to someone without a fundamentalist mindset to begin with. I can't even imagine a pro-censorship person making it though I can see them making a utilitarian mental health argument (Porn causes mental health issues and that is bad). In any practical sense there is no connection.