fargolime

11 ms·

61.
by fargolime 12y ago
No I don't. It's "good" to support the best viable way to prevent greater violence, even if that way involves violence. These things are clear: torture is rarely the best viable way, and it's been used unnecessarily
62.
by fargolime 12y ago
I looked only at the first one. It contradicts sources I saw back in the day. Regardless whether I'm right, the point stands that good 3rd party voters can hand the election to the greater evil.
63.
by fargolime 12y ago
Voters have an ethical responsibility to gauge the goodness of the viable choices. It was clear in 2000 and 2004 what the best choice was. It isn't hypocritical to be for drone assassinations where that's the best viable way to pr
64.
by fargolime 12y ago
That's the old "if you're intolerant against intolerance, you're intolerant yourself" argument. A good person is against all forms of evil, and can't be made "bad" that way. I don't have a proble
65.
by fargolime 12y ago
> It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. The result of refusing to participate is that you lose even more freedom to
66.
by fargolime 12y ago
If you are for closing Gitmo (or at least the nefarious aspects of it) and you didn't vote for the greater evil party, you are blameless on that matter, regardless whether your representatives only pretend to care.
67.
by fargolime 12y ago
Ah, but my choice is for good, not evil, and harms no one. Sorry, but you'll not find a hole in my logic regarding ethics; it's flawless.
68.
by fargolime 12y ago
Pretty ridiculous to suggest that supporting torture might be needed to feed one's family. In reality it's easy to be against torture and other evils.
69.
by fargolime 12y ago
Voting third party, or not voting, wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. For example, Bush wouldn't have been elected in 2000 had liberal Nader votes voted for Gore instead. If a third party was dominant on voting day
70.
by fargolime 12y ago
> So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to vi
71.
by fargolime 12y ago
I say they are lacking empathy. If you support a consequence for someone who burgles your house, by the same token you should support a consequence for someone who supports torture. Obviously (unless you're lacking empathy) your job or
72.
by fargolime 12y ago
Citation won't be given. Downvote instead (it's a throwaway).
73.
by fargolime 12y ago
No. You made the best possible choice when you made it. That's what makes you blameless. If when you made the choice there was strong reason to believe such shift would happen, then your culpability would be less clear.
74.
by fargolime 12y ago
Liberal Nader voters in 2000 were partly responsible for Bush getting elected, because they could have prevented it. Absent instant run-off voting or some other way that a third party can be viable, voting for a third party simply wastes an
75.
by fargolime 12y ago
Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.
76.
by fargolime 12y ago
When you vote for the lesser evil in a 2-party oligopoly, you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with. You made the best possible choice.
77.
by fargolime 12y ago
Such people rarely change their beliefs. You don't hate them, but you're not enabling them with your friendship either.
78.
by fargolime 12y ago
All gov't workers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When a law is clearly unconstitutional they have the obligation to work against it, not abide by it. So we can definitely declare that torture was illegal retroactively.
79.
by fargolime 12y ago
They won't be prosecuted, of course. I ostracized those in my life who supported it. That may be the best anyone can do against it, given our 2-party oligopoly.
80.
by fargolime 12y ago
Enjoying deflation is un-American! I don't get it either.
81.
by fargolime 12y ago
For my infestation, no way was I going to toss an otherwise nice expensive mattress. Took only about half an hour with a shop vac to inspect every inch of the mattress and dispose of all bugs. Or at least I wasn't bitten again.
82.
by fargolime 12y ago
Those EU countries don't need to achieve 7% annual returns because they won't pay as much as 2/3, nor allow retirement as soon as age 55. Their models are much more sustainable. It's going to get interesting in the US, a
83.
by fargolime 12y ago
The EU countries don't need 8+% returns to provide their citizens with comfortable retirements. One major reason is that in the US you need to save for living to an age much greater than the average life expectancy.
84.
by fargolime 12y ago
I once asked the financial adviser for a hospital, how much the CAT scan will be. He said $1700. On the bill it was $4500. Here's how it really works, according to a relative of mine who works in the billing dept. of a major hospital:
85.
by fargolime 12y ago
They can charge you for some pretty ridiculous things, though. My mom got charged $175 every time an assistant nurse checked on her, 4 times a day. It wasn't reduced by insurance; instead they didn't cover it at all, so she was ob
86.
by fargolime 12y ago
The observation is, in EU countries with nationalized healthcare you don't get a hospital bill. In the US you can have good health insurance and still get a bill that bankrupts you and leaves you homeless. You can't rate shop in
87.
by fargolime 12y ago
Your health insurance doesn't cover non-covered expenses. That retirement plans aren't a mystery doesn't negate needing 8+% returns to comfortably retire.
88.
by fargolime 12y ago
Not directly, but higher taxes tend to go hand-in-hand with the gov't ensuring a higher average standard of living.
89.
by fargolime 12y ago
30 days / 5 weekdays per week = 6 weeks
90.
by fargolime 12y ago
> Categorically, unequivocally wrong Hyperbole much? They can charge you for services / products rendered and which aren't covered by insurance, and they can charge any price they want and you're legally obligated to pay i

More ›