(1) Favoring a heath care policy that lets a 30-year-old die for lack of insurance. First of all, evil, plain and simple. Second, and just as important, pathetically stupid – not a SINGLE one of them would actually go through with it, so this policy would be the ultimate in socialized medicine: the responsible would pay the health care bills of the irresponsible.
(2) Questioning HPV vaccination on moral and scientific grounds?Evil, stupid – all wrapped up in a nutshell.
Your first mistake was believing an ideologically slanted article. In the video, when the question is posed if those said folks should be allowed to die, about two or three people cheered. Not only were they probably just all worked up about things and so ready to cheer for anything, even if we were to say that they actually wanted the guy dead, its an absurdity to then slap those two cheers onto that whole crowd, and continue with the sensationalism by slapping it onto the Tea Party movement. I don’t entirely consider myself a Tea Party’er…but I really admire the majority of what they stand for. The fact that it was more or less a sweeping movement made it attractive to some conservative nut jobs, don’t get me wrong. But if you talk to the average Tea Party’er, you’ll find they generally consist of ground roots people who are pissed off of incompetency and general failure of most in Washington to impose any real legislation that anyone wants something to do with. Liberals, however, are in no rush to admit that maybe the country *doesn’t want their health care plan *…and so the next reasonable thing to conclude is that all these people are just redneck, unintelligent religious whack jobs.
…and thus, you see the multitude of such articles, that form no real basis for damning the movement outside of what one side thinks is “weird.”
Yes…Heaven forbid a man has values. You might as well call Marcus Porcious Cato the Younger evil, and stupid.
Which healthcare plan is that?
There is no “liberal health care plan”; Obama’s plan is just a warmed over Republican plan, and Obama isn’t a liberal or even close. And most of the public did support the more “liberal” plans when they were talked about; and given that all over the world such plans work much better than what we have they are ignorant or unintelligent to oppose the implementation of such a plan.
The values in question being “let the sluts die an agonizing death to terrify women into proper servitude”. In other words, evil and stupid values.
But see, that’s the thing about evil – it’s most effective at the group level. Individuals, presented with a concrete situation, often do the right thing. But groups can be infected with an ideology that they individually know is really a mistake (hence the stupid part), but that they act on anyway. Evil and stupid often go hand-in-hand.
Put another way: Put a let-him-die initiative on the ballot in Texas, it will pass.
I assume you support the US paying for health care for every single person on the planet? Otherwise, you support letting people in Africa die due to lack of healthcare and are evil.
Obviously, this isn’t true. It’s probably just that you think that that group of people should be reponsible for themselves (unless you actually do think it’s our responsibility to provide them with medical, which I believe would be a commendable gaol, but probably not achievable).
But you’ve changed the demarcation line. This group we’re responsible for, but not that group. Other people may disagree with you, and say yes we’re responsible for people in our state, but not other states. Others may say, hey I’m responsible for my family but not yours. Still others may say I think I should be responsible for the elderly, disabled, and children, but not for able bodied adults. (My basic point is that picking a national border as some kind of limit for moral responsibility is arbitrary and kind of silly when you think about it)
Are some of the people against universal healthcare absolute assholes - yeah, probably. But to infer that sweeping chuncks of the population are evil, kind of puts an end to intelligent conversation.
I personally believe that it’s probably time that we, the US, adopt some type of universal health crae - but I don’t think casting those kinds of aspersions on people is either rational or productive.
eta: The resistance to HPV Vaccination on the other hand is mind blowing. I wouldn’t attribute to eveil necessarily, but rather to stupidity and religious nonsense.
When a group of people consistently acts in a cruel, bigoted, intolerant and greedy fashion it seems to me to be pointless to bend over backwards to avoid using the “e” word. If the way these people behave isn’t evil, then what is evil?
<sigh> As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger approaches 1.
Indeed. Hold Fast has Turnipized this thread.
Darth, I really enjoyed your post, I hadn’t thought of it like that before. What is a reasonable demarcation line for healthcare? At what level do we go from evil to debatable? It’s a difficult situation. For me, I believe everyone should get life saving care regardless of their ability or willingness to buy insurance ahead of time, but I’m not sure if everyone should get premium care guaranteed by the government.
No, a large crowd cheered. Two people screamed “Yes”. Add to that the fact that they felt safe and secure enough in the crowd to voice that and the fact that no one refuted that interpretation of Ron Paul’s stance or rebuked those actions. Ron Paul was trying to say that exact thing, he just was not stupid enough to say it in those terms.
Why? (not a “bitchy, denegrating” why with intent to fuel an attack, more of a “gimme your perspective 'cuz I’m curious” why.
And why does insurance have to be part of the equation? Medicine is a service, known to be very expensive, and to be needed at inopportune times. Doctors routinely make massive concessions on their bills when health insurance gets involved. They can make the same concessions for the uninsured and destitute. It is trivially easy to do an asset check to see if someone is in need of mercy or a payment plan.
As for the OP: if the debate participants did not favor “let 'em die!” then they all wasted an opportunity to lead their potential constituents. Silence being acceptance, and all that.
Since when does the Tea Party consist of mainstream conservatives?
Since they started having nationally televised debates on a major network with the words “Tea Party Republican Debate” in the title.
True. Let’s not forget that at heart, it’s really a grass-roots movement consisting of people from across the political spectrum who are angry at the failings of government, and who have come together to support a platform consisting entirely of [formerly]fringe-Right ideas.
This is an intriguing question for discussion, but it’s also completely beside the point. In the hypothetical at issue, the audience DID have legal authority over the 30-year-old, and they elected to let him die.
I agree that using the term ‘evil’ puts an end to intelligent conversation. Problem is, we’ve tried intelligent conversation for 20 years (when religious fundamentalists first took over conservative politics); the drift toward right-wing extremism continues unabated. A movement of hatred and superstition is threatening to dominate this country’s politics. These are not legitimate differences.
That’s probably my fault for responding to the general idea rather than the specific link - but, in fairness, your OP seemed to be aimed at mainstream conservatives in general (although I would disagree that tea-partiers really represent mainstream conservatives).
As to your second - I think lots of people have moved from conservative to liberal over the last 20 years - it’s just that sometimes other people are there to fill in behind them. I think you have to continue to try to appeal to people’s intelligence, even when it’s frustrating. Think of the hold religion, hatred, and superstition had on people 1,000 years ago compared to today.
Burning puppies?
That’s not true. Burning your dog is hilarious.
Except for that last part about coming together to support fringe ideas, I think every single thing in that sentence is factually wrong.
The Tea Party isn’t a grassroots movement; it doesn’t cross the spectrum; it isn’t about the failings of government (and it especially isn’t about IMPROVING government); and it has no heart.