Gender and Violence and Blame
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 20:14
VIEWED: 35151
PAGE 27 of 31
Quote:How much will it cost? What is the profit margin? How much can be skimmed? And so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.
Cynicism would be saying we are all doomed. But we aren't. You don't doom your servants, you control them. It's an endless push & pull is all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then I must be cynical, b/c I think while we aren't ALL doomed, the vast majority already is. I'd been thinking that environmental collapse would be gradual, but I see accelerating changes. And some scientists think the system could become unlivably unstable in as short a span as 5 or 10 years. Not that it will happen in the next 5 to 10 years (though it might) but that when it does happen it will be faster than most people think. And the belief people have in their 'isms' will keep them marching till we go right over the cliff. So, uhm, my current thinking is ...
Always have an exit plan.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer?
Yes, money determines nutritious diets and education and health care. The systems you argue for still seem to have people who are richer than other people, and therefore who live more healthy and are more educated. I see those countries and think that their strings outweigh the effectiveness of their solutions.
I think we may need our own solution. Even those countries with national health care didn't wholesale copy each other.
Quote:
Always have an exit plan.
I agree with this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries ..."
Well, when I say look at the results, I mean tangible, measurable results. Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer? Do more people have an effect on how the society is run, or fewer?
As I see it, there are all sorts of 'isms', both social and personal, which seek to abolish some things and enforce others - mostly based on some theoretical notion of how things 'should' be. And frequently compliance is based on an as yet undemonstrated result - If you do this and don't so that you will get to heaven. If you do this and don't do that it will create a bountiful society for the productive. If you do this and don't do that everyone will be perfectly free. And so on. Those 'isms' I think of as religion b/c they are based on unproven beliefs.
So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.
Interesting, Ikiki. What you are proposing is something I see few Americans ever suggest, look to see what others are doing elsewhere, see what works, what can be adapted, and which bits you might be able to do. That would seem to be a self evident place to start.
And then I see Byte's response, which is, why bother looking elsewhere, all those systems suck.
It seems kinds of pervasive attitude that the rest of the world is a basketcase and only the US is capable of coming up with any answers. Makes for a certain degree of isolationism, which is probably not helpful.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I have issues with the systems elsewhere, my problem is they simply won't translate here. Any attempt we make to have a national health care system, which is something that I'd actually like, would inevitably be subverted as a massive gimmee to the insurance companies.
So until we wreck the insurance companies and the stranglehold big business has on this country, it's a futile effort. Adding in government isn't going to help, because government is currently in their pocket.
The way I see it, in order to fix the system, we have to strike at the massive amount of power and stake that various entities have in it. And it can't be one or the other, it has to be both, simultaneously. That is why both the anti-government conservatives and anti big-business liberals parallel my objectives.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore! - ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
While I have issues with the systems elsewhere, my problem is they simply won't translate here. Any attempt we make to have a national health care system, which is something that I'd actually like, would inevitably be subverted as a massive gimmee to the insurance companies.
So until we wreck the insurance companies and the stranglehold big business has on this country, it's a futile effort. Adding in government isn't going to help, because government is currently in their pocket.
The way I see it, in order to fix the system, we have to strike at the massive amount of power and stake that various entities have in it. And it can't be one or the other, it has to be both, simultaneously. That is why both the anti-government conservatives and anti big-business liberals parallel my objectives.
How do you know it wouldn't work any better in the US? Do you think you are the only society in the world where government is in bed with big business? Isn't a public health system with flaws better than none at all. I'd say yes, because that is what we have.
The only way you can envisage change is with some monumental restructure of power? How is that going to happen? It's a classic case of entrenched helplessness. The only way any change is possible is when some other monumental change takes place. "I'll be happy when I lose 20 kilos" "I'll do what I want with my life when I win the lottery".
No system is perfect. No system is capable of being perfect. As Ikiki says, life sets us a series of problems and you have to work out how best to resolve them, and when one set gets resolved a whole new set will appear. That is life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm. In fairness, I suppose that my argument against national health care is rather like Sig's argument against the subversion of arts.
So in that case, I guess I object to both not having it as well as forcing mandatory participation.
Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.
Now imagine there are laws passed that citizens have to get insurance, but there are only a few providers.
I concede that maybe you're right and we should try to have both art and national health care, but participation can not be mandatory in order to maintain any kind of claim about societal freedom.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bruce Lee's system of martial arts was perfect. Applied to other fields it would improve them greatly, but it would require a dropping of ego & dogma, and a sincere exploration of what works vs. what doesn't. This would disturb established norms, accepted conventions, and entrenched idiocy- in short, it would disrupt the flow of MONEY, and that is not acceptable in the United Society of Affluence (USA).
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No system is perfect. No system is capable of being perfect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not hard to imagine at all.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME