Michael Moore's Sicko

[dantt]

A new "documentary" about America's broken health care system Michael Moore style. Any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[armybound]

Michael Moore is an idiot.

 

[Dr.D-man]

A new "documentary" about America's broken health care system Michael Moore style. Any thoughts?

Michael Moore is the most idiotic film maker ever. Bar none. His whole line of reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

A new "documentary" about America's broken health care system Michael Moore style. Any thoughts?

Well, you know you'll have to see it because you know it's going to come up in your interviews.

Even if it wasn't, I would still see it. I enjoy his films.

A lot of people bring up the fact that Michael Moore presents his data in such a way as to further promote his take on a subject. This is stating the obvious. He's never said his films were fair and balanced -- after all, he's not making documentaries for the Discovery Channel. He's making documentaries because he hopes they inspire social movements based on his take of a subject.

I'm also curious to see what impact this will have on our future careers (if any).

 

[Dr.D-man]

Well, you know you'll have to see it because you know it's going to come up in your interviews.

Even if it wasn't, I would still see it. I enjoy his films.

A lot of people bring up the fact that Michael Moore presents his data in such a way as to further promote his take on a subject. This is stating the obvious. He's never said his films were fair and balanced -- after all, he's not making documentaries for the Discovery Channel. He's making documentaries because he hopes they inspire social movements based on his take of a subject.

I'm also curious to see what impact this will have on our future careers (if any).

Michael Moore uses the tactics of appealing to fear, argument from consequences, appealing to the crowd, nit-picking, red herring, and apples and oranges, which are all FALLACIES. He cannot make his point without these tools. I think thats enough to officially dub him an "idiot" and unworthy of acknowledgment.

 

[trichomoniasis]

Michael Moore uses the tactics of appealing to fear, argument from consequences, appealing to the crowd, nit-picking, red herring, and apples and oranges, which are all FALLACIES. He cannot make his point without these tools. I think thats enough to officially dub him an "idiot" and unworthy of acknowledgment.

give an example.

 

[gary5]

Michael Moore is an idiot.

Never before has true been stated so clearly and succinctly.

Ya, Moore is proof that a simpleton can have an impact on this world, except in his case, it is via distortion and propaganda.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

Michael Moore uses the tactics of appealing to fear, argument from consequences, appealing to the crowd, nit-picking, red herring, and apples and oranges, which are all FALLACIES. He cannot make his point without these tools. I think thats enough to officially dub him an "idiot" and unworthy of acknowledgment.

Congratulations on making a scene. At least you didn't resort to ad hominem attacks.

It's no surprise whatsoever that a documentary filmmaker who wants to inspire social change utilizes proven methods of inciting social change, among them appealing to fear, argument from consquences, and appealing to the crowd. Especially appealing to the crowd.

You could make the same argument about a number of other influential people... including Al Gore and his war on global warming. Fallacies or not, they've resonated with people and put new, successful efforts into motion.

 

[maestro1625]

Well as a Flint native, I'm waiting to see what part of the city he's going to feature this time. the first grade school shooting in Bowling for Columbine took place a block from my HS. Moore's problem though, is that he takes his arguments way too far out into left field to allow them to reach the point. I mean, it's not too hard to be right on the point of "GWB is a screwup and the war in iraq was a bad idea," yet somehow Fahrenheit 9/11 felt unconvincing.

...but if nothing else, the movie will get the Flint Journal opinion pages to discuss something other than LaKisha Jones... (and yes, there's an American Idol letter per day in that paper even today)

 

[Nasrudin]

double post

 

[Nasrudin]

Well he's no Lewis Lapham that's for sure. But you know what, when was the last time any of us heard a reasonably intelligent blue collar guy who's not afraid to take a contrary view point in the Mass media. Not a single twit in Hollywood has enough balls to challenge power in America, so who can we count on to make at least provocative questions in the general direction of the American power structure. The corporate media is out of the game from go. And what remains is a lot of partisan hype with little substance.

The only ones who are still in the game of intelligent critique are people who read and/or write History, economics, etc. The only problem is that America--the president included--doesn't read.

Liberal and conservative are almost useless words if you use history as a context for arguments. And yet how often do we have to hear denigrating use of those words on this forum. Eisenhower sought to reign in abuse of American Power--Kenedy was not shy in using it. Things are much more complex than the tripe and blast of partisan thinking.

I think sometimes the more intelligent critical thinkers on this board have a tendency towards conservative wind-bagging rather than pensive dialogue. We should think about things more like the great statesmen of the past with less inclination for the fashions of political demagoguery, which are not only insipid but poisonous to our future profession.

It seems the body politic of labels with prefabricated ideas that permeate the public discussion at large are even more virulent here--which is a shame.

Michael Moore is an average guy with a camera, guts, and a loud voice. In that sense he's refreshing. Instead of just shouting how much of an idiot he is, why don't you take a position against one of his positions constructively for a useful purpose--if you have one.

 

[Rabid Manitee]

 

[Cirrus83]

Isn't this post identical to this thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=403477

Anyways, documentary makers almost always insert their bias so it's not like it's a shocking thing.

And for what it's worth I'm probably one of the few Americans who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 outside of the United States, where nobody really gives a crap about US politics...that was an interesting experience, to be in a group of Americans watching such a movie.

Sure, it went through a bit too much in terms of theatrics to get the point across, but it probably wouldn't be as entertaining if he wasn't running around accosting senators or whatever. It'd just be super dull, and nobody would watch it, which would sort of defeat the purpose.

 

[Felzor]

I like Michael Moore. Gotta respect a guy who speaks out against the status quo using whatever few tools he has available to him. That said, I'm not necessarily on his side nor his biggest fan, but I think "idiot" is hardly a fitting label.

 

[mynamewastaken]

a "few tools" includes billions of dollars of private contribution from a several wealthy liberals. Not that that's bad, but he hardly is struggling to produce and distribute his films...especially here in 2007...

I think on the very basic of levels, all us premeds/med students agree that every human deserves healthcare. The problem is if the healthcare system were to change as Obama or Clinton have proposed, it will have enormous implications on the future of medicine as a profession...there's going to be unions of doctors or something equally as non-lucrative. Not to mention it will take 50 years to pay back loans instead of the usual 10 or so. Good for people. Bad for future docs. my 2 cents.

 

[Jejton]

Never before has true been stated so clearly and succinctly.

Ya, Moore is proof that a simpleton can have an impact on this world, except in his case, it is via distortion and propaganda.

Thats usually how it works.

 

[trichomoniasis]

Not a single twit in Hollywood has enough balls to challenge power in America

Aaron Sorkin!

 

[Nasrudin]

Aaron Sorkin!

I reviewed his work online to see why you mention him. I found what appeared to be a talented Hollywood writer with a knack for writing memorable lines.

I see he did some work for an anti-Bush ad campaign. Not much there in terms of penetrating perspective. I don't watch too much T.V. so I don't even know what "West Wing" is really other than I have heard it features a woman president.

Regardless has anyone actually seen the Michael Moore film?

I haven't. I am curious to see what his thesis is for the film.

 

[Nasrudin]

a "few tools" includes billions of dollars of private contribution from a several wealthy liberals. Not that that's bad, but he hardly is struggling to produce and distribute his films...especially here in 2007...

I think on the very basic of levels, all us premeds/med students agree that every human deserves healthcare. The problem is if the healthcare system were to change as Obama or Clinton have proposed, it will have enormous implications on the future of medicine as a profession...there's going to be unions of doctors or something equally as non-lucrative. Not to mention it will take 50 years to pay back loans instead of the usual 10 or so. Good for people. Bad for future docs. my 2 cents.

Right. Health care could be faced with similar problems the public education system is faced with. Taking on a pressurized scenario that brings all society's problems to bear for a small salary is not exactly a good recruiting tool for talented but civic-minded graduates.

I have heard reasoning that suggests that a single-payer system reaches the unsustainable tipping point in the American cultural milieu as opposed to our European and Canadian counterparts. Perhaps someone could articulate this viewpoint?

I read an essay by the president of the AMA articulating the concerns about the cost of medical education as an attack on its own ability to sustainably diversify its professionals' careers in the face of Americas health care needs.
I wonder what if anything can be done to lower the cost. We've got premium cost Osteopathic schools popping up in response to consumer--medical applicants--demand for their services and at the same time a physician flight from primary care fields despite an increase in medical school seats. Where does all the money go for a $50,000/yr tuition bill? How and why did it get so expensive?

I will definitely not be seeking a residency spot in family medicine when I'm carrying multi-6 figure debt.

p.s. Oh yeah. With regards to your premise, does every human being deserve healthcare without paying for it?

It seems to me that systems based on this type of motivational structure bring out the worst in the human consumer. For example public education is considered a basic right and yet the kids think they are doing you a favor by just showing up. Tell that to a kid in South Africa who equates education as a chance to not be in utter poverty and you will see a different kind of student. One that will endure great hardship for the opportunity to be there, eager to learn. Many public schools are a complete joke, not the funny kind. Is the problem sytemic in that if we dump a quadzillion more dollars into the system are we going to kids motivated or is the problem cultural?

I think the problem with a left-leaning premise is that it ignores the motivation factor. Having worked extensively in a large union-dominated health care institution, i can tell you I would literally have to stab somebody to get fired. My motivation for excellence was not only in direct opposition to the culture it provoked hostility from my co-workers.

 

[Miami_med]

a "few tools" includes billions of dollars of private contribution from a several wealthy liberals. Not that that's bad, but he hardly is struggling to produce and distribute his films...especially here in 2007...

I think on the very basic of levels, all us premeds/med students agree that every human deserves healthcare. The problem is if the healthcare system were to change as Obama or Clinton have proposed, it will have enormous implications on the future of medicine as a profession...there's going to be unions of doctors or something equally as non-lucrative. Not to mention it will take 50 years to pay back loans instead of the usual 10 or so. Good for people. Bad for future docs. my 2 cents.

Careful how you word this, because the way I'm reading this, it simply isn't true.

 

[Miami_med]

Well he's no Lewis Lapham that's for sure. But you know what, when was the last time any of us heard a reasonably intelligent blue collar guy who's not afraid to take a contrary view point in the Mass media. Not a single twit in Hollywood has enough balls to challenge power in America, so who can we count on to make at least provocative questions in the general direction of the American power structure. The corporate media is out of the game from go. And what remains is a lot of partisan hype with little substance.

Just being controversial, but in honor of the picture elsewhere posted on this thread, Matt Stone and Trey Parker would be examples.

There are a whole bunch of other such people who's opinions don't lean left enough to garner the support in Hollywood.

 

[Nasrudin]

Just being controversial, but in honor of the picture elsewhere posted on this thread, Matt Stone and Trey Parker would be examples.

There are a whole bunch of other such people who's opinions don't lean left enough to garner the support in Hollywood.

Well Ok. But having gay friends does not make someone an independent thinker. Hollywood like "the media" gets charged with being "liberal" constantly and yet who does more to preserve the status quo than the corporate controlled news and entertainment businesses.

In any case, I remember your blog a while back and just revisited it. Great stuff. Exactly the type of thing I would like to learn.

Do have any book recommendations for health care economics?

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

Just being controversial, but in honor of the picture elsewhere posted on this thread, Matt Stone and Trey Parker would be examples.

I'm more or less with you on the Stone/Parker thing because I think they occasionally hit good points (case in point, the Scientology episode of South Park) but a lot of their other depictions -- such as the Moore character in the TEAM AMERICA movie -- are simply juvenile stabs at defaming notable people (the gay Saddam character is another example).

 

[Miami_med]

I'm more or less with you on the Stone/Parker thing because I think they occasionally hit good points (case in point, the Scientology episode of South Park) but a lot of their other depictions -- such as the Moore character in the TEAM AMERICA movie -- are simply juvenile stabs at defaming notable people (the gay Saddam character is another example).

I'd argue that some of Moore's stuff is no different, and atleast Stone and Parker admit to using humor.

 

[Miami_med]

Well Ok. But having gay friends does not make someone an independent thinker. Hollywood like "the media" gets charged with being "liberal" constantly and yet who does more to preserve the status quo than the corporate controlled news and entertainment businesses.

That's true to a degree, but this is really more of an example of these entities maintaining their own status quo. This may not make them liberal, but it does make them left. Those terms are often put together, but they really have slightly different meanings. The organizations do lean farther left than the average american, agree or not with the view, which is why I called them such. They just continue to lean left in the same way.

In any case, I remember your blog a while back and just revisited it. Great stuff. Exactly the type of thing I would like to learn.

Do have any book recommendations for health care economics?

As far as a textbook, not really. An interesting piece of fiction work is a book called "Noble Vision" by Gen LaGreca, though it is a fictional piece about a fictional universal healthcare system in New York and a touch contrived. It's also as much political as economic.

By and large, what I do is simply take the basic economic theories proposed by Keynes, Marx, Mises, or other such famous economists and apply them to medicine. I admit to a bias, so I often favor some over others, though I attempt to point out why I disagree with the other. If your looking for some good reading, the basic works of some of these economists will actually serve you better than some economics textbook on healthcare. I tend to side with the Misesians about 80% of the time, and you can find much of the work of that school here:

http://www.mises.org
This includes some articles on healthcare, though you have to dig.

Most modern textbooks are written using Keynesian economics, so any economics textbook will give you more on this theory.

I hope that helped. I took Step I today, so I'm a little out of it.

 

[QuikClot]

The organizations do lean farther left than the average American, agree or not with the view, which is why I called them such. They just continue to lean left in the same way.

But are they any more left than might be expected for their educational and economic demographic? Elites tend to skew left (though there are exceptions). Israel's Ashkenazi elite is much further left than the non-European Jewish majority. Wealthy people in Egypt, Turkey or Iran are much less likely to espouse the "God, guns, git to the kitchen, gut the godless" agenda of religious fundamentalism. Get a hundred well-off Britons in a room, and how many of them voted Conservative at the last election? Much less than the population as a whole.

Certainly there are thinking people who are anti-left. But the main strain of rightism in America today relies heavily on xenophobia, nativism, bigotry, and appeals to faith. Those tend not to appeal to people who have been to college and gotten a wider exposure to the world. Again, statistically (college graduates tend to vote Democrat).

It's a problem all over the world, the appeal to the masses of a shallow, superficially religious ideology driven by ignorance and fear. It's not a knock on our home-grown Christian jihadists. If anything, it is a knock on the elites, which have lost the mass of people who are religious, despite the fact that the tenants of all the monotheistic religions are strongly leftist in tone (Debt forgiveness? No interest-bearing loans? Feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Who does that bearded commie think he is?)

I took Step I today, so I'm a little out of it.

Yaaaa! Congradulations!!!

 

[Miami_med]

But are they any more left than might be expected for their educational and economic demographic? Elites tend to skew left (though there are exceptions). Israel's Ashkenazi elite is much further left than the non-European Jewish majority. Wealthy people in Egypt, Turkey or Iran are much less likely to espouse the "God, guns, git to the kitchen, gut the godless" agenda of religious fundamentalism. Get a hundred well-off Britons in a room, and how many of them voted Conservative at the last election? Much less than the population as a whole.

Certainly there are thinking people who are anti-left. But the main strain of rightism in America today relies heavily on xenophobia, nativism, bigotry, and appeals to faith. Those tend not to appeal to people who have been to college and gotten a wider exposure to the world. Again, statistically (college graduates tend to vote Democrat).

It's a problem all over the world, the appeal to the masses of a shallow, superficially religious ideology driven by ignorance and fear. It's not a knock on our home-grown Christian jihadists. If anything, it is a knock on the elites, which have lost the mass of people who are religious, despite the fact that the tenants of all the monotheistic religions are strongly leftist in tone (Debt forgiveness? No interest-bearing loans? Feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Who does that bearded commie think he is?)

I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, but I'll bite a step further.

You are correct that educated "elites" tend to lean further left than the average person. However, since we were discussing films made by blue collar average american type people (who virtually by definition are not educated elites), I think it's irrelevant.

I'd make the argument that much of the argument by the modern left also relies on a defacto reverse bigotry, immediately lableling opposing ideas with all sorts of derogatory terms while simultaneously refusing to simply prove what they claim to be (and maybe even is) obviously true. A good example might be the fiasco surrounding Sommer's statements about women and engineering as Harvard's president. Faith also doesn't necessarily equal xenophobia, and I'd make the argument that one of the most left leaning nations in modern Europe, in the form of France, seems to exhibit persistent displays of Xenophobic rule making that would make the zealots in Jesusisking, Georgia blush.

Points:
1. Higher intellect doesn't always correlate with higher education (though it often does).

2. Atleast genetically, I am an Ashkenazi Jew.

3. College students tend to vote democrat, but college educated people exhibit no such trend after they graduate. The trend in college probably reflects a left bias in acadamia, which self-perpetuates. The most heavily left leaning districts in the country are inner city ghettos with a significantly undereducated population.

4. In the parable of the talents, the master removes the money from the individual who doesn't use his money wisely and gives his money to the individual who is actually productive. The bible, while promoting charity, never advocates forced redistribution of wealth.

5. Regardless of what you think politically, any attempt to compare Cuban healthcare to US healthcare is so biased and untrue that no amount of credit to his mission justifies the extent of deceit Moore would have to use to make the connection. I live in Miami, and half of the people I know are Cuban; trust me on this one.

Yaaaa! Congradulations!!!

Yeah, I hope that my score reflects how tired I was when the process was over. Are you taking the plunge soon?

 

[QuikClot]

You are correct that educated "elites" tend to lean further left than the average person. However, since we were discussing films made by blue collar average american type people (who virtually by definition are not educated elites), I think it's irrelevant.

You made a general claim about Hollywood being to the left of America as a whole. I responded to that point. If you are saying that Moore is a regular guy and not associated with left-leaning Hollywood, then why bring up Hollywood at all? It doesn't make sense. If your assertion is relevant, then my response is relevant.

I'd make the argument that much of the argument by the modern left also relies on a defacto reverse bigotry, immediately lableling opposing ideas with all sorts of derogatory terms while simultaneously refusing to simply prove what they claim to be (and maybe even is) obviously true.

In the opening chapters of Don Quixote, Cervantes writes, of the prose of the romances that inspired the hero, "The poor fellow used to lay awake at night trying to disentangle the meaning of such sentences as these, even though Aristotle himself would not have been able to understand them, even if he had been resurrected for that sole purpose."

You seem to be claiming -- apropos of nothing I can see -- that people on the left call other people names and do not support all their arguments with evidence. Of course, the right would never be guilty of such a thing. No, I'm afraid what you have described is neither the left nor the right but the punditocracy in all its forms.

Points:
1. Higher intellect doesn't always correlate with higher education (though it often does).

Did I say it did? I don't think so. George Bush graduated from Yale, after all.

[/quote]2. Atleast genetically, I am an Ashkenazi Jew.[/quote]

OK.

3. College students tend to vote democrat, but college educated people exhibit no such trend after they graduate. The trend in college probably reflects a left bias in acadamia, which self-perpetuates. The most heavily left leaning districts in the country are inner city ghettos with a significantly undereducated population.

College educated people tend to vote democrat, and even more, to hold "left" views. For a humorous analysis of these and other trends, see here.

4. In the parable of the talents, the master removes the money from the individual who doesn't use his money wisely and gives his money to the individual who is actually productive. The bible, while promoting charity, never advocates forced redistribution of wealth.

You are incorrect. It's called a "parable" for a reason. It's not really about money. When Jesus was talking about money, he said "Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and follow me." The Bible is full of specific references to mandatory debt forgiveness, charitable contributions, and so on.

Now many -- but not all -- take the form of commandments to the individual. That would be relevant if the Christian fundamentalists took the position that the Bible's instructions were for individuals and not society. But they do not. They do not tend to look at a strip club, or pornography, or homosexuality and say "It's not for the law to enforce Christian morality." So they would not, if they were consistent, say that the state should enforce those parts of the Bible and not the parts that mandate the wealthy supporting the needy.

5. Regardless of what you think politically, any attempt to compare Cuban healthcare to US healthcare is so biased and untrue that no amount of credit to his mission justifies the extent of deceit Moore would have to use to make the connection.

So essentially, what you are saying is that you have a non-falsifiable belief and not only do you exclude the possibility that you might be wrong, the very fact that someone disagrees with you, when you are so clearly right, makes them deceitful (even though you haven't seen their evidence or heard their argument). Evidence that contradicts your belief, therefore, is significant only because to show the lengths which the deceiver has gone to lead you astray.

Another way to say it might be that you are calling Moore names ("deceitful") whilst "simultaneously refusing to simply prove what they claim to be (and maybe even is) obviously true" ("I live in Miami and I know Cubans; trust me.")

Religions, political creeds, and ideologues of all kinds have used this syllogism to vilify their opponents; as I said, it's an equal-opportunity fallacy.

 

[Miami_med]

You made a general claim about Hollywood being to the left of America as a whole. I responded to that point. If you are saying that Moore is a regular guy and not associated with left-leaning Hollywood, then why bring up Hollywood at all? It doesn't make sense. If your assertion is relevant, then my response is relevant.

Someone said that it was good that a blue collar guy expressed his beliefs. I simply countered that others do, and that some of them aren't as well received in Hollywood, which tends to lean left. You attempted to then say that this makes Hollywood more in line with the elites, because everyone else relies on bigotry. I then pointed out that it was irrelevant, because the individuals who we were referencing (whom are supposed to be blue collar and expressing their views) are not elite. Moore was called a regular guy by another poster, but I was simply claiming that his ability to associate with Hollywood as a "regular guy" is due to his political leanings.

In the opening chapters of Don Quixote, Cervantes writes, of the prose of the romances that inspired the hero, "The poor fellow used to lay awake at night trying to disentangle the meaning of such sentences as these, even though Aristotle himself would not have been able to understand them, even if he had been resurrected for that sole purpose."

You seem to be claiming -- apropos of nothing I can see -- that people on the left call other people names and do not support all their arguments with evidence. Of course, the right would never be guilty of such a thing. No, I'm afraid what you have described is neither the left nor the right but the punditocracy in all its forms.

Well, I am a libertarian who doesn't genuinely lean left or right. I agree that people on both sides of every argument do this. You were the one who originally brought it up as some sort of undereducated right-wing tactic. From your original post: "But the main strain of rightism in America today relies heavily on xenophobia, nativism, bigotry, and appeals to faith." I was just pointing out that this is really what everyone is doing, while giving an example on the left as support for my argument..

Did I say it did? I don't think so. George Bush graduated from Yale, after all.

OK

College educated people tend to vote democrat, and even more, to hold "left" views. For a humorous analysis of these and other trends, see here.

This hasn't been my experience anecdotally. Any statistic on how people vote will be heavily marred, as no one really know who votes what way. I have also seen other stats that contradict the idea. Atleast here in Miami, the most left-leaning areas are either full of retirees (heavily educated) or individuals on public assistance (highly undereducated), showing a much stronger association locally between receiving government assistance and voting left than education.

You are incorrect. It's called a "parable" for a reason. It's not really about money. When Jesus was talking about money, he said "Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and follow me." The Bible is full of specific references to mandatory debt forgiveness, charitable contributions, and so on.

Selling everything and giving it to the poor is mostly a directive given to the disciples. Aside from that, mandatory debt forgiveness occurs once every 50 years at Jubilee, is predictable, and never mandates wealth redistrbution. This is more akin to bankruptcy than welfare. All biblical mandates on money are also to the individual, with no power given to anyone to force people to comply. This is in stark contrast to explicitly stoneable offenses, such as adultary. Jesus admittedly makes this less clear when he saves a prostitutes life with his "let him who has no sin cast the first stone." However, it does all show that the bible has no problem with force mandates AND never applies such a mandate to wealth redistribution. The 10% tithe is to God, and he is supposed to reward or punish, not the government of man.

Now many -- but not all -- take the form of commandments to the individual. That would be relevant if the Christian fundamentalists took the position that the Bible's instructions were for individuals and not society. But they do not. They do not tend to look at a strip club, or pornography, or homosexuality and say "It's not for the law to enforce Christian morality." So they would not, if they were consistent, say that the state should enforce those parts of the Bible and not the parts that mandate the wealthy supporting the needy.

I don't believe that either of these points should be law here. See my above post as to why your point is stll incorrect.

So essentially, what you are saying is that you have a non-falsifiable belief and not only do you exclude the possibility that you might be wrong, the very fact that someone disagrees with you, when you are so clearly right, makes them deceitful (even though you haven't seen their evidence or heard their argument). Evidence that contradicts your belief, therefore, is significant only because to show the lengths which the deceiver has gone to lead you astray.

Another way to say it might be that you are calling Moore names ("deceitful") whilst "simultaneously refusing to simply prove what they claim to be (and maybe even is) obviously true" ("I live in Miami and I know Cubans; trust me.")

Nope, I just take the eye witness accounts of hundreds of local people that I know personally over a piece of political propaganda by an openly biased pseudo-journalist. Of course Cuba supplied Moore's 9-11 victims with care. It's great propaganda. The other people who just live there aren't so lucky, and I base this on conversations WITH THESE PEOPLE, many of whom risked their lives on dinky boats to escape that utopia.

Religions, political creeds, and ideologues of all kinds have used this syllogism to vilify their opponents; as I said, it's an equal-opportunity fallacy.

The level of evidence I could mount for you would hold up in court.

 

[QuikClot]

Someone said that it was good that a blue collar guy expressed his beliefs. I simply countered that others do, and that some of them aren't as well received in Hollywood, which tends to lean left.

This wasn't clear to me in your original post; thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your analysis, however. "Roger & Me" was made on a shoestring (Moore morgaged his house) and widely distributed only on video, where it became a hit. Hence the key to Moore's success is not that his views align with the powers that be in Hollywood, but rather that he makes a product that sells well.

You attempted to then say that this makes Hollywood more in line with the elites, because everyone else relies on bigotry.

You misunderstood. I said that Hollywood is probably pretty typical for Americans of that income and level of education.

Well, I am a libertarian who doesn't genuinely lean left or right.

I'm sure that's true as far as your positions on the issues are concerned, but time and time again I have seen you castigate the "left" and leap to the defense of the "right." Emotionally, you clearly identify more with the right.

I was just pointing out that this is really what everyone is doing, while giving an example on the left as support for my argument.

What example?

This hasn't been my experience anecdotally. Any statistic on how people vote will be heavily marred, as no one really know who votes what way.

But that's not a problem with your anecdotes?

I have also seen other stats that contradict the idea.

I'm sure there are some; how about a link?

Selling everything and giving it to the poor is mostly a directive given to the disciples.

It wasn't a disciple to whom Jesus said that, but rather a layman.

Aside from that, mandatory debt forgiveness occurs once every 50 years at Jubilee, is predictable, and never mandates wealth redistrbution.

Debt forgiveness redistributes wealth from the debtor to the indebted. And there are many other examples.

This is more akin to bankruptcy than welfare. All biblical mandates on money are also to the individual, with no power given to anyone to force people to comply.

Welfare is exactly what the Bible prescribes:

If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave." Leviticus 25:25, 35, 39

"During the seventh year, let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove." Exodus 23:11

"At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied." Deuteronomy 14:28-29

And so on. These are commands applicable to everyone and no more or less optional than those against adultery.

However, it does all show that the bible has no problem with force mandates AND never applies such a mandate to wealth redistribution.

What a unique argument. Unless a commandment comes with a specific punishment attached, it's not a commandment. I don't think that passes the laugh test, but as I've pointed out, what matters is what the fundamentalists think, and they place no such restriction on the legislation of Christian precepts.

Nope, I just take the eye witness accounts of hundreds of local people that I know personally over a piece of political propaganda by an openly biased pseudo-journalist.

You haven't seen the film and don't know what it says. By discounting it on the basis that it can't be true that Cuba's health system is in some way superior to ours, you abandon reason in favor of a declaration of faith.

The level of evidence I could mount for you would hold up in court.

In a court of law, you can't use or even mention evidence which you are not willing or able to produce. Referring to evidence, then failing to provide it, is not allowed. And you do that a lot.

 

[Miami_med]

This wasn't clear to me in your original post; thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your analysis, however. "Roger & Me" was made on a shoestring (Moore morgaged his house) and widely distributed only on video, where it became a hit. Hence the key to Moore's success is not that his views align with the powers that be in Hollywood, but rather that he makes a product that sells well.

You misunderstood. I said that Hollywood is probably pretty typical for Americans of that income and level of education.

Okay, we'll disagree

I'm sure that's true as far as your positions on the issues are concerned, but time and time again I have seen you castigate the "left" and leap to the defense of the "right." Emotionally, you clearly identify more with the right.

I try to be balanced. You generally attack the right, so I defend them, since your position is generally left. You're probably correct that I tend to jump to the defense of the "right" on economic issues. We don't debate a lot of the social issues (the one's that aren't about giving people things for free), because I often agree with the "left."

What example?

But that's not a problem with your anecdotes?

I'm sure there are some; how about a link?

I'd say my anecdotes are as good as anyone elses. With regards to the link, I'm not even sure I read it on the internet. I'll have to dig it up when I have more time.

It wasn't a disciple to whom Jesus said that, but rather a layman.

Refresh my memory. My recollection is with the disciples.

Debt forgiveness redistributes wealth from the debtor to the indebted. And there are many other examples.

I guess I see it differently. The debtor intentionally redistributed the wealth. Jubilee was a defined period every 50 years, which essentially prevented permanent servitude in the name of debts. Anyone lending money would know this, and no one would be forced to lend the money.

I'm also not against bankruptcy laws, believe it or not.

Welfare is exactly what the Bible prescribes:

Where?

And so on. These are commands applicable to everyone and no more or less optional than those against adultery.

I will say it again, that those commandments are given to individuals, to be punished by God, not man. With regards to adultery, God gives specific instructions for punishment. I see nowhere biblically where God says to man that it is man's job to punish all commandment breakers. Also note that wealth redistribution isn't in the original 10 commandments, but stealing is expressely forbidden.

What a unique argument. Unless a commandment comes with a specific punishment attached, it's not a commandment. I don't think that passes the laugh test, but as I've pointed out, what matters is what the fundamentalists think, and they place no such restriction on the legislation of Christian precepts.

Well, I actually said that the punishment was supposed to be from God according to Christian precepts, as opposed to man. I never said that there was no punishment. This is really sort of a silly argument, because I'm not really coming from a desire to impose Christian values on anyone, as I often don't live by them myself. I agree that some people try to legislate them, and I disagree with these people.

You haven't seen the film and don't know what it says. By discounting it on the basis that it can't be true that Cuba's health system is in some way superior to ours, you abandon reason in favor of a declaration of faith.


In a court of law, you can't use or even mention evidence which you are not willing or able to produce. Referring to evidence, then failing to provide it, is not allowed. And you do that a lot.

As do you and everyone else who posts lengthy diatribes on the internet with limited time. Were I going to court, I'd have more evidence. Feel free to subpeona my local witnesses when we get there. If you can tell me how to produce live people that I've met locally on student doctor, I'd love to know how.

You are correct, I haven't seen the film. I have seen other Moore films, and I am extrapolating his propensity to bend the truth. Perhaps we should stop this until the film comes out. I'll watch it when it hits video (I will not pay to see it in the theaters), and then we can be specific if it pleases you.

 

[QuikClot]

I try to be balanced. You generally attack the right,

No, I'm balanced and you attack the left. Let's argue about it some more! Probably not a useful discussion. But if you can point my to a thread in which you vehemently defend "the left" while sterotyping and heaping insults on "the right" I'd be happy to see it. It's my observation that you tilt to one side. But I could be wrong.

Refresh my memory. My recollection is with the disciples.

from Luke 18: 18-27.

Once a Jewish religious leader asked Him this question: "Good sir, what shall I do to get to heaven?"

"Do you realize what you are saying when you call me ‘good'?" Jesus asked him. "Only God is truly good, and no one else."

"But as to your question, you know what the ten commandments say- don't commit adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, honor your parents, and so on."

The man replied, "I've obeyed every one of these laws since I was a small child."

"There is still one thing you lack," Jesus said. "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor – it will become treasure for you in heaven – and come, follow me."

But when the man heard this he went sadly away, for he was very rich.

Jesus watched him go and then said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye f a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

He may have said something similiar to the disciples. He had a really simple message and tended to repeat Himself.

I guess I see it differently. The debtor intentionally redistributed the wealth. Jubilee was a defined period every 50 years, which essentially prevented permanent servitude in the name of debts.

Shouldn't you be against bankrupcy laws, if it is your belief that the right to property is an absolute right? In any case, I think you've put you finger on the spirit of these passages, which is -- wealth has the power to put other people in servitude, and that power must be limited, and those that don't have it need to be cared for by those who do. The Bible rejects the idea that wealth and poverty are distributed justly and that the rich deserve to keep their riches and the poor are poor for a good reason.

I will say it again, that those commandments are given to individuals, to be punished by God, not man. With regards to adultery, God gives specific instructions for punishment. I see nowhere biblically where God says to man that it is man's job to punish all commandment breakers. Also note that wealth redistribution isn't in the original 10 commandments, but stealing is expressely forbidden.

Reiterating your position is not the same as arguing your point. As to the commandment; the Bible specifically says to pay your taxes, it describes systems of taxation and support for the needy; the authors of the Bible did not have any way of knowing that 2,000 years later a fringe movement would believe that taxes and regulation constituted a form of theft.

Well, I actually said that the punishment was supposed to be from God according to Christian precepts, as opposed to man.

I wasn't talking about punishment. A law that, say, closes post offices on Sunday is not punishment for breaking the Sabbath; it is an effort by society to uphold Christian precepts in how they govern themselves. You are trying to associate it with punishment, and I don't think that association holds water.

I agree that some people try to legislate them, and I disagree with these people.

So do I. But my original point, which still stands, is that Christian fundamentalists, who do not believe this, ought to be first in line advocating the provision for the needy that the Bible commands on every other page. They ought to be screaming for food, housing, and health care for the poor. But the greatest number of them are not.

As do you and everyone else who posts lengthy diatribes on the internet with limited time. Were I going to court, I'd have more evidence. Feel free to subpeona my local witnesses when we get there. If you can tell me how to produce live people that I've met locally on student doctor, I'd love to know how.

It's just the irony of saying introducing hersay evidence by saying you could prove your case in court. And while your correct that I don't always provide the sources to back up my claims, I at least am making the effort to provide specific sources and links. I think I manage to do that a lot of the time.

There is another problem with your supposed eyewittnesses. They are a perfect example of the dolphin fallacy. The dolphin fallacy is that people claim, on the basis of eyewittness accounts, that people were saved from certain drowning by dolphins guiding them to shore.

The problem is that there is an alternative hypothesis; what if the dolphins are just playful, and pushing people in a random direction? It accounts for all the stories of people miraculously saved. Everyone else, of course, drowned before telling their story.

Your sources -- if we can call them that, since you can't produce them -- say Cuba and everything about Cuba is bad, bad, bad. Who are these people? These are the people who risked their lives to immigrate to America. The overwhelm majority of Cubans may disagree with them entirely, or at least have a more balanced view of life under Castro. But those people, by definition, would not be abandoning their country to start a new life in America. You would not find them in Miami, where you collected your data. Your sample is non-generalizable, a scientist would say. And even a jury would recognise them as hopelessly biased.

You are correct, I haven't seen the film. I have seen other Moore films, and I am extrapolating his propensity to bend the truth.

I go by what you said, which was that Moore is a liar because his thesis could not be true. That is what you said, and I think it better reflects the thinking behind your opinion.

 

[Miami_med]

No, I'm balanced and you attack the left. Let's argue about it some more! Probably not a useful discussion. But if you can point my to a thread in which you vehemently defend "the left" while sterotyping and heaping insults on "the right" I'd be happy to see it. It's my observation that you tilt to one side. But I could be wrong.

Shall I remind you that you started this conversation with:
But the main strain of rightism in America today relies heavily on xenophobia, nativism, bigotry, and appeals to faith.

from Luke 18: 18-27.


He may have said something similiar to the disciples. He had a really simple message and tended to repeat Himself.

Where is the next verse where Jesus sends the IRS after the rich man to throw him in jail for his refusal?

Shouldn't you be against bankrupcy laws, if it is your belief that the right to property is an absolute right? In any case, I think you've put you finger on the spirit of these passages, which is -- wealth has the power to put other people in servitude, and that power must be limited, and those that don't have it need to be cared for by those who do. The Bible rejects the idea that wealth and poverty are distributed justly and that the rich deserve to keep their riches and the poor are poor for a good reason.

One is an issue of posession and one of enforcement. No one can force the rich man to lend his money, but I don't have a problem on setting ground rules as to what he can do to get it back. He has given up his property with risk for the purpose of obtaining a profit. Once he lends it, it is no longer his, he gets instead a promise of repayment, unless you would argue that he is supposed to get the exact same dollars back.

Reiterating your position is not the same as arguing your point. As to the commandment; the Bible specifically says to pay your taxes, it describes systems of taxation and support for the needy; the authors of the Bible did not have any way of knowing that 2,000 years later a fringe movement would believe that taxes and regulation constituted a form of theft.

Well, I'll point out that I'm not really using the bible as the basis of my belief system. I was just trying to argue in the defense of those that you started by attacking (how liberal of me). I don't think that any of the other people in question (the "religious zealots") are arguing that we shouldn't pay our taxes, but rather arguing what it is that we should pay taxes for.

I wasn't talking about punishment. A law that, say, closes post offices on Sunday is not punishment for breaking the Sabbath; it is an effort by society to uphold Christian precepts in how they govern themselves. You are trying to associate it with punishment, and I don't think that association holds water.

But you do associate it with punishment. If you simply argued that helping out your fellow man was good, I wouldn't argue with you. It's the enforcement that involves punishment for those who "fail to do the right thing," that I have a problem with.

So do I. But my original point, which still stands, is that Christian fundamentalists, who do not believe this, ought to be first in line advocating the provision for the needy that the Bible commands on every other page. They ought to be screaming for food, housing, and health care for the poor. But the greatest number of them are not.

I think that I've atleast shown that it is possible to disagree with forced charity and be religious, though I am not particularly religious myself.

It's just the irony of saying introducing hersay evidence by saying you could prove your case in court. And while your correct that I don't always provide the sources to back up my claims, I at least am making the effort to provide specific sources and links. I think I manage to do that a lot of the time.

There is another problem with your supposed eyewittnesses. They are a perfect example of the dolphin fallacy. The dolphin fallacy is that people claim, on the basis of eyewittness accounts, that people were saved from certain drowning by dolphins guiding them to shore.

The problem is that there is an alternative hypothesis; what if the dolphins are just playful, and pushing people in a random direction? It accounts for all the stories of people miraculously saved. Everyone else, of course, drowned before telling their story.

Your sources -- if we can call them that, since you can't produce them -- say Cuba and everything about Cuba is bad, bad, bad. Who are these people? These are the people who risked their lives to immigrate to America. The overwhelm majority of Cubans may disagree with them entirely, or at least have a more balanced view of life under Castro. But those people, by definition, would not be abandoning their country to start a new life in America. You would not find them in Miami, where you collected your data. Your sample is non-generalizable, a scientist would say. And even a jury would recognise them as hopelessly biased.

You know, we'll just have to disagree on this point. When Castro eventually knocks off, and the people on the island develope some semblance of freedom to say what they think without fear of the secret police, we'll address this again. You're right that I can't interview everyone on the island. I do have access to the largest collection of Cubans who live in a place that lets them speak in the world. If you still need witnesses, I'll tell you to turn on channel 7 news in Miami whenever anything happens in Cuba, and you'll see some the people of whom I speak. If you're not from here, it's impossible to understand how life revolves around Castro here in Miami. That is something that I know personally, I speak for myself so there is no heresay, and any disagreement on your part would have to be based on faith, unless you have a long Floridian history that I don't know about.

I go by what you said, which was that Moore is a liar because his thesis could not be true. That is what you said, and I think it better reflects the thinking behind your opinion.

It means that I will not trust it from him. I called him a liar because of previous examples of him lying and misrepresenting the truth in previous films.

 

[QuikClot]

Shall I remind you that you started this conversation with:
But the main strain of rightism in America today relies heavily on xenophobia, nativism, bigotry, and appeals to faith.

And your issue with this statement is?

No one can force the rich man to lend his money, but I don't have a problem on setting ground rules as to what he can do to get it back. He has given up his property with risk for the purpose of obtaining a profit. Once he lends it, it is no longer his, he gets instead a promise of repayment, unless you would argue that he is supposed to get the exact same dollars back.

Equally, no one can force you to work, or buy property, or employ people, and when you do those things, there are conditions attached, and those conditions include regulations and taxes. These are not punishments, but rather, part of the rules of the wealth-making game, which is a part of the larger being-a-member-of-society game.

I was just trying to argue in the defense of those that you started by attacking (how liberal of me).

Again, you never argue in defense of the left, and you chose to see factual description of your allies on the Christian right as an attack.

I think that I've atleast shown that it is possible to disagree with forced charity and be religious, though I am not particularly religious myself.

It seems to me that you have simply asserted it several times without coming to grips with what the text says. While it is certainly possible to be "religious" and be against the government caring for the poor, we are not talking about being "religious" but one, particular interpretion of one particular religion. And what I have argued is that the belief system of the American Christian fundementalist is not self-consistant -- that they selectively advocate for certain elements of Biblical morality to be enshirned in law, that they elevate the Bible as the source of these principles, but they ignore what the Bible says regarding social justice and welfare. I know that you do not share this belief system, but have tried to show how the Bible supports it, but your efforts in that regard have not been at all successful, in my opinion, perhaps because you haven't spent a lot of time with the Bible yourself (which is my sense in talking to you about the Bible, and I could be wrong.) Are there any parts of the Bible -- you mentioned the parable of the talents before -- that you think support the case that you are making about the Christain right?

 

[Miami_med]

And your issue with this statement is?

That it doesn't come off as "balanced"

Equally, no one can force you to work, or buy property, or employ people, and when you do those things, there are conditions attached, and those conditions include regulations and taxes. These are not punishments, but rather, part of the rules of the wealth-making game, which is a part of the larger being-a-member-of-society game.

We'll just have to have a fundamental disagreement on this point. When I lend money out, there is no way for me to guarantee that I will get it back. I believe in bankruptcy laws as a mechanism to prevent debtors from enslaving the indebted. If an indebted can pay back, bankruptcy should then force them to do so. Nevertheless, in a loan, the lender needs the borrower. This isn't the case with regards to taxes used to pay for someone else's healthcare, and it is simply the government taking money against the will of the property owner/employer to shift it to someone else.

As an aside, I believe that I am being misconstrued. I am not an anarchist, and I don't believe that all taxation is inherintly evil. I believe that the government is an organization that exists to provide for common defense, and I have no problem with taxes for that purpose. When the government steps beyond that, I question its right, and if it has no right, it is simply taking money. That is stealing.

We could debate this forever, and I could clarify forever, because I'm sure that some of what I said will be misconstrued.

Again, you never argue in defense of the left, and you chose to see factual description of your allies on the Christian right as an attack.

Again no. I argued that the left used the same tactics as the christian right and then pointed out some factual inconsistencies between some of your arguments and what I've seen. You never attack the left, so I've never had to defend anything in that direction.

It seems to me that you have simply asserted it several times without coming to grips with what the text says. While it is certainly possible to be "religious" and be against the government caring for the poor, we are not talking about being "religious" but one, particular interpretion of one particular religion. And what I have argued is that the belief system of the American Christian fundementalist is not self-consistant -- that they selectively advocate for certain elements of Biblical morality to be enshirned in law, that they elevate the Bible as the source of these principles, but they ignore what the Bible says regarding social justice and welfare. I know that you do not share this belief system, but have tried to show how the Bible supports it, but your efforts in that regard have not been at all successful, in my opinion, perhaps because you haven't spent a lot of time with the Bible yourself (which is my sense in talking to you about the Bible, and I could be wrong.) Are there any parts of the Bible -- you mentioned the parable of the talents before -- that you think support the case that you are making about the Christain right?

My father, who was born an Ashkenazi Jew converted to christianity in high school. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, before my family was kicked out after my father exposed a small scandal involving funding misappropriation on the part of the minister. Before our expulsion, I attended three services a week, played in the church band, and helped run the sound system. I attended a small number of churches after that, but stopped going seriously after about the age of 17. Does that answer your question about my biblical background?

I think that I've mentioned about a zillion times that I don't agree with forcing religious dogma into law. I only mentioned that it was possible to both be a "Christian" and not believe in government entitlement programs. My father happens to be of both persuasions and could put together an argument that would far surpass mine. Nevertheless, I'll indulge you just a touch:

If you want to make the argument that early law was tied in religion, and argument for equal responsibility:
Exodus 30:15
The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

To the argument that we should labor to end poverty:
1 Samuel 2:7
The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

From the same passage as the parable of the talents in Luke 19:
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

I could go on, but I really don't want to, as it is irrelevant and not really reflective of my position. We can agree that you believe that the religious right are a group of xenophobic hypocrites. I really don't care to argue the point anymore. I also don't really care how you choose to feel about my own observation that the tactics you labeled as tactics of the right are simply tactics of politics that are readily used by both sides.

P.S. Perhaps we should turn this thread back over to "sicko," start a new thread called "Miami_med and Quikclot Don't Agree on Anything," and let everyone else watch our next debate honestly.

 

[QuikClot]

That it doesn't come off as "balanced"

You claimed to be balanced. I didn't, except the tongue-in-cheek remark, above. I feel it is more important to be correct than to occupy the middle ground.

You never attack the left, so I've never had to defend anything in that direction.

So your mission on SDN is to attack whatever I say, and that is why you never say anything against the right? I have to give you credit; you come up with justifications that I never see coming.

My father, who was born an Ashkenazi Jew converted to christianity in high school. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, before my family was kicked out after my father exposed a small scandal involving funding misappropriation on the part of the minister. Before our expulsion, I attended three services a week, played in the church band, and helped run the sound system. I attended a small number of churches after that, but stopped going seriously after about the age of 17. Does that answer your question about my biblical background?

No, not really. Have you ever made a serious study of the Bible?

I think that I've mentioned about a zillion times that I don't agree with forcing religious dogma into law.

And that would be therefore the zillionth time I have to remind you that we are talking about what Christain fundementalists believe, not what you believe.

If you want to make the argument that early law was tied in religion, and argument for equal responsibility:

Thank you for providing your sources

Exodus 30:15
The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

This particular contribution is a flat fee; however, the fact that this has to be spelled out in this case, rather than simply saying "pay a half a shekel," makes it clear that the normal practice would be for the rich to pay more and the poor to pay less. The fee is the same for both implictly as an exception.

Why make an exception in this case? Read on:

30:16
When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites' reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.

This offering is the same for everyone because it represents the price of their lives. It must be the same for everyone, because everyone's life is equally valuable.

To the argument that we should labor to end poverty:
1 Samuel 2:7
The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

I can't see how that passage implies that labor ends poverty. It says just the opposite; no human activity, neither labor nor anything else, determines our circumstances, which are determined by God:

The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

8He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

9He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

10The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

From the same passage as the parable of the talents in Luke 19:
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Again, it's not about money. It's a parable.

I could go on, but I really don't want to, as it is irrelevant and not really reflective of my position. We can agree that you believe that the religious right are a group of xenophobic hypocrites.

Well, not everyone who is inconsistant is a hypocrite. No large group, including the religious right, is without its margins and its outliners. You can find good people and bad people everywhere. But in general, I would say the movement derives much of its energy from those negative human passions I described. Unfortunately, it is always easier to create a mass movement based on those things.

P.S. Perhaps we should turn this thread back over to "sicko," start a new thread called "Miami_med and Quikclot Don't Agree on Anything," and let everyone else watch our next debate honestly.

Perhaps we shouldn't take all the blame; after all, it's hard to stay on topic when the topic is a movie that no one has seen.

 

[Miami_med]

You claimed to be balanced. I didn't, except the tongue-in-cheek remark, above. I feel it is more important to be correct than to occupy the middle ground.

As do I. I didn't know that your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

So your mission on SDN is to attack whatever I say, and that is why you never say anything against the right? I have to give you credit; you come up with justifications that I never see coming.

No, but unless you have personally chased all of my posts and writing on all topics and all forums, I assume that the majority of your experience with me has been when we disagreed.

You'll probably note, if we really want to get into this, that most of what we argue about is money, and libertarian economics are generally considered conservative, though no "conservative" politician seems to believe in libertarian politics. My issues with universal healthcare have to do with forcing people's hands by taking the money to fund it, not some deep seeded belief that we shouldn't want to help people. On the social issue, we're not as far apart as you might think, being that I would love for everyone to get healthcare. Where we differ is the belief as to what is tolerable as a means of achieving this.

No, not really. Have you ever made a serious study of the Bible?

I have, though it has now been long enough that I occasionally forget the location of certain verses.

And that would be therefore the zillionth time I have to remind you that we are talking about what Christain fundementalists believe, not what you believe.

I have to say that it's been pretty hard to tell what we were talking about, since most of this misguided argument about peripheral things related to a movie that we haven't seen has intermixed these two things.

This particular contribution is a flat fee; however, the fact that this has to be spelled out in this case, rather than simply saying "pay a half a shekel," makes it clear that the normal practice would be for the rich to pay more and the poor to pay less. The fee is the same for both implictly as an exception.

Why make an exception in this case? Read on:

30:16
When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites' reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.

This offering is the same for everyone because it represents the price of their lives. It must be the same for everyone, because everyone's life is equally valuable.

Thus all individuals must provide the same amount of money. Each life being equally valuable also requires a contribution from each individual. I will admit that I'm stretching this a bit, but I am trying to make an argument in the name of someone I don't really agree with.

I can't see how that passage implies that labor ends poverty. It says just the opposite; no human activity, neither labor nor anything else, determines our circumstances, which are determined by God:

It has to do with the attempts of men to end poverty. If God decides, no war on poverty, universal healthcare, or wealth redistribution should be able to solve it.

Again, it's not about money. It's a parable.

Yes, a parable about money.

Well, not everyone who is inconsistant is a hypocrite. No large group, including the religious right, is without its margins and its outliners. You can find good people and bad people everywhere. But in general, I would say the movement derives much of its energy from those negative human passions I described. Unfortunately, it is always easier to create a mass movement based on those things.

Some of this is probably true, and I won't argue with it. I just felt compelled to point out that this wasn't some kind of "the right wingers do it so we should do the opposite," kind of thing.

Perhaps we shouldn't take all the blame; after all, it's hard to stay on topic when the topic is a movie that no one has seen.

Hey we just agreed on something

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I was pleasantly surprised- this from person that doesn't really like Mike Moore. Rather than being his usual dickish self, he was WAY more somber and calm. In fact, he didn't even show up in the movie until half way through when he toured a British hospital. Rather than focusing on the uninsured, Moore wisely decided to focus on the insured that got screwed over by insurance companies. Some of the things that have lead to the death of people due to insurance loopholes will leave you near tears.

 

[ChessMess]

I also used to hate Mr. Moore vehemently. I did not want to see Sicko because I knew his viewpoint to be totally biased and inflammatory - rather than balanced and impartial. Why subject myself to information the validity of which I cannot verify?

I did, however, see Sicko yesterday. I believe this film is much more objective than other Moore films. It did not drive me away, but presented a picture of the motivation that drives healthcare insurers and pharmacy companies as being contrary to the service they say they provide - namely healthcare. As evidence of this, Mr. Moore offers testimony from three people who worked for large health insurance corporations. They were told that their jobs, as claim analysts, executives, or as M.D.'s, were to find ways to deny converage. The executive's year end bonus was tied to how many dollars in claims she was able to deny. The M.D.'s job was to use medical knowledge to support the companies denied claims. If you want to see a dark side of the healthcare system, this is the movie to see.

As another viewpoint, Mr. Moore shows the English, French and Canadian healthcare systems motivating factor as helping people get better (as opposed to the US systems motivating factor as making money). Generous materinity packages, state sponsored nanny's and daycare, the great ease of obtaining coverage, a complete lack of billing, no denial of coverage no matter what, and small benefits (such as travel reimbursement for those who cannot afford to travel to the health center; or doctors making house calls) all paint a picture of three countie's medical system's that deliver a type of medical care via a national health system that was built on the foundation of delivering medical care to anyone who needs it. Seeing the difference in care was depressing, and motivating.

In the past it has been easy to dismiss Mr. Moore's films as being inflammatory and idiotic. With this new picture, however, a deeper examination of Mr. Moore's message and motives become clearer without the mudslinging dirtying up the relecting pool's waters.

One of the two main topics for this next presidential election, as well as a topic for your medical school interviews, Mr. Moore's Sicko is worth seeing. If for no other reason than to make your argument of why you hate Mr. Moore all the more believable.

At the end of the day, whether you like Mr. Moore or not, the data doesn't lie. 1) 50 million in our country do not have health insurance. 2) HMO's and pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money. 3) Individuals with legitimate medical problems who have medical insurance are being denied coverage.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index

 

[QuikClot]

Why subject myself to information the validity of which I cannot verify?

Always a valid concern. There is a section on Moore's website where he cites the sources for the claims he makes in his films. The one for Sicko is at http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/.

 

[bulletproof]

I also used to hate Mr. Moore vehemently. I did not want to see Sicko because I knew his viewpoint to be totally biased and inflammatory - rather than balanced and impartial. Why subject myself to information the validity of which I cannot verify?

I did, however, see Sicko yesterday. I believe this film is much more objective than other Moore films. It did not drive me away, but presented a picture of the motivation that drives healthcare insurers and pharmacy companies as being contrary to the service they say they provide - namely healthcare. As evidence of this, Mr. Moore offers testimony from three people who worked for large health insurance corporations. They were told that their jobs, as claim analysts, executives, or as M.D.'s, were to find ways to deny converage. The executive's year end bonus was tied to how many dollars in claims she was able to deny. The M.D.'s job was to use medical knowledge to support the companies denied claims. If you want to see a dark side of the healthcare system, this is the movie to see.

As another viewpoint, Mr. Moore shows the English, French and Canadian healthcare systems motivating factor as helping people get better (as opposed to the US systems motivating factor as making money). Generous materinity packages, state sponsored nanny's and daycare, the great ease of obtaining coverage, a complete lack of billing, no denial of coverage no matter what, and small benefits (such as travel reimbursement for those who cannot afford to travel to the health center; or doctors making house calls) all paint a picture of three countie's medical system's that deliver a type of medical care via a national health system that was built on the foundation of delivering medical care to anyone who needs it. Seeing the difference in care was depressing, and motivating.

In the past it has been easy to dismiss Mr. Moore's films as being inflammatory and idiotic. With this new picture, however, a deeper examination of Mr. Moore's message and motives become clearer without the mudslinging dirtying up the relecting pool's waters.

One of the two main topics for this next presidential election, as well as a topic for your medical school interviews, Mr. Moore's Sicko is worth seeing. If for no other reason than to make your argument of why you hate Mr. Moore all the more believable.

At the end of the day, whether you like Mr. Moore or not, the data doesn't lie. 1) 50 million in our country do not have health insurance. 2) HMO's and pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money. 3) Individuals with legitimate medical problems who have medical insurance are being denied coverage.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index

Absolutely. Irrespective of anyones viewpoint of Michael Moore personally, this movie should be seen. When Fox news gives it, "Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.", then you know somethings up. Btw Moores tackling Wolf Blitzer and Sanjay Gupta on CNN was great. For those who have not seen it:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA[/YOUTUBE]