[High Max]

Of course his profile says he is an American, so is he also calling himself that, calling me that since I didin't know what a vitamin was made out of, or does he feel the way I do about the average American not being smart in many ways? Hopefully it wasn't meant for me. I make a lot of smart choices. Academics is only a small part of what is called intelligence. You don't have to know the molecular make up of something or be a nerd to be smart. It would be like me saying someone is stupid only because that person doesn't know the physics of a blackhole and that is stupid to assume someone is stupid for a little reason like that. I'm just using a black hole as an example. It has nothing to do with blackhole and I was typing it without even thinking about blackhole's nick and only realized it when I was typing the word.

People these days, old and young, always think they know more than everyone else. To be truly smart is to realize that no one knows it all and to know that there is more to intelligence than mere academics and science. It covers a wide spectrum. You can be smart without even having a degree actually.

[BloodEagle]

First, I'm pretty sure that he was referencing the post(s) before your's.

Second, did that have to do with anything?

[iamzack]

He didn't say anything, so not really, no.

[High Max]

I wasn't sure, but just said so just incase. It's why I asked. I was not angry even if people get that perception of me. Most of the time, I'm not angry when I post. I was just asking to make sure followed by saying what I thought about somethings. No problem. It would have helped if he quoted though. I admit I skim posts a lot and not read all of them thoroughly. Maybe that was why I didn't know who it was directed at. In that case, my mistake.

As for a more on topic comment and a response to sushi's comment, I would give up some freedom if it meant more safety and health and a kinder and less superficial country and world where one can feel loved and appreciated. Sometimes my mind feels like going crazy having to worry about being used or lied to and not being cared about. I think to be so obsessed with freedom and putting it first can be seen as selfish. A balance of freedoms; not too few, not too many, is perfect. Another thing is that freedom comes at a price and therefore isn't truly free. It also costs a lot of money as well as responsibility. Note the high prices in USA. The more choice, the more cost, seemingly, and the more cost of life with less safety. Always a price in life since almost everything has cons to it.

Also, I think many of these so-called rights should be called privileges, not rights, because you have to earn them and that makes them privileges. A right to bare arms is not a right, it is a privilege since you are not born with the right to have a gun, but you must earn it and have a license. Its should be called "a privilege to bare arms". Just like when they say driving is not a right but a privilege.

[iamzack]

Also, I think many of these so-called rights should be called privileges, not rights, because you have to earn them and that makes them privileges. A right to bare arms is not a right, it is a privilege since you are not born with the right to have a gun, but you must earn it and have a license. Its should be called "a privilege to bare arms". Just like when they say driving is not a right but a privilege.

The thing is, we determine what rights are rights. We've determined that citizens of the US have the right to form organized militia and bear arms in that regard. We've determined that citizens have the right to the pursuit of happiness, insofar as their pursuit does not infringe on another's right to the pursuit of their own happiness. On a broader scale, internationally, we've come up with some rights that all people as humans have. Humans aren't born with the right to food, either, but any sane person will agree that all humans *do* have the right to live free from starvation.

[High Max]

I do feel people who are old enough should earn their food and contribute something to others in exchange for food and resources. It doesn't have to be a job; just kindness or doing a chore to help out for a provider of food if they can't provide for themselves. Of course I'm talking about people who are not too sick or too young to do so. I also feel people who have abundance should share it to the ones who really need it and are thankful.

[iamzack]

Most people don't like to be leeches. I'm sure some people don't mind, but most would rather do something to help themselves than just take charity. Pretty much agreed on all points, though.

[Kosh]

Can't remember. Maybe here somewhere: http://www.scientificamerican.com/.

I don't think that is the site, but maybe a search here might turn up something, or I could google it.

Edit: I found something on it here just now: http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m4d14-How-to-override-your-bad-genes-with-food. There are no doubt more sites on it if I look harder.

I'm skeptical of claims like these unless I see them in a major peer reviewed medical journal

[Liberator]

I also feel people who have abundance should share it to the ones who really need it and are thankful.

I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to.  The current state of affairs has some guys with police powers forcing the people with the food to share it with the ones that really need it because it makes them more popular with the people who need it and those people let them get away with anything.  Meanwhile, the people with the food are insulted, belittled, demonized and made fun of because they don't want to share as much as the people with police powers are making them share.  It's not that they don't want to share, just that they want to retain control over how much they are willing to share.

Boy, that whole food thing is a good analogy.

[Kosh]

I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to.

What about the ones who gained their fortunes through ethically questionable means? When Bear Stearns failed, the CEO who ran it into the ground walked away with a $25 million golden parachute while thousands of people lost their jobs. Did he deserve to get this fortune? I don't think so.

[Turambar]

[quote author=High Max link=topic=64910.msg1281103#msg1281103
I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to.  The current state of affairs has some guys with police powers forcing the people with the food to share it with the ones that really need it because it makes them more popular with the people who need it and those people let them get away with anything.  Meanwhile, the people with the food are insulted, belittled, demonized and made fun of because they don't want to share as much as the people with police powers are making them share.  It's not that they don't want to share, just that they want to retain control over how much they are willing to share.

Boy, that whole food thing is a good analogy.

**** your selfish Ayn Rand bull****.

you will never be in the top 1% EVER so quit your goddamn *****ing.

[Liberator]

We're not talking about the top 1% anymore, we're talking about forcing the majority to give a much larger amount of they're income to the minority, simply because they can't get a job good enough to pay for the health care they need.  The problem is the health care costs, not the employment structure of the minority, added to the increasing problem of these elected officials who are acting like kings, queens and other forms of royalty circa France around the time if Louis and Anne.  We've got elected officials in this country accusing the people that elected them of being unAmerican and telling them to shut up because they don't wanna talk about it.

BTW, what does Objectivism have to do with this?  It's an interesting idea from certain perspectives, but you talk about it like it's philosophical porn and you just found your kid looking at it.

[Hades]

they're income to the minority

Look, several times, people have told you that their != they're.

"They're" is a conjunction, from the two words "they are". You are using it in the place of "their", which is possessive. The proper use of "they're" is as follows: "They're too many of the to fight off!"

The correct use for "their" is as follows: "Bob is upstairs packing their stuff."

And it seems as if you are ignoring posts like these, if so, **** you.

[Turambar]

Well what do you propose we do to lower health care costs? Force pharmaceutical companies to stop making retarded profits off of others' lives? Force insurance companies to cover everyone that needs insurance, not just the low risk groups? Force insurance companies to cover everyone who pays them premiums instead of allowing them to wriggle out of claims on the shiftiest grounds possible? If only a bill to do those things was-- OH RIGHT. Can't have that! That's socialism! **** poor people. If poor kids wanted cancer treatment, well, they should have just not been born poor.

PS: We already offed my kid. It thought the government paying for health care meant the government would kill people, and I didn't want to be associated with anything that ****ing retarded.

[SpardaSon21]

About pharmaceutical companies: I have heard it takes around a billion dollars on average to get a completely new drug to market.  And all of that R&D money can be for nothing if the FDA doesn't approve the drug for sale.  There's a lot of risk in pharmaceuticals.

[Turambar]

there's a lot of risk in telling people to self-diagnose and over-medicate and yet big pharma spends twice as much money on that than they do on research.

[SpardaSon21]

Maybe because marketing sells, and selling is essential to a business making money?  And most drug ads are for prescription drugs.  And to get a prescription drug, you need a prescription from a doctor, who may or may not agree with your self-diagnosis.  And that still doesn't change the fact that developing drugs is an expensive and lengthy process.  If drug companies can't recoup their losses, they simply won't make drugs.  Ever consider that?

[High Max]

We've got elected officials in this country accusing the people that elected them of being unAmerican and telling them to shut up because they don't wanna talk about it.

What's wrong with being unAmerican. I find it actually better than being blinded by patriotism. Too many people here are brainwashed into thinking that USA is always right and the good guys without looking at the bad and many problems of the culture and other things.

Some things should be forced, like Turambar seems to be saying. The only type of goverment I would say is bad is a dictatorship, but USA seems to think that anything besides capitalism is evil and closes its mind to the world's differing cultures (one could say capitalism is evil because it encourages selfishness) without realizing that every type of goverment (not including dictatorship) has pros and cons. I'd think communism would be less evil since it is collective and less selfish and those cultures tend to put money second instead of first, like one should do. Communism appears like the word community. For the greater good. Mixing capitalism and a little socialism with communism may be the answer, if possible. That way you may have a culture like communism that isn't so superficial and selfish and also without the down side of people being poor so easily.

Maybe then greedy companies will be minimized and no more Pharma. Maybe Pharma should be replaced.

[iamzack]

I wonder if pharma drugs would cost so much if the companies weren't buying doctors and politicians. Hmm..

[Grizzly]

I wonder if pharma drugs would cost so much if the companies weren't buying doctors and politicians. Hmm..

They have to buy off doctors and politicians in order to make their products more expensive, which they must do in order to buy off the doctors and politicians...

(repeat forever).