Originally posted by StarrmanNice question..
Let us take a theoretical position that Superman exists. Now although he is endowed with superhuman strength, the power of flight, x-ray eyes, near invulnerability etc. He does not act in the best interests of humans unless it is in a reactionary capacity. For example, someone fires a nuclear missile at America and he flies it into space where it detonat ...[text shortened]... he purpose of this thread and is god morally bound to intervene to stop future pain/strife etc.?
At the end of the day, Superman is a Creature of God. He must do what
his and my God tell us to do.
Assuming Superman exists, makes me wonder how he never had a
claim to be God, after all he is 'man', and many men with fractions of his
powers claimed their Lordship over other men.
Superman is accountable as you and me are. For doing good or bad..
For all that is happening around us, is but test.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA perfect system until unwitting workers get caught up in it.
Absolutely not. Take from nobody. You're the one who wants to take from people via taxation.
Capitalists don't take from anybody. They trade.
It's not about trade anymore, it went past that a while back.
Now it's about control.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles8/10 Times it does. It's kickbacks from the military.
I mean that the government should spend exactly $0 on social medicine.
If it spends more, it is acting unjustly.
That which was designed to destroy turns to good use.
I would prefer it if it was the other way 'round though.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy do you feel that government funded healthcare is unjust, Doc?
I mean that the government should spend exactly $0 on social medicine.
If it spends more, it is acting unjustly.
EDIT - And what exactly is your definition of a "social medicine"?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCouldn't that amount be applied to almost every government program? And if 1 cent more is spent it would be labled "unjust"?
I mean that the government should spend exactly $0 on social medicine.
If it spends more, it is acting unjustly.
Nope, sorry Doc, but that doesn't add up. Either the government can or can't spend our tax money. You can't just pick out one program and give it a budget of $0. If the government can spend money on roads it can spend it on medicine, schools, nukes, etc.
Originally posted by wibI had read something some time ago about "the greater good" but I can't remember how that appies to nukes. Social medication falls under that.
Couldn't that amount be applied to almost every government program? And if 1 cent more is spent it would be labled "unjust"?
Nope, sorry Doc, but that doesn't add up. Either the government can or can't spend our tax money. You can't just pick out one program and give it a budget of $0. If the government can spend money on roads it can spend it on medicine, schools, nukes, etc.
What about disabled people? Do we just throw them on the streets? The government should be used as a tool for upholding the rights and way of life of all of it's citizens so that all may persue happiness and fulfillment. A system with no medical or social assistance leaves many behind.
If superman was to answer before God, he would answer of how he helped the meek and downtrodden in his life, and worked toward a goal of the greater good.
For whatever you do to them...
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI disagree in the strongest terms possible, Scribbles. Medicine should ABSOLUTELY NOT be a capital venture in any way, shape or form. Any doctor who cares more about his bottom line than healing the sick should be stripped of his license to practise. It is an altrusitic profession, like it or not...anything else is paying lip service to the hippocratic oath.
I wish it was infinite, because providing medicine is not something that a just government should be in the business of doing.
Originally posted by NyxieThe problem is the definition of "the greater good" is totally dependent upon those in power and how they wish to spend our tax dollars. Plenty of people will support spending $200 billion on a war, but cry like babies if the government spends 50 cents on some social program they disagree with.
I had read something some time ago about "the greater good" but I can't remember how that appies to nukes. Social medication falls under that.
What about disabled people? Do we just throw them on the streets? The government should be used as a tool for upholding the rights and way of life of all of it's citizens so that all may persue happiness and fulf ...[text shortened]... en in his life, and worked toward a goal of the greater good.
For whatever you do to them...
I'm reaching a point where I'm in favor of socialized medicine. My health insurance costs are steadily rising. Much faster than anything else in my life I can currently think of.
Originally posted by NyxieJust watching on ABC News the situation in Niger last night. If ever there was a need for a "superman" it is there but Rwingett made an excellent point that we don't need a superhero to fix situations like that.
I had read something some time ago about "the greater good" but I can't remember how that appies to nukes. Social medication falls under that.
What about disabled people? Do we just throw them on the streets? The government should be used as a tool for upholding the rights and way of life of all of it's citizens so that all may persue happiness and fulf ...[text shortened]... en in his life, and worked toward a goal of the greater good.
For whatever you do to them...
Due to lack of food, these poor people had to eat the rotted meat off disgarded carcasses. One woman had to bury her 1 year old because she starved to death.