Healthcare & rationing

[Skipjack]

Then victims do not take responsibility.

As I said earlier - victims were often abused children. Then they grow up and incite situations to repeat the abuse. Are they really victims?

I find this a quite disturbing way to look at things, Msimon. Sorry, but this is quite perverted. Putting the guilt onto the victims. This is the kind of ultra leftwing bullshit that I have to take here all the time. Its the societies and the victims fault that perpetrators become perpetrators? I dont think so!
A victim is a victim. Unless they literally asked to be beaten up, or to be raped, etc they are still victims.
The rest is behavioristic nonsense.

[MSimon]

Then victims do not take responsibility.

As I said earlier - victims were often abused children. Then they grow up and incite situations to repeat the abuse. Are they really victims?

I find this a quite disturbing way to look at things, Msimon. Sorry, but this is quite perverted. Putting the guilt onto the victims. This is the kind of ultra leftwing bullshit that I have to take here all the time. Its the societies and the victims fault that perpetrators become perpetrators? I dont think so!
A victim is a victim. Unless they literally asked to be beaten up, or to be raped, etc they are still victims.
The rest is behavioristic nonsense.

If I start a fight and then get beat up am I responsible or a victim?

Of course the guy who beat me up is a victim too. We are all victims now.

Hallelujah. No one is responsible. That will make a much better society.

Ultra left wing? I'm about as right as they come. A libertarian. Totally into limited government.

I didn't ever say it was societies fault. It is the fault of individuals.

If I goad a bear and it takes off my arm is it the bear's fault? Now of course humans should be better than bears. Still. Even humans have limits. And to some extent the limits of what a person can deal with are genetically determined (we are all individually different).

So how do you fix all this? I can't tell you. But it is going to have to be based on evidence. And the evidence is that some abused children want to get beat as adults.

Still. I follow the evidence where it leads. And where it leads is an ugly place. So be it.

Now from what I read some of these abused children like to take illegal drugs to reduce their sensitivity. So we could reduce some of this by letting people have their medicine. You don't hear about pot heads starting fights. Alcohol lovers do that. Ask police: would they rather face an alcohol fueled mob or a mob of pot heads? It is nearly unanimous. The pot heads are less trouble.

[choff]

I recall a documentary on Heroin + news articles that it was originally invented for relieving pain in Cancer patients and amputees. This is apparently how it is used in England. I have no objections to doctor prescribed drugs with proper monitoring for Cancer and Amputation pain. In fact, I remember reading about an opiate derived drug 250 times more potent than heroin. While I don't remember the name, I think it was only meant for the dying.

I bring this up because one of the problems in Afghanistan is that the staple crop for poor people is the Poppy. Eradication policy drives them to support the Taliban, plus addiction is a problem in some villages.

What has been proposed by some NATO countries is Afghanistan Opium production under UN license, for prescription medication sales to the third world. This would reduce the price for legal opiate derived drugs world wide, and help win the war.

[MSimon]

Studies that I have read along with anecdotal evidence from users who have corresponded with me says that near 100% (well a very high % anyway) of female heroin users were sexually abused children.

Even though it once was an over the counter medicine I think that allowing doctors to freely prescribe it without DEA oversight is not a bad way to go.

The only thing making a pile of vegetables worth its weight in gold is prohibition. You want to stop funding the Taliban? Legalize everything.

Hear are some law enforcement officers in America who agree:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

[pfrit]

Then victims do not take responsibility.

As I said earlier - victims were often abused children. Then they grow up and incite situations to repeat the abuse. Are they really victims?

I find this a quite disturbing way to look at things, Msimon. Sorry, but this is quite perverted. Putting the guilt onto the victims. This is the kind of ultra leftwing bullshit that I have to take here all the time. Its the societies and the victims fault that perpetrators become perpetrators? I dont think so!
A victim is a victim. Unless they literally asked to be beaten up, or to be raped, etc they are still victims.
The rest is behavioristic nonsense.

You are missing the point that I made. It is a reason, not an excuse. To solve the problem (if solvable) you HAVE to address the reasons. Jail is no more of a solution than endless hand wringing over the "victims". Face up to the fact that in every abusive relationship there are at least two people. How many times have you read about so poor women who was repeatedly beaten and said "I would have walked right out!" or "I would have shot the ************". Just getting the victims out of the situation is not enough. You have to get them to face themselves and teach them that they are not worthless and to stand up for themselves. I wish we were more successful in modern programs. The abuser is rarely the only person with "flaws". Again, not an excuse, just a reason. OK, a five year old kid is as close to a pure victim as you can get, but if you do not address the kids psychic scars, they will face a future where they may become an abuser or a drug addict, trying to get rid of the unaddressed pain (shout out to MSimon). Victims have a hard time getting better as long as you treat them as victims. I wish we had some people here who have done work with abuse centers. I have, but only as a computer programmer.

PS. I have always tried to take responsiblity for everything in my life. Like that I am a white male. I can only affect things that I can control and by saying that my xy chromosomes are my fault, it gives me power over how that affects my life. I have no intention of changing either my skin color or sex, but I can prevent myself from being a stereotype. I cannot be a victim and still be alive and sane because I will not allow myself to be.

[MSimon]

pfrit,

I am in total agreement and it was the point I was trying to make.

Excellent.

Let me add that retraining neural networks is harder than reprogramming computers.

I have worked with victims of abuse one on one and have retrained them but it takes a lot of effort. Years. And it only works if people want to change. If not there is not much you can do. And in some cases there is nothing you can do even if you want to. Which is one of the reasons we have drug addicts and prisons. In my estimation it is the main reason.

In any case if a "patient" is unable to progress the least we can do is what doctors ought to be able to do in such a situation. Give the patients drugs to keep them comfortable and ease their pain.

Instead we have declared such folks "addicts" and in so far as possible banished them from society. Not very civilized behavior IMO. Rather unChristian for those of you who follow that religion.

[Skipjack]

Well, I still dont agree that these victims should not get health insurance. It just is wrong.
Anyway, here in Austria they get it, without questions asked.
Whether drugs are the right treatment for their problems are a entirely different topic (though we had that topic drift in here before).
I just want to say that: If a medical doctor prescribes a drug, it is fine with me. I just dont think that drugs with such bad side effects as Heroin and Kokain have (Marijuana has much less of those) should be prescribed without supervision, or you will end up with a lot more overdosing addicts really soon.

Ultra left wing? I'm about as right as they come. A libertarian.

Well no, you Sir are what I call an anarchist, not a right winger. Right wing people are into "law and order", not "everyone for himself". You know?
Libertarians are not right wing. They may have found a voice in some of the ("rich people are always right") republicans in the US, but even most of them will not agree with you.
It is the left wing behaviorists that still follow Skinners long failed ideas that say " it is the fault of the environment that people become what they are". That is as we all know meanwhile bullshit. Watson and Crick, you know... With "the society is at fault", they perverted the system and turned victims into perpetrators and perpetrators into victims. Thats why prisoners here get "prison vacation" and other perverse stuff.
BTW, in contrast to what left wingers say, prison is not meant educate perpetrators into better people. It can not do that. It is simply a means to remove a perpetrator from society without killing him. So society is protected from him. In addition to this it has the effect of a deterrend on some people. Victims might get some satisfaction from the thought of the perpetrator getting punished.

Anyway, those that were victimized in their youth are still victims. They simply started becoming victimized already in their childhood and it simply continued. Saying that they are picking fights is ridiculous. Even then, the law is obvious on how to deal with this. Even if someone is picking a fight with you, you are not allowed to beat him up like that.
Now of course if you are saying " we dont need laws" then you end up with a mob killing each other really quickly. You know, to prevent these things from happening society built this really complex structure of laws and stuff.

Also for heavens sake, there is a huge difference between Heroin and marijuana. Even if I was to say (and I am not, but there is indeed some controversy here in science) that marijuanas side effects are less than those of alcohol (or even cigarettes, which I do not believe, btw), then that not mean that the same is true for Heroin, which is a very different substance.

[alexjrgreen]

It is the left wing behaviorists that still follow Skinners long failed ideas that say " it is the fault of the environment that people become what they are". That is as we all know meanwhile bullshit. Watson and Crick, you know...

Twin studies suggest that nature and nurture each influence about half of what we do.

I once fell into conversation with a guy who had been really pleased that his daughter had finally kicked her addiction to abusive men. He was describing his shock at discovering that her genuinely kind new boyfriend was being visibly sucked in to her learned behaviours...

Co-dependent behaviour is common in the families of alcoholics and drug addicts. People's willingness to collude in this way is often hard to explain.

[TallDave]

Well no, you Sir are what I call an anarchist, not a right winger. Right wing people are into "law and order", not "everyone for himself". You know?

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in limited government.

The essential principle of libertarianism is that government's main legitimate function is to secure our liberties. This was called "liberalism" up until the 20th century . This includes ensuring free markets (e.g. acting against monopolies).

Leftists' essential principle is that the government's main purpose is to coercively redistribute income and otherwise produce social justice; for righties, it is to coercively enforce morality -- criminal, sexual and otherwise.

Libertarians believe coercion should be kept to a necessary minimum.

marijuanas side effects are less than those of alcohol (or even cigarettes, which I do not believe, btw)

Cigarettes are far worse for you for a variety of reasons. One reason is simply that nicotine is a deadly poison; a few drops can kill you (unlike THC which has a far lower toxicity). Not surprisingly continued exposure is very bad for both your lungs and circulatory system. Another reason is that tobacco plants are oddly proficient at soaking up radioactivity -- the U.S. Surgeon General once stated that Americans are exposed to more radiation from cigarettes than any other source.

It's been shown in several studies that cigarettes disable the cilia that clean your lungs and also poison the alveoli. All this together is very very bad for you.

[pfrit]

It is the left wing behaviorists that still follow Skinners long failed ideas that say " it is the fault of the environment that people become what they are". That is as we all know meanwhile bullshit. Watson and Crick, you know...

Twin studies suggest that nature and nurture each influence about half of what we do.

I once fell into conversation with a guy who had been really pleased that his daughter had finally kicked her addiction to abusive men. He was describing his shock at discovering that her genuinely kind new boyfriend was being visibly sucked in to her learned behaviours...

Co-dependent behaviour is common in the families of alcoholics and drug addicts. People's willingness to collude in this way is often hard to explain.

There are problems with the twin studies. The first big one tainted every other one because it was rigged. Also, they do not seperate identical twins anymore (and haven't for more than 30 years) so we do not get any new data. Also, they are useless (but still fascinating) when one of the twins was raised in a high stress environment (early lost family member, abusive family, malnutrition). Also, most forms of insanity are not paralell in twins. The whole issue raises questions about the need for the "forbidden expiriments". Not that I am advocating doing them, but just saying that certain questions will be very hard to answer without them.

[TallDave]

I posted some more examples from the Washington Post. Well maybe they are "fact challenged" too. I have a feeling though that they both are true. Insurance companies have entire departments doing nothing but deny claims.

I didn't see those, but the MSM is overwhelmingly leftist so most likely they are giving only one side of the story. Generally what you find in these cases is that the insured lied about their medical condition.

People have some strange ideas about what "insurance" is. You can't buy fire insurance when your house is on fire, you can't buy flood insurance when your house is underwater, you can't buy life insurance on your deathbed, and you can't place a bet in Vegas on last week's NFL games, all for the same reason. Yet people expect to health insurance to work differently.

If you always cover everyone for everything, that's not insurance. And the consequence is rationed care.

[TallDave]

He was describing his shock at discovering that her genuinely kind new boyfriend was being visibly sucked in to her learned behaviours...

When someone is sufficiently trained to respond only to physical violence, you have a large incentive to employ physical violence against them.

Self-reprogramming is very difficult, even if you can get past the first necessary step of inserting a root command introducing a desire to reprogram. How hard is it for gay people to become straight? The ability of the neocortex to tell the hindbrain what to crave is pretty limited.

Some people actively crave physical abuse even without being abused themselves. This is probably somewhat genetic; it may have once been a valuable survival trait to seek a violent mate in a violent world. It's probably better to steer them into relatively healthy, controlled, consensual forms of abuse like mild S&M than to try to overcome their programming.

[MSimon]

Side effects of heroin are vastly overstated. In fact it is probably as safe as alcohol.

Here is what Consumer Reports says:

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIB ... cumenu.htm

Now why does your government lie to you about heroin? A LOT of jobs depend on maintaining those lies.

Before 1914 heroin was over the counter in most of the USA.

It really irks me that most of what people "know" about drugs is misinformation.

[alexjrgreen]

There are problems with the twin studies. The first big one tainted every other one because it was rigged.

Talk is cheap. Can you substantiate this?

Even if you can, what does it have to do with all the others?

[MSimon]

It is the left wing behaviorists that still follow Skinners long failed ideas that say " it is the fault of the environment that people become what they are". That is as we all know meanwhile bullshit. Watson and Crick, you know...

Twin studies suggest that nature and nurture each influence about half of what we do.

I once fell into conversation with a guy who had been really pleased that his daughter had finally kicked her addiction to abusive men. He was describing his shock at discovering that her genuinely kind new boyfriend was being visibly sucked in to her learned behaviours...

Co-dependent behaviour is common in the families of alcoholics and drug addicts. People's willingness to collude in this way is often hard to explain.

There are problems with the twin studies. The first big one tainted every other one because it was rigged. Also, they do not seperate identical twins anymore (and haven't for more than 30 years) so we do not get any new data. Also, they are useless (but still fascinating) when one of the twins was raised in a high stress environment (early lost family member, abusive family, malnutrition). Also, most forms of insanity are not paralell in twins. The whole issue raises questions about the need for the "forbidden expiriments". Not that I am advocating doing them, but just saying that certain questions will be very hard to answer without them.

Our knowledge of DNA is fixing that to some extent.

And yes. Even insanity is in part environmental.