The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pmChrist defines what a Christian is...I don't, and you don't.

But one thing for sure: even the worst expressions of false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons...

This will be lost on Mr Can because he really is a useless wänker:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pmChrist defines what a Christian is...I don't...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pm...false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pmChrist defines what a Christian is...I don't, and you don't.

But one thing for sure: even the worst expressions of false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons...

This will be lost on Mr Can because he really is a useless wänker:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pmChrist defines what a Christian is...I don't...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pm...false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons...

Wait... does "RC's" mean Roman Catholics?

That would be just beyond parody.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:03 pmChrist defines what a Christian is...I don't, and you don't.

But one thing for sure: even the worst expressions of false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons...

This will be lost on Mr Can

There' s no irony. We have been given the criteria, by the Man Himself. So we needn't remain in doubt.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 2:11 pm By "universal" healthcare, I mean a healthcare system relatively equally accessible to everyone in a particular society. As far as copays, drug plans, and the particulars, I couldn't say one way or the other how that should work.

Indeed. When Jesus tells us to clothe the naked and feed the hungry and be welcoming to strangers (immigrants) he's talking about providing the basic necessities and services that are needed by all to all irrespective of ability to purchase them.

No decent Christian would want healthcare to be rationed according to ability to pay, it should quite obviously be provided first and foremost to the those with the need.

No true Christian would abandon Christ's teachings and the example he set by his holy life of being holy like that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:05 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2026 2:49 pm...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

That you can even think this is so obviously absurd that I don't know what to say. You're saying, "Having to serve more people will not cost more than serving fewer."

No Mr Can. I am saying that the percentage of people involved would not "explode the costs". If you think otherwise, what is the explosive percentage and cost?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:31 pmWe have been given the criteria, by the Man Himself.

Well, we have a book.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:31 pmSo we needn't remain in doubt.

Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible; exactly as you do. What you are saying is that you shouldn't doubt your interpretation. Which makes you a useless wañker.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:05 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:45 pm is still wrong.

That you can even think this is so obviously absurd that I don't know what to say. You're saying, "Having to serve more people will not cost more than serving fewer."

No Mr Can. I am saying that the percentage of people involved would not "explode the costs". If you think otherwise, what is the explosive percentage and cost?

Rather, if you think it WON'T explode the costs, it's on you to establish a) how cheaply a crack or meth addict can be properly served by the universal health care system, b) how cheaply he can be housed, fed and rehabbed, c) what therapies will successfully return him to society, d) how many people will need this much money, and e) how the medical system can fund it all. Because you know those people exist, and you know darn well they exist outside of anything you might call a "universal health care" system. I don't believe you can't know that.

So if you think all of that's free, then you're the one smoking the crack pipe. And it's up to you to make your case, because you're the one insisting it can be done, and you're the one insisting it won't explode costs. The obvious fact is that it will.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:45 pm

Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible[/quote]
Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text, and some depart from it. So "they will claim" holds no water.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:47 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:45 pm Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not.

Quite so. Where I the sort to believe in souls at all, I still wouldn't believe for a minute the absurd claim that you possessed one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:46 pm Rather, if you think it WON'T explode the costs, it's on you to establish a) how cheaply a crack or meth addict can be properly served by the universal health care system, b) how cheaply he can be housed, fed and rehabbed, c) what therapies will successfully return him to society, d) how many people will need this much money, and e) how the medical system can fund it all. ll.

Uh, I think you do not understand what the problem is.

You are making an assumption about what it necessarily means to treat an addict. Depends om the substance of course (maintenance doses for an alcohol addict medically harmful. Not so many of the other things people are addicted to.

You have a MORAL problem with addictions, not a medical cost problem. Not necessarily expensive at all to provide daily measured doses.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:46 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:05 pm
That you can even think this is so obviously absurd that I don't know what to say. You're saying, "Having to serve more people will not cost more than serving fewer."

No Mr Can. I am saying that the percentage of people involved would not "explode the costs". If you think otherwise, what is the explosive percentage and cost?

Rather, if you think it WON'T explode the costs it's on you to establish...

No Mr Can, it is on you to establish how 0.02% of the population, who are already covered, would explode the cost were they ever to be covered which, again, they already are. You can't do research and you can't count.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:47 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:45 pm Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text...

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 7:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:46 pm Rather, if you think it WON'T explode the costs, it's on you to establish a) how cheaply a crack or meth addict can be properly served by the universal health care system, b) how cheaply he can be housed, fed and rehabbed, c) what therapies will successfully return him to society, d) how many people will need this much money, and e) how the medical system can fund it all. ll.

Uh, I think you do not understand what the problem is.

One of us doesn't, for sure.

Now, answer the question, if you can. How much, for how many, from where?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:47 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:45 pm Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text...

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

Read the text carefully.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 9:29 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 5:47 pm
Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text...

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

Read the text carefully.

Well, that settles it. IC has a valid point. We really don't know the moon isn't made of green cheese. Did the Apollo program really land a human being on the moon, or was it all faked? Get your tinfoil hats. I'm going to build a cabin in the mountains and wait for the new dark age to be over.