Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Secular Talk" channel.

  1. "You must be this tall to start a war with Iran"
    318
  2.  @kelkil79  not gonna lie but the left isn't in the wrong here, king.
    15
  3.  @noimmigrantswelcome9251  why would a person who joined to fight be more valuable than an innocent civilian?
    11
  4. Liberals be like "you disagree? lmao triggered i guess you hate free speech now"
    10
  5. You'd hold the sign if you needed the money.
    10
  6.  @fl00fydragon  the F-35 is a boondoggle because it's a government jobs program. You have hundreds of subcontractors involved from multiple states, hell even multiple countries. Last time I checked there were 8 subcontractors from Turkey. Turkey! I know airplanes are more complex than they used to be but this shit needs to be manufactured efficiently, not to keep representatives getting reelected.
    4
  7.  @fl00fydragon  oh it circulates money? Very little of it trickles down to us peasants. I'm glad the EU destroyed the industry in the smaller countries to prop up Germany and France. We're closing maternity wards while they get better quality of life. Global scientific leadership is fine and dandy, in the real world I'm still buying chinese phones and chinese computer parts because the scientific leadership didn't grace us with actual jobs so we can build the stuff we buy and actually keep money circulating among us - for real. I'm glad for ITER, I won't bitch about that. I'm also not phased by China's attempts to fake their GDP numbers. They want control over the South China Sea and Africa, if internal investment was really paying off they wouldn't be bothered.
    3
  8. "Government is by the people for the people" - huh if you think the government is by the people, or even by the people... you're not paying attention. "If you want a no government country try any African country that has no law enforcement, police, army or even a dog catcher" - if all American libertarians were legitimately sent to Africa to start their own country it would actually go pretty well until the UN went "we're afraid of Rhodesia 2.0 so we're going to put a stop to this" and issued a binding resolution to send them back before war broke out.
    3
  9. It's surprising how few people realize that costs skyrocketed through government subsidies.
    3
  10. @ADrew why would they be cursing? Tell them that if they're really conservative why do they support a private institution that takes government money to artificially drive up demand while artificially lowering supply so they can raise costs? If they're conservatives they should understand the US private college system is socialized in cost already, the profits privatized.
    3
  11.  @marianog13  okay, and how many Americans went bankrupt because of the costs above their deductible and loss of income due to not working due to their medical problems? Can we account for that in the American numbers too?
    2
  12. "The guy in Las Vegas wouldn't have killed nearly as many people if he had used knives instead of guns" - the problem is that knives are not a proper mass casualty event weapon. Compare it to a truck bomb or something. Either way, the attackers in France also got their hands on guns so... when someone has money you can't easily stop them because funding gets weapons. "would have been as dramatic without the policies Australia put in place." - that's actually very debatable. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[47] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[48] Baker, Jeanine; McPhedran, Samara (18 October 2006). “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?”. British Journal of Criminology. 47 (3): 455–469.doi:10.1093/bjc/azl084. Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[49] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[50] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.“ Harding, Richard (1981). Firearms and Violence in Australian Life. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. p. 119. ISBN 0 85564 190 8 Newton, George; Zimring, Franklin (1968). "Firearms and Violence in American Life” (PDF). Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes & Prevention of Violence. Retrieved 8 February 2016. In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[51] said that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words “will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives”.[52] Weatherburn responded, “The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”[53] Weatherburn, Don. “Statistics and gun laws”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November 2005. Accessed 10 August 2010 In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[54] Baker, Jeanine; McPhedran, Samara (18 October 2006). “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?”. British Journal of Criminology. 47 (3): 455–469.doi:10.1093/bjc/azl084. Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[58] McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). “Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence”. Justice Policy Journal. 8 (1). A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, “Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”[60] Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). “The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”. Contemporary Economic Policy. 28(1): 65–79. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x. "The reality is that stricter gun laws usually result in fewer gun deaths." - not really. Plenty of country with strict gun control laws like Brazil or Mexico have strict gun control laws and gun homicide is rampant. https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/does-strict-gun-legislation-reduce-violent-crime-in-latam/ "In short, a regulated approach may reduce gun ownership and have an impact on petty crime and casual violence, but gun legislation alone will do little to reign in the criminal groups responsible for the rampant violence in the region’s most murderous areas."
    2
  13.  @Wheely_Dan  not fair, Jesus healthcare essentially cost very little labour and no resources at all.
    2
  14.  @6789uiop  Not at all. Jesus did not redistribute anyone's wealth nor did he stand against private property.
    2
  15.  @6789uiop  I fail to see where Jesus called for the anarchist militia to gun people down for their property. Christianity is voluntary. Socialism is coercive.
    2
  16.  @robert9ish  "ultra conservative" - in the UK, so that's not saying much. He's an unprincipled asshole. There's no reason to defend him just because he made Shapiro run for the hills.
    2
  17.  @backbrunson2039  "At the very least, elected officials can be voted out." - the stars need to align to get rid of someone. "they'll vote to keep the insurance industry as de-regulated as possible" - the problem is regulation! The government gives these companies rights and protections they shouldn't have! Why should the government be awarding monopolies to companies that will charge $90.000 for 200 bucks worth of chemicals? "It's that our current system makes absolutely no sense" - agree, but the system the US has is essentially the worst of both worlds.
    2
  18. ​ @backbrunson2039 "eliminate the costly middlemen" - bruh this is a complete distraction. The problem is in the medical associations, Big Pharma, providers, the college system... You can take the middlemen all you want, but if you check the profit margins on insurance companies you'll see... it's not actually them extorting you. They're just extorting out of people what the medical field extorts out of them. Telling businesses how much percentage they need to use means nothing when the whole system is designed for regulations to increase costs, make doctors expensive to train and award companies exclusivity rights to drugs and treatments.
    2
  19.  @dankbreh9013  didn't work with WWII or Vietnam. Anyone not willing to fight will simply be called a coward and shamed for refusing to participate.
    1
  20.  @fl00fydragon  "Those problems are the result of them not being a nation yet, for the EU to be fully functional it has to unite into a single nation so that their monetary and fiscal policies are one." - this has to be satire, right? "allowing yourself to be behind because it doesn't bring manufacturing jobs guarantees that you will be bleeding money to stay up to date" - how is this mutually exclusive? There's things we import from outside the EU while the poorer nations could be making the same shit. How does that force us to stay behind? "that's why you tax them and then circulate the money. The good thing about the EU is that they're open to actual left wing politics and even proposals for alternatives to capitalism." - taxes prevent money from being circulated. Either way, the EU was a neoliberal scam the whole time. Alternatives to capitalism? Shut up. This is anti-free-market corporatism. We are stuck with the bad parts of capitalism and none of the good ones.
    1
  21.  @normanbreau295  http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/%24FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf 15% of bankrupcies of people over 55 in Canada are due to medical reasons
    1
  22.  @prettyevil6662000  I'm from Portugal and our healthcare is shit. We're currently facing the double-whammy of the possibility of a maternity shutdown in the capital and strikes by the nurses.
    1
  23. If they make you wait until you're dead that's essentially a denial.
    1
  24.  @merkridge8780  https://www.dn.pt/pais/interior/atraso-em-colonoscopias-colocam-em-causa-vidas-de-doentes---europacolon--9656754.html delays in colonoscopies that should be scheduled within 3 weeks are being pushed to an average of 5 months, which contributes to 4 thousand deaths every year from colon cancer. So if you're in my country and get blood on your stool... find a way to get diagnosed somewhere else because if you wait for the public system the cancer is going to progress. And this is just one area where the public healthcare system is ripping us off.
    1
  25. But why don't the state with lax gun laws have high murder rate, then? It's not the guns that create the violence. That's the whole point. https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html according to my quick google search "nearly" 60% (fifty-something percent, then?) of guns used for crime in Chicago come from out of state... Fifty-something percent... that means almost half of the guns come from Illinois anyway.
    1
  26. ​ @TimiTamminen  Most modern rap does not deal with complex truths. You have to go way back for that.
    1
  27. Do you get deduction of the taxes you paid since you're paying for your own healthcare?
    1
  28.  @Wheely_Dan  "seeing as a national healthcare system isn’t slavery" 1. That's not the point at all so I don't see why that Red Herring is necessary. 2. A national healthcare system still needs to pay for itself and it's consumption of resources through taxation, which means forcing people to work for free. Jesus did not require resources. "And my question still stands" - not really. Jesus had magical abilities.
    1
  29.  @Wheely_Dan  If you get taxed, say, 30% of your income then you perform 30% of your labour for free.
    1
  30.  @6789uiop  oh I'm sorry, I didn't know Jesus calling for people to do things voluntarily was the same as having a state enforcing their will onto people
    1
  31.  @6789uiop  let's make it simple. Jesus was not a socialist, the bible doesn't tell it because the concept had not been invented and for all I know the bible could be a bunch of hogwash. People wake up in the morgue once in a while, if a guy 2000 years ago went into a coma for 3 days it doesn't mean he was the son of God. And if God sent his son to preach socialism then why a) doesn't he use his powers to make socialism happen? or b) why the fuck did actual socialists oppress religious people and try to make people atheist? Shit doesn't make sense.
    1
  32.  @6789uiop  in which page does the bible name socialism? Where did I say I hated Jesus? Why do you think the Bible's teachings are true? Why not the Torah, or the Koran?
    1
  33.  Rebecca Brown  he went to the private system, not the public
    1
  34.  Rebecca Brown  still, he was treated under the private system and not covered by the Canadian government
    1
  35.  Rebecca Brown  it cost something, what the government paid. My point is that the Canadian government didn't pay for Rand Paul's expenses, he paid them out of pocket.
    1
  36.  Rebecca Brown  it is a private clinic. They just bill the government for patients from the public system.
    1
  37.  @jameshughes5722  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouldice_Hernia_Centre "Shouldice Hernia Centre is a private hospital in Thornhill, Ontario, Canada." "Shouldice was founded in 1945 by Dr. Earle Shouldice.[1][2] While private hospitals are not allowed under Ontario's Private Hospitals Act,[2] Shouldice is one of seven private hospitals in the province grandfathered under the Act.[2] The hospital has been continuously family run from its inception, but is partially publicly funded.[3]"
    1
  38.  @DrScott666  "Sounds like to me, Dr. Paul could have seen an American colleague, but instead chose Canada's EXCELLENT healthcare system." - he didn't go through the healthcare system, he went to a private hospital, was seen by an expert in the field who works in private practice, paid for his own bill and came back.
    1
  39.  @DrScott666  "It's publicly funded" - but it is still a private hospital. They receive most of their funding in exchange for accepting public system patients but the rest of the funding comes from the privatized system. I used to have military health insurance and I had the choice of going to military clinics or private clinics. They were private. I paid as much as if I had gone to the public system because the military paid to have that deal with the private clinics. But it was still a private clinic. Even though public funds were used to pay for that care, they were private entities receiving a payment for services.
    1
  40.  @desmondbrown5508  Medicare works by undercharging private providers - by law - and the difference has to be made up by overcharging the private consumers. If you implement medicare for all, you lose the source of revenue that pays for the big chunk of the costs of Medicare. "So what's you're point?" - *your, possessive. You're means "you are" "The point of public healthcare isn't to make public the hospitals. It's to make public the coverage." - at this point I am questioning either my sanity, or the state of English teaching in schools. "Yes, he paid for it himself" - then the conversation is done. He went to a private clinic, paid for the procedure himself. That's how he wants it to be. The real hypocrisy would be getting dual citizenship in Canada or the UK and go there for free treatment when he doesn't pay taxes there. "but the point is that it's cheaper at those hospitals than it is in America (as all healthcare is) because they have the support of the public infrastructure" - No. The clinic is private and they periodically renegotiate what they charge the government to see public system users. They are not public infrastructure and they don't get "support". They charge the government for a service. Just like the government pays PRIVATE companies to build roads or schools. "So that's still the results of the public single payer system at work" - Holy fuck. By that logic literally anything you can get from private business is the government's work. Why even have capitalism, in the end the government does everything. "hence why he got better deals in Canada than America." - HE DIDN'T GET A BETTER DEAL. HE NEEDED SURGERY FOR A HERNIA AND HE PICKED A CLINIC THAT HAS THE BEST PROCEDURE TO DEAL WITH HERNIAS. THEY DEVELOPED THEIR OWN PROCEDURE AND PROMISE BETTER RESULTS WITH FASTER RECOVERY AFTER THE SURGERY. IT WASN'T ABOUT THE DEAL, HE PICKED THE BEST RESULTS - THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY A CLINIC THAT HAS BEEN AROUND BEFORE THE CURRENT MODEL OF PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WAS EVEN INTRODUCED. It wasn't that Canada offered a better deal than the Americans. It's just that a Canadian private clinic developed a better procedure than anyone else.
    1
  41. If I remember that case the slasher was going for ears and noses for some reason. If he was actually trying to pigstick people... Children are frail... Come on...
    1
  42. If the situation changes it will probably be because of an economic crisis. Do you trust the system when it runs out of money, factories and officrs are closing and people aren't working?
    1
  43. That's Portuguese, though.
    1
  44.  @chadsimmons4496  "what better way to corrupt, than to stop a popular leader from reigning too long" - lmao because a person reigning for too long definitely means he won't have influence over people with a cult of personality nor use his power to change the system in his favour...
    1
  45.  @chadsimmons4496  either way fuck that FDR guy for putting people in camps based on ethnicity.
    1
  46. If costs go down why would taxes go up?
    1
  47.  @TheBigGSN5  what are the other costs?
    1
  48.  @TheBigGSN5  but if those costs went down, then taxes shouldn't need to go up...
    1
  49.  @MaryluxVanoria  "I have to work extra hard to be able to kill just 1 person by stabbing em" - maybe if you're obese or something, but anyone reasonably fit with a knife can create a fucking bloodbath
    1
  50.  @MonMalthias  "Bad faith argument. The point is that firearms are more efficient at killing people than wading into melee, engaging mano e mano, where physical size, strength and endurance play a much larger role in the successful perpetuation of violence than simply pulling a trigger." - one of the biggest massacres in the US wasn't even completely intentional: the Happy Land fire that killed 87. Can of petrol down the stairs and a lit match. Not effort at all. No melee, no mano a mano, no physical size involved. "There are other forms of violence!" misses the point that society should be working to reduce all of them" - then why single out guns? "it declined particularly rapidly during the gun buyback period" - not at a greater rate! If you look at trend lines it didn't even move!
    1