*role Technocrat

Timotheoes, why shouldn't we question God when he does not provide justification for his actions? Shouldn't we want to follow him if we know he is just?

I'm unable to believe something is justified simply because a higher authority has told me so.

Why can't he simply explain to them the problem and help them learn from their actions? That would be just.

?rank Newcomer

I think the healthcare system should work in increments where everyone is provided with a package that covers all needs and as they move up the economic ladder, they are given more options with their own advantages.

No, not quite. Any procedure or need would be covered with the provided, initial system.

I liken the system to progression in a video game. When you initially begin in the game, you're provided with basic weapons and a minimal amount of money, enough to progress in the game. As you continue in your journey, you gain more resources and no longer need to use the basic armor provided. The point being that you need basic armor if you want any chance of progression.

Please do not evoke Nazism to make your point.

It's an example of Goodwin's law.

I figured

Sorry lol

It's difficult to tell with text and the lack of emotional inflection.

That's completely reasonable, since you don't need that for your survival.

I agree that aesthetics should not be covered. That's like changing the hat of your game character. You don't need a hat to progress in the game.

I do disagree with the obesity example, since many obese people suffer from glandular disorders.

I like to make analogies to emphasize my points.

Ideally, we should be trying to create medical technology to annihilate obesity while suffering no repercussions for eating anything.

It's not fair that our bodies are so incompetent at dealing with foods of certain composition.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to receive it? @Transgender individuals

I legitimately am curious as to this.

It's Stalinism, technically.

Economic leftism and social rightism.

May someone please answer the question I'm asking? Why shouldn't transgender individuals be entitled to universal health care, if in a hypothetical universe cisgender individuals can receive it?

I believe someone here said that if for example the universal health provisions disallowed transgenders from receiving treatment, that Democrats likely would want to amend this for transgenders to receive it as well, and it was said in a tone that implied this would be unfavorable. @Supreme Leader Kim 🧧

It's why I feel we should be funding technology to annihilate health issues heavily.

For example, technology to annihilate obesity.

Technology to annihilate diabetes.

Technology to annihilate heart disease.

We shouldn't have to endure the nightmares of prevention if we can completely annihilate the conditions.

I think some people do care, but they're enraged by the amount of prevention that's required.

Depression is not a tangible disease akin to obesity.

And people do not just decide to be obese. There are a number of factors co-existing with each other that lead to it.

Such as genetics, concurrent health conditions, complications

Yeah, it's extremely subjective and the state weaponizes it.

@Supreme Leader Kim 🧧

What if we can make it so that we don't suffer health consequences from being sedentary, due to advanced medical technology

?

@Virulent As I said, what if we can alter our bodies so that we no longer suffer ill effects from our actions and choices?

We need to find a way to fully annihilate it out of existence, rather than continue relying purely on antibiotics.

Then as I said, we need to find a way to COMPLETELY annihilate the antibiotic resistant forms of staph out of existence.

Shouldn't we focus on complete annihilation of the diseases?

We should make sure they do not exist in the slightest degree.

@Chilliam Ace Do you agree with full annihilation of every disease possible?

We definitely need to annihilate that out of existence.

Which we hopefully will be able to do. We should annihilate it out of existence as well.

We have to find a way to completely destroy it.

We definitely need to attempt to, as the amount of resources wasted on that goddamn virus is massive. We have to destroy it.

I'm not.

Anyone else?

Here's one question for the group. Why should we justify something based on whether it's in the constitution or not, particularly when it can be amended and updated?

I found this channel via Discord Search and was happy to find a place where I can express my views without being christened a misogynist.

It's possible to be egalitarian and yet still believe men are being conned by the current system in some ways.

Which I do. Alimony payments pulverize the shit out of men even when they're the stable parent.

I do