PDA

View Full Version : Meanwhile, While Everyone Is Outraged Over Healthcare...


Davian93
03-10-2017, 11:45 AM
https://www.genomeweb.com/policy-legislation/gina-supporters-concerned-house-bill-undermines-genetic-non-discrimination-law

Another bill is quietly advancing through Congress that would destroy genetic privacy.

WTF is wrong with the GOP???

GonzoTheGreat
03-10-2017, 12:09 PM
Maybe they're all possessed by demons. It does seem to get pretty hard to find arguments to refute that theory, at least.

Nazbaque
03-10-2017, 12:52 PM
https://www.genomeweb.com/policy-legislation/gina-supporters-concerned-house-bill-undermines-genetic-non-discrimination-law

Another bill is quietly advancing through Congress that would destroy genetic privacy.

WTF is wrong with the GOP???

Can't see the article without registering. So different link or copy-paste please.

Maybe they're all possessed by demons. It does seem to get pretty hard to find arguments to refute that theory, at least.

That's insulting Gonzo. Demons have standards. They wouldn't touch GOP with a ten foot pole.

Davian93
03-10-2017, 02:05 PM
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53776/house-republicans-genes-bill/

Does this one work?

If not, maybe this one...

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

Nazbaque
03-10-2017, 03:03 PM
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53776/house-republicans-genes-bill/

Does this one work?

If not, maybe this one...

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.

Davian93
03-10-2017, 03:26 PM
Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.

"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

Nazbaque
03-10-2017, 03:39 PM
"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?

Kimon
03-10-2017, 04:28 PM
"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

Even beyond the obvious privacy concerns and potential healthcare ramifications, this still seems like it would open a host of wrongful termination lawsuits if it was actually used as the basis for firing someone. I wonder if this wasn't just initiated by a lobbyist for the genetic testing industry out of a desire to drum up more business. Certainly it seems pretty random.

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

It's hard to imagine that all 22 republicans could support something so blatantly obtrusive without money changing hands. This smells like lobbying to me.

And we can't pretend that this kind of wellness annoyances have been completely limited to republicans...

Employers got virtually everything they wanted for their workplace wellness programs during the Obama administration. The ACA allowed them to charge employees 30 percent, and possibly 50 percent, more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits, including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.

Those examples at least seem more like legitimate wellness tests, but still could (and perhaps should) be viewed as, and argued to be egregious intrusions. This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

Nazbaque
03-10-2017, 05:06 PM
This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

Just look at it from an utterly selfish point of view. The first makes it easier for you to sin so you are all for it and the other makes it easier for others to sin so you are against it. If someone else has more fun than you then you've lost.

ShadowbaneX
03-10-2017, 06:33 PM
And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?

Since when has that ever stopped anyone?

Weird Harold
03-10-2017, 07:22 PM
Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.
If employers can't ask for genetic test results, it makes it difficult for them to be required to force people to use the appropriate restroom for their genetic type.

Of course the government has a responsibility to make sure employers can comply with such vital public safety concerns. [/sarcasm]

Nazbaque
03-10-2017, 08:48 PM
Since when has that ever stopped anyone?

The fact that something is illegal? Oh quite a few times. Naturally there are those it wouldn't stop just like people still get murdered in spite of all the laws against it. But there is a difference in a law that is inefficiently enforced and there not being a law at all. The first just requires some fine tuning while the other demands definite change before you can even get to the fine tuning.

GonzoTheGreat
03-11-2017, 02:37 AM
That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.
And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?
Why would it be a crime for businessmen to sell some commodity they happened to get their hands on in a legal way?

If you don't want anyone to know your genetic make up, then simply don't have genes. You are (legally speaking) free to do that; if you don't, then the consequences are your problem, not anyone else's.

Nazbaque
03-11-2017, 03:30 AM
Why would it be a crime for businessmen to sell some commodity they happened to get their hands on in a legal way?

If you don't want anyone to know your genetic make up, then simply don't have genes. You are (legally speaking) free to do that; if you don't, then the consequences are your problem, not anyone else's.

They aren't selling a commodity, they are selling a copy of information. That's copyright infringment. You can sue them for millions.

GonzoTheGreat
03-11-2017, 04:55 AM
They aren't selling a commodity, they are selling a copy of information. That's copyright infringment. You can sue them for millions.
Only if you're Disney. Since you aren't, you can't. Sometimes law is so simple that even I understand it.

Ozymandias
03-11-2017, 10:22 AM
Those examples at least seem more like legitimate wellness tests, but still could (and perhaps should) be viewed as, and argued to be egregious intrusions. This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Kimon
03-11-2017, 10:35 AM
I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Placing incentives (and disincentives) on smoking is one thing, but genetic testing would pick up things likes risk for cancers, for obesity, for high blood pressure - things that have the potential to be as much, or more, genetically linked than lifestyle linked. That starts sounding a bit too much like eugenics for the sake of cost efficiency.

As an aside, this is part of the reason why many of us want single payer via the government, rather than via employer.

GonzoTheGreat
03-11-2017, 11:04 AM
Suppose that someone showed that voting Republican correlated with bad health, would employers then be entitled to see what every one of their employees had voted?
If not, why not? Can't be privacy or the "sanctity of the voting booth" or something like that. Privacy isn't a right in the USA, and the sanctity of things is a religious concept, so the government should not mess around with it.

Nazbaque
03-11-2017, 12:05 PM
I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Healthcare is a right. A country has a duty to protect its citizens from danger including poor health. If a country allows vices like smoking, fast food, alcohol and so on, it accepts the duty of dealing with the issues rising from the practice of those vices. If an individual is to be punished on a legal level their activities have to be illegal. Anything else is poor governance.

Kimon
03-11-2017, 12:30 PM
Healthcare is a right.

Not in America. Whether it should be is obviously part of the debate, but what is truly being argued isn't so much whether it should be a right (like say life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but whether it is something that taxes dollars should automatically be earmarked for (i.e. the dem position), or something that you should only have the right to either pay for on your own privately, or via negotiation with your employer (i.e. the republican position), with both essentially also agreeing that the poor (especially poor children) should be provided for by the government (i.e. Medicaid).

If it was purely a right, then we would be arguing Medicaid for all, rather than that for the majority it should be paid for via taxes or paid via collective negotiation through your employer. So this isn't so much an issue of a right, as an issue of the government and its populace saying that it benefits the entire society for everyone to be covered, and thus forcing those who are able to pay for coverage in some way, and the rest (the poor) to be covered directly by the government. And even Medicaid isn't truly free (at least as far as I'm aware, I've obviously never had any personal experience with it), just heavily subsidized.

Nazbaque
03-11-2017, 01:02 PM
Not in America.

Then Americans are oppressed.

ShadowbaneX
03-11-2017, 03:43 PM
The fact that something is illegal? Oh quite a few times. Naturally there are those it wouldn't stop just like people still get murdered in spite of all the laws against it. But there is a difference in a law that is inefficiently enforced and there not being a law at all. The first just requires some fine tuning while the other demands definite change before you can even get to the fine tuning.
That only matters if you don't have any money. If you got lots and lots of money don't matter how finely you tune the laws they'll be ignored if someone can make enough money off of it.

As the line in the song goes "everything's legal as long as you can convince the DA not to prosecute"...or something like that.

Nazbaque
03-11-2017, 04:22 PM
That only matters if you don't have any money. If you got lots and lots of money don't matter how finely you tune the laws they'll be ignored if someone can make enough money off of it.

As the line in the song goes "everything's legal as long as you can convince the DA not to prosecute"...or something like that.

Whereas if something is not illegal no-one will worry about how much it'll cost to pay the lawyers and if it's worth the risk of getting caught. Illegal activities carry the risk of punishment even if that punishment hits the wallet.

You can be as cynical as you want about this, but the plain fact is that you said that existance of a law wouldn't stop anyone from committing a crime. It's deplorable how many people it won't stop, but it does stop some so your statement is fundamentally false.

GonzoTheGreat
03-12-2017, 05:24 AM
Whereas if something is not illegal no-one will worry about how much it'll cost to pay the lawyers and if it's worth the risk of getting caught.
Which is why the police never ever harass any innocent people at all. Why no one ever gets locked up only to be released a few days later with no charge and no ability to sue for wrongful arrest. Why, if you do get prosecuted for something that is not actually illegal, you don't need to bother hiring a lawyer, since the judge will throw out the case automatically and make the cops pay you for your lost time.

Or maybe you're just a tad idealistic.

Nazbaque
03-12-2017, 06:10 AM
Which is why the police never ever harass any innocent people at all. Why no one ever gets locked up only to be released a few days later with no charge and no ability to sue for wrongful arrest. Why, if you do get prosecuted for something that is not actually illegal, you don't need to bother hiring a lawyer, since the judge will throw out the case automatically and make the cops pay you for your lost time.

Or maybe you're just a tad idealistic.

Awww the cynic is so afraid of being naive he doesn't realise that he is still judging everything by the same metric even if it is the other way around. The flaw of the naive isn't in expecting the best but in expecting simple. Being a cynic is more pathetic than being naive since the latter has the excuse of inexperience. Cynics have gained the experience but failed to learn the lesson.

You for instance have learned about the flaws in the legal system and fool that you are advocate having no system whatsoever. You can't have perfect and in your disapointment refuse to try at all. The adult thing to do is to try for 90% of perfect. Or more. Or less. Depends on where you are at the moment and what improvement can be achieved.

GonzoTheGreat
03-12-2017, 07:10 AM
Oh, I admit that having a system is almost always better than not having a system. I merely wanted to point out that your implicit assumption of perfection was not warranted.
People often do have good and solid reason to worry about being found doing things that are entirely legal. Denying that (as you did) is both naive and cynical (towards the victims of unwarranted harassment). Or maybe only cynical, if you did know that innocent people get ground up in the process now and then.

Nazbaque
03-12-2017, 07:46 AM
Oh, I admit that having a system is almost always better than not having a system. I merely wanted to point out that your implicit assumption of perfection was not warranted.
People often do have good and solid reason to worry about being found doing things that are entirely legal. Denying that (as you did) is both naive and cynical (towards the victims of unwarranted harassment). Or maybe only cynical, if you did know that innocent people get ground up in the process now and then.

Now I never said things like wrongful convictions don't happen. The point I've been making from the start is that if a person knows something is illegal they are likely to at least pause before the act. If they are convinced that something is not illegal their personal morals might still get in the way but they nevertheless don't expect to be arrested for it. It's not that the innocent have nothing to fear because they do. It's about how the lable "illegal" in itself makes people cautious and the lable "legal" gets them to relax. A phenomenon SBX sought to deny.

And I am neither naive nor cynical. I don't make assumptions based on what would or wouldn't be nice.

ShadowbaneX
03-12-2017, 10:34 AM
Deny? Nah. Playing up cynicism to a make a point? More likely. Being equal before the law? That's a little different. A black person with a gun is different than a white person with a gun. Law looks at them different.

Similar with these sorts of laws. It's information and data. If there are laws that say "bad corporation" they'd take their chances that either their not found put or that the penalty/fines/prison time will hit other people or will be less than the profits they make off of selling it.

Kimon
03-12-2017, 10:38 AM
Gonzo, this is somewhat off-topic, but what exactly is going on with the odd tension between the Dutch government and Turkey? Is this largely due to anxiety surrounding Wilders and the upcoming Dutch election?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39248646

Because from a distance, this seems like it would benefit both Erdogan (with his dictator referendum also upcoming, not to mention helping him fuel his anti-European and Turk nationalist agenda) and Wilders, and is a vast over-reaction by the Dutch authorities.

GonzoTheGreat
03-12-2017, 10:55 AM
The Turkish government is breaking its own laws (using weasel words to hide that), and the Dutch government doesn't want to get involved in that this time. However, because the Turks wanted to break their law in the Netherlands, the Dutch government couldn't avoid involvement. Either they would do nothing, which Wilders would then exploit in our upcoming elections, or they would annoy Turkey. Apparently, someone has decided that the latter course was the lesser evil.

The reason why I said this was breaking Turkish law is that Turkey has a law explicitly prohibiting politicians from campaigning outside Turkey. Turkey got around this by claiming that their politicians were merely providing information; I suspect that any Turkish politician talking about voting "no" would get a different reaction, though.

I don't think it is an overreaction this time; I think that Erdogan and Wilders together have arranged things so that a lesser reaction was not really possible.

Nazbaque
03-12-2017, 05:55 PM
Deny? Nah. Playing up cynicism to a make a point? More likely. Being equal before the law? That's a little different. A black person with a gun is different than a white person with a gun. Law looks at them different.

Similar with these sorts of laws. It's information and data. If there are laws that say "bad corporation" they'd take their chances that either their not found put or that the penalty/fines/prison time will hit other people or will be less than the profits they make off of selling it.

But the point still remains that even with this unbalanced system the lable "illegal" has an effect.

I am not saying everyone acts the same way. I am not saying the system isn't unbalanced. This is about the choices people make before the act.

You say you were making a point, but "Since when has that ever stopped anyone?" is a flawed statement in practically any meaning you might put to it. There are those almost mythical law abiding individuals who nevertheless count as anyone and there are those for whom it is merely a matter of pros and cons just as any legal activity. But even for the latter being caught in a legal mess is something to avoid if only because of the expense, so legality does matter and sometimes even stops them. Not always and not everyone, but some people sometimes and that proves the cynic wrong.

You were demonstrating one of two mentalities. "Naive is wrong, cynic is right" or "it doesn't matter if I'm wrong so long as I'm cynical and not naive". Ironically both are naive as well as wrong.

ShadowbaneX
03-12-2017, 07:42 PM
You were demonstrating one of two mentalities. "Naive is wrong, cynic is right" or "it doesn't matter if I'm wrong so long as I'm cynical and not naive". Ironically both are naive as well as wrong.

Or, as I said above, I was playing up the cynicism to make a point. Do I actually believe that everyone will disregard laws for self-interest? No, and the fact that I have to explain that confuses me.

Nazbaque
03-12-2017, 10:46 PM
Or, as I said above, I was playing up the cynicism to make a point. Do I actually believe that everyone will disregard laws for self-interest? No, and the fact that I have to explain that confuses me.

Doesn't matter what you actually thought. The post you made was a failure. On multiple levels as the very point you claim as your excuse was completely lost. You would have done better to claim it was joke after my first reply.

And you do have to explain it because I don't assume I know you. That would be an insult. And I would take offense at you assuming that I know you well enough to not need an explanation so if you did I'd like an apology. If you assume this of everybody then you are taking people for granted and should seriously take a look at your own relationships and consider if they perhaps deserve better from you.

Brita
03-13-2017, 09:25 AM
Doesn't matter what you actually thought. The post you made was a failure. On multiple levels as the very point you claim as your excuse was completely lost. You would have done better to claim it was joke after my first reply.

And you do have to explain it because I don't assume I know you. That would be an insult. And I would take offense at you assuming that I know you well enough to not need an explanation so if you did I'd like an apology. If you assume this of everybody then you are taking people for granted and should seriously take a look at your own relationships and consider if they perhaps deserve better from you.

Can we get back to actual, serious issues at hand, and leave the petty semantics alone.

This breach of personal privacy is absolutely mind-boggling. Companies being able to pry into health habits is one thing (and something I generally disagree with), but to pry into genetic code that cannot be modified or chosen is incredibly dangerous territory.

Gattaca-esque: We regret to inform you that are only worth working this menial job- because of your genetic propensity for hypertension. We don't want you getting too stressed out, you understand? It is for your own good really. Actually you're welcome.

In this whole "experiment", the most disturbing thing for me to see is how many people either embrace these discriminatory orders (some border guards) or just shrug their shoulders (some of the general public). I know there are just as many, if not more, people resisting it. But I am dismayed at how easy it is to begin to reverse so many hard fought protections that are crucial to a civilized society.

Davian93
03-13-2017, 12:51 PM
Can we get back to actual, serious issues at hand, and leave the petty semantics alone.

This breach of personal privacy is absolutely mind-boggling. Companies being able to pry into health habits is one thing (and something I generally disagree with), but to pry into genetic code that cannot be modified or chosen is incredibly dangerous territory.

Gattaca-esque: We regret to inform you that are only worth working this menial job- because of your genetic propensity for hypertension. We don't want you getting too stressed out, you understand? It is for your own good really. Actually you're welcome.

In this whole "experiment", the most disturbing thing for me to see is how many people either embrace these discriminatory orders (some border guards) or just shrug their shoulders (some of the general public). I know there are just as many, if not more, people resisting it. But I am dismayed at how easy it is to begin to reverse so many hard fought protections that are crucial to a civilized society.

The scariest thing about such a move away from individual freedoms and privacy is just how easy it is to accomplish. Germany in the 1930s is a perfect example of how the average person will give up a ton of both in the name of "the greater good" or "safety and security" etc. It has been very depressing over the past 10-15 years to see just how willing Americans are to give up those same rights for much the same reason and with much the same rationale.

Trump and the current GOP are simply the result of the same gradual movement that basically started right around 9am Eastern on 11 September 2001.

ShadowbaneX
03-13-2017, 01:21 PM
Doesn't matter what you actually thought. The post you made was a failure. On multiple levels as the very point you claim as your excuse was completely lost. You would have done better to claim it was joke after my first reply.

And you do have to explain it because I don't assume I know you. That would be an insult. And I would take offense at you assuming that I know you well enough to not need an explanation so if you did I'd like an apology. If you assume this of everybody then you are taking people for granted and should seriously take a look at your own relationships and consider if they perhaps deserve better from you.
Thank you for your critique of my existence. I will now take a 6 month leave of absence and reassess all facets of my personal life and all relationships thereunto.

Thanks very kindly Naz. I see now that my existence before now is shallow and empty and I will dedicate all my efforts going forward to living a full, well-balanced life. I'll also eat all my vegetables regardless of how horrible they taste.

ShadowbaneX
03-13-2017, 01:30 PM
Trump and the current GOP are simply the result of the same gradual movement that basically started right around 9am Eastern on 11 September 2001.

I had a chat with Seal about this a month or so ago. He's more in mind that it's about 50 years worth of American political history & strategy that's involved. Certainly events of September 2001 had a good deal to do with it, but in the end it was just another tool used to further the agenda that, by that point, was already 30-35 years old.

In this issue in particular, well, I certainly don't remember anyone campaigning on it. I've seen opinions elsewhere that it's an attempt to sell nigh-useless DNA test. The science behind it is fairly young and these no guarantee that it will acurately be able to diagnose or predict the illnesses or diseases. If you can make it so that companies can avoid hiring people on supposed DNA markers, then you can use that excuse instead of sexual preference, gender preference, skin colour, etc, then that could be worth alot of money.

Nazbaque
03-13-2017, 02:56 PM
Thank you for your critique of my existence. I will now take a 6 month leave of absence and reassess all facets of my personal life and all relationships thereunto.

Thanks very kindly Naz. I see now that my existence before now is shallow and empty and I will dedicate all my efforts going forward to living a full, well-balanced life. I'll also eat all my vegetables regardless of how horrible they taste.

You forgot the apology smartass. Sheesh you can't even do sarcasm right.

ShadowbaneX
03-13-2017, 03:20 PM
You forgot the apology smartass. Sheesh you can't even do sarcasm right.

I'll get around to it in six months when I'm back from my leave of absence. I'm not checking the boards until then.

Nazbaque
03-13-2017, 05:56 PM
I'll get around to it in six months when I'm back from my leave of absence. I'm not checking the boards until then.

What's the point if you aren't studying under a true master? If you could learn by yourself you wouldn't make these mistakes.

ShadowbaneX
03-13-2017, 08:03 PM
Dude, six months of self-reflection first. Then we'll see where I'm at and if I need it, then I'll go find a true master. If I don't do that part first I won't be ready for anything I'm taught.

Nazbaque
03-14-2017, 12:53 AM
Dude, six months of self-reflection first. Then we'll see where I'm at and if I need it, then I'll go find a true master. If I don't do that part first I won't be ready for anything I'm taught.

Oh this is basic. First apprentice under a true master. Then self-reflect as a journeyman. Last prove yourself and join the masters.

GonzoTheGreat
03-14-2017, 04:27 AM
Oh this is basic. First apprentice under a true master. Then self-reflect as a journeyman. Last prove yourself and join the masters.
That's not how Trump got to where he is now, is it?

Nazbaque
03-14-2017, 04:49 AM
That's not how Trump got to where he is now, is it?

In what way is Trump a master?

GonzoTheGreat
03-14-2017, 11:42 AM
He is the master of all that he sees.
Alternatively: in the same way that Elena Ceaușescu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceaușescu) was a doctor.

ShadowbaneX
03-14-2017, 12:17 PM
Oh this is basic. First apprentice under a true master. Then self-reflect as a journeyman. Last prove yourself and join the masters.
I have to re-evaluate my life before I can dedicate myself to a path! Only when the pupil is ready will the Master appear! I'm not ready so there can e no true Master! Geez!

Nazbaque
03-14-2017, 08:33 PM
I have to re-evaluate my life before I can dedicate myself to a path! Only when the pupil is ready will the Master appear! I'm not ready so there can e no true Master! Geez!

The student is not fit to judge when he is ready. That's why he needs a master.

He is the master of all that he sees.
Alternatively: in the same way that Elena Ceaușescu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceaușescu) was a doctor.

And that is why we add the word "true" before the word "master".

ShadowbaneX
03-14-2017, 10:13 PM
The student is not fit to judge when he is ready. That's why he needs a master.

Exactly. He's not here, so I'm not ready. Once I'm done re-evaluating my life in 6 months he (or she) might appear. You said I should just go and do it. Well, I can't until he (or she) appears. So, you're wrong.

Nazbaque
03-14-2017, 10:42 PM
Exactly. He's not here, so I'm not ready. Once I'm done re-evaluating my life in 6 months he (or she) might appear. You said I should just go and do it. Well, I can't until he (or she) appears. So, you're wrong.

Another thing the student isn't fit to judge is who the master is. Thus you don't actually know if the master is there or not.

GonzoTheGreat
03-15-2017, 04:11 AM
Another thing the student isn't fit to judge is who the master is. Thus you don't actually know if the master is there or not.
Obviously, Trump is that master, and it is because of your and SBX's unfitness as pupils that you don't realise this. Maybe in six month time SBX will start seeing the truth.

Nazbaque
03-15-2017, 05:44 AM
Obviously, Trump is that master, and it is because of your and SBX's unfitness as pupils that you don't realise this. Maybe in six month time SBX will start seeing the truth.

Gonzo, I am a master so I can say that Trump isn't one.

GonzoTheGreat
03-15-2017, 07:11 AM
I'm willing to bet that you can't turn a microwave into a remote controlled camera with just a software update, and even Kellyanne Conway can do that.

Nazbaque
03-15-2017, 07:53 AM
I'm willing to bet that you can't turn a microwave into a remote controlled camera with just a software update, and even Kellyanne Conway can do that.

Granted. But I have far greater skills. I can use a microwave with no software whatsoever. I am after all the Master of Nazgul Kitchen.

GonzoTheGreat
03-15-2017, 09:36 AM
I can use a microwave with no software whatsoever.
The micro-fu is strong in this one.
He probably has many micro-chlorians.

Nazbaque
03-15-2017, 10:09 AM
The micro-fu is strong in this one.
He probably has many micro-chlorians.

Microdou Gonzo. Japanese are better with electronics than Chinese are.

Kimon
03-16-2017, 09:35 PM
WTF is wrong with the GOP???

Speaking of wtf is wrong with people in general...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39290208

No word on whether Putin now has a kompromat file on the raccoon.

ShadowbaneX
09-13-2017, 05:06 PM
So I'm back from my 6 month hiatus and have re-thought my entire existence. Oddly, everything has come out to be the same. *shrug* go figure.

So, what did I miss?

Rand al'Fain
09-14-2017, 12:54 AM
So I'm back from my 6 month hiatus and have re-thought my entire existence. Oddly, everything has come out to be the same. *shrug* go figure.

So, what did I miss?

Trump declared himself Padan Fain of Trumpland.