Universal Healthcare

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What you describe is not a "standard" but it is a quantitative observation.  And such can be used to properly describe a painting.  But it has nothing to do with any standard.

Yes. That's the point here.

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're creating a ridiculous standard

It's called an example. Examples often use exaggeration to make obvious points. And yet, sadly, for some reason, people still seem to constantly miss the point.

So I'll skip the examples and go straight to it:

The comments were that the poem was "just plain doggerel" (verse or words that are badly written or expressed) and that "this isn't a good poem" because it's "inconsistent it was in its imagery".

The facts are these: In poetry (art) "badly written" is subjective. "Good" is subjective and is not qualified by "consistency". Period.

I'm sorry you don't understand that's the same thing as something like qualifying the quality of a painting by the colors used.

So yeah...I created a ridiculous standard...WHICH WAS THE POINT. Because your teacher created a ridiculous standard by which to judge poetry.

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I did not.

Sure you did. By agreeing with your teacher, who did, you did.

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Exactly what I thought of your example as well.

Yes. That's the point. How can you not understand this? My example was ridiculous, which is exactly why it should OBVIOUSLY not be the way people judge art. Because it's nonsense, baloney, and all that jazz. Exactly like trying to claim that "Trees" is a bad poem because it's inconsistent in its imagery.

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's why you can't, in any practical sense, analyzing a subjective quality.

Sure you can. If the objective standard is the general consensus. "All rap music sucks" is an opinion. "Rap music has [such-n-such] percent of the market share and has sold [this many] albums" is an objective measurement (not that I'm saying sales qualify something as good or bad art...just an example of objective measurement). There are matrices for measuring these things. Whether a song's harmonies utilizes parallel 5ths or not is not one of them.

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's part of the whole point. 

No...the whole point is that your teacher (with whom you agree) declared the poem "bad" and/or "not good" based on the what/where/when/why/how of it. That's the part with which I have a problem.

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The opinions of those who are educated in certain areas are considered "expert opinions".  Those carry more weight than one who is not expert in that field.

And I both agree and disagree with this in an sort of paradoxical way. Yes, the world finds this to be true. I find that when it comes to the arts, formal education is one of the ways to dramatically increase the odds that the educated will be blind, biased, and often wrong.

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You can have a billion people say that all guns should be outlawed.

Not exactly an "art" viewpoint.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

Perhaps use of the word "doggerel" as the result of the technical analysis is lacking in objective technicality,

This IS the problem we have with it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes. That's the point here.

It's called an example. Examples often use exaggeration to make obvious points. And yet, sadly, for some reason, people still seem to constantly miss the point.

I think you're still refusing to acknowledge what a "standard" means.

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The comments were that the poem was "just plain doggerel" (verse or words that are badly written or expressed) and that "this isn't a good poem" because it's "inconsistent it was in its imagery".

Out of context quote: "From this perspective... it isn't a good poem".  The whole point was that you an use any number of criteria to judge something.  That is why performers have two scores often given in competition: Technical merit, and artistic expression.  While at a professional level, these two will often be close, they are rarely the same.  I can perceive of a particular performance which can receive a high score in one and a low score in the other.

People judge art from a variety of criteria -- starting from the simple "do I like it or not"? to the more complex criteria (among which is technical analysis).  But somehow people get offended that others don't agree with their judgment when the criteria upon which the judgement was based are completely different.

***

You're continuing to repeat things by taking things out of context and refusing to acknowledge my central message because you've simply jumped at the idea that someone DARED to call "Trees" a bad poem.  So, I'm going to explain it using your analogy of the color green.

****

If you use green paint to depict the beauty of a blood ruby, is that consistent in your painting?  How on earth would anyone even know this green gem you painted was supposed to be a ruby?  That is ridiculous.  That is a poor use of the color green in that painting.  But if you used just the right color green as a background and made it look all velvety, then painted the right color red to showcase the ruby in all its glory, that would be a proper use of the color green.

It's about the "proper" use of the tools at hand.  Some uses are just plain perfect.  Others are good or decent.  Some uses simply make no sense.

What if Christ had given the parable of the seeds and said that the stony soil was the strong members of the faith who follow the commandments of the Lord?  The stone represents strength.  That's certain.  Good metaphor.  But then the seeds are cast against faithful saints and new members are not taking root?  huh?  How is that a good metaphor?

Instead the soil was the hearts of the individuals being converted.  Now it all fits.  It's consistent.  It is a good use of the metaphor.  It works.  The rhetorical device in the parable was used correctly or well.

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 We can compare this to scripture study.  As @prisonchaplain pointed out, we need to read all of scripture to get the big picture first.  Then we see how the specifics can be interpreted as it is informed by the big picture. 

I have absolutely know idea what this string is about. Glad I could help . . . 😎

[zil]

39 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I have absolutely know idea what this string is about. Glad I could help . . . 😎

Apparently the Universe doesn't have healthcare.  As far as I can tell, the Universe doesn't need healthcare, but for some odd reason, many people seem to think it should have healthcare, and so they've started a thread for the purpose of discussing providing healthcare to the Universe.  Of course, this includes the politics of who the devil is going to pay for the Universe's healthcare!

There's also some My Little Pony, fountain pens and ink, space ships, interpretive dance, and poetry (specifically whether there's any merit to "technical analysis" of said poetry) mixed in.

Really, you should probably just quit your job and read the forums all day long.  Maybe the Universe will share some of its healthcare with you.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, zil said:

 Of course, this includes the politics of who the devil is going to pay for the Universe's healthcare!

So, the devil is going to pay for the universe's healthcare?  I didn't know he could do that.

[prisonchaplain]

29 minutes ago, zil said:

Really, you should probably just quit your job and read the forums all day long.  Maybe the Universe will share some of its healthcare with you.

If I did as you suggest the Universe would also have to do as you suggest. Or...I could just head to the nearest Emergency Room, sans  any personally identifying information. If I'm asked who knows me I'll try saying, "The Universe." If that doesn't work, "I was told somebody named @zil might be my great niece, twice removed . . . "

[dogwater]

I think we will end up with universal healthcare in the US. Mostly because we will end up with a significant part of the citizenry underemployed/unemployed  because of automation and AI.

It may well be tiered with private helathcare for the fulll time employed and the wealthy. But there will be a minimum level of universal care as well. At least for starters. Maybe even AI doctors for the baseline healthcare.  It would then likely grow either from government scope creep and pursuit of economies of scale and kingdom building.

The argument won't be about what we want or if it's right. It will be "it's cheaper than ongoing emergency room care for this population."

Why does the US have private healthcare? Because of government economic controls in WWII. Wage freezes. So companies offered healthcare benefits to offset the wage issue. Plus it was a "raise" without a tax hit. After the war, it was impractical to revoke an existing benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/15/2018 at 8:54 AM, Tyme said:

I know that. My point was that it’s referred to as a democracy too? Amirite?

 

By people that tend to not respect the truth of a republic.