Iran?

[swing]

Something that makes health care even more expensive for US citizens is the multitude of illegals that use our hospitals, clinics, etc. but don't pay their bills. Again, I know from personal experience that "my" immigrants have had babies, been treated for broken bones (not work related ), and other typical health care treatment. But the kicker is they don't pay full price.

Apparently, the gov't has a special discount for them, because they don't show much income, they gov't foots something like 40% of their medical bills.

That's not good for us Americans...

You are correct about illegal foreigners. Question: should a person be allowed to die simply because they are not a citizen of a country? Just inquiring.

 

[Grizzly]

r....you have to be a Republian.....it would be funny if you were Christian also.

No, I'm an Objectivist which is commonly confused, but generally similar to, a Libertarian. Objectivist isn't, technically, a political party, but, rather, a philosophy of life. As a political incarnation, Libertarianism is the platform which most resembles it. So, for ease in classification, let's just call me a Libertarian.

 

[Grizzly]

You are correct about illegal foreigners. Question: should a person be allowed to die simply because they are not a citizen of a country? Just inquiring.

A person should be allowed to die if they have nothing to offer the person who has the power to save their life. If the doctor doesn't feel like doing pro bono work in an effort to live up the the Hypocratic oath he took and the dying man doesn't have the jack to pay the bills, then let him die.

Why should I have to pay for him? I don't know him. I don't care about him. And, even if I did know him, there's a 78% chance that I wouldn't like him.

Your life is your business. My life is my business. To demand of you to keep me alive is foolish. You are not beholden to me. I am not beholden to you.

 

[Grizzly]

I was just called a collectivist... --by a bear--

...and I still dont know if thats a good thing or bad...

::scratching head::

It's bad. A collectivist puts the mystical "many" above the individual. This works very well for the mystical "many" because they are a constantly shifting group. The one constant is that, somehow, the good of "society" is always achieved by sacrificing a few.

So, being a collectivist is great if you're one of the leeches, but if you're the sacrificial lamb, then it really sucks ass.

 

[Kayz]

A person should be allowed to die if they have nothing to offer the person who has the power to save their life. If the doctor doesn't feel like doing pro bono work in an effort to live up the the Hypocratic oath he took and the dying man doesn't have the jack to pay the bills, then let him die.

Why should I have to pay for him? I don't know him. I don't care about him. And, even if I did know him, there's a 78% chance that I wouldn't like him.

Your life is your business. My life is my business. To demand of you to keep me alive is foolish. You are not beholden to me. I am not beholden to you.

I'll save you Grizz....you know I love ya'. Karch won't get mad at me will he???

 

[ForemanRules]

No, I'm an Objectivist which is commonly confused, but generally similar to, a Libertarian. Objectivist isn't, technically, a political party, but, rather, a philosophy of life. As a political incarnation, Libertarianism is the platform which most resembles it. So, for ease in classification, let's just call me a Libertarian.

I was a Libertarian back in the early 90's, interesting party but I thought it had some huge flaws.....a bit naive for one thing.

 

[Dionysus]

It's bad. A collectivist puts the mystical "many" above the individual. This works very well for the mystical "many" because they are a constantly shifting group. The one constant is that, somehow, the good of "society" is always achieved by sacrificing a few.

So, being a collectivist is great if you're one of the leeches, but if you're the sacrificial lamb, then it really sucks ass.

Well, thats quite an interesting philosophy.

I really have to ask this, what is your racial and ethnic background?

 

[Grizzly]

I'm a European American. Don't call me white, I find it to be offensive and derogatory. I no more resemble the color white than a house cat resembles a lion. Nay, I am olive of complexion and can pass as either a Mexican when I'm tanned or, sometimes, even a colored fella because of my nose.

But, that aside, the ethnicities are Polish, Lithuanian, Irish and German.

(fyi- the above post was for my own entertainment. I really don't have a problem with being called white except when colored folk expect me to call them African American while they're calling me white.)

 

[Kayz]

I'm a European American. Don't call me white, I find it to be offensive and derogatory. I no more resemble the color white than a house cat resembles a lion. Nay, I am olive of complexion and can pass as either a Mexican when I'm tanned or, sometimes, even a colored fella because of my nose.

But, that aside, the ethnicities are Polish, Lithuanian, Irish and German.

(fyi- the above post was for my own entertainment. I really don't have a problem with being called white except when colored folk expect me to call them African American while they're calling me white.)

Fucking honkey!!!!

 

[thick]

lmfao! true dat

Fucking honkey!!!!

 

[Beefy]

I'm a European American. Don't call me white, I find it to be offensive and derogatory. I no more resemble the color white than a house cat resembles a lion. Nay, I am olive of complexion and can pass as either a Mexican when I'm tanned or, sometimes, even a colored fella because of my nose.

But, that aside, the ethnicities are Polish, Lithuanian, Irish and German.

(fyi- the above post was for my own entertainment. I really don't have a problem with being called white except when colored folk expect me to call them African American while they're calling me white.)

You mean you're not a bear?

 

[Dionysus]

It's bad. A collectivist puts the mystical "many" above the individual. This works very well for the mystical "many" because they are a constantly shifting group. The one constant is that, somehow, the good of "society" is always achieved by sacrificing a few.

So, being a collectivist is great if you're one of the leeches, but if you're the sacrificial lamb, then it really sucks ass.

You know Griz, I may actually agree with you, although probably not for the same reasons.

America today growingly consists of a mongrelized society of misfits, freeloaders and easily offended liberals; whats worse they seem to have a stranglehold in American politics and media.

Putting the "mystical many" as you call them above the individual only works in a society of socially and ethically conscious and equal people, however in a morally bankrupt society such as ours it is not practical.

 

[Kayz]

You know Griz, I may actually agree with you, although probably not for the same reasons.

America today growingly consists of a mongrelized society of misfits, freeloaders and easily offended liberals; whats worse they seem to have a stranglehold in American politics and media.

Putting the "mystical many" as you call them above the individual only works in a society of socially and ethically conscious and equal people, however in a morally bankrupt society such as ours it is not practical.

This may be true, but I don't think that our society is morally bankrupt. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it has become a dog-eat-dog world and you have to look after yourself first. Business is cut throat, education is cut throat, etc. People are only concerned about thier own lives and have convinced themselves that they are the busiest person in the world and there are not enough hours in the day to help others. In order to succeed in a capitalistic economy you have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the top. Is that right?? Probably not, but it is what it is.

Now I'm not saying that you have to be an asshole and cold-hearted to be successful, but it certainly helps.

 

[Dionysus]

This may be true, but I don't think that our society is morally bankrupt.

I guess that depends on one's individual definition of morals... meaning what constitutes moral or immoral?

I imagine in such a "trailmix" society, there is a wide variation in what is considered moral.

... watch most popular Rap videos, are they moral?
... is the war in Iraq, commonly accepted to be based on lies, moral?

 

[Grizzly]

Putting the "mystical many" as you call them above the individual only works in a society of socially and ethically conscious and equal people, however in a morally bankrupt society such as ours it is not practical.

Again, you're presupposing that the good of "society as a whole" is somehow better than the good of the individual.

Do you enjoy having a third of your money taken from you each week? I know I don't. But it's taken "for the good of society". Is it alright to tax the rich more than the poor because they have more? No. That's akin to saying that those who are competent are RESPONSIBLE for those who aren't.

That's the crux of the whole thing. I, as an individual, have a responsibility to only myself. This is not to say that I have no responsibility to act ethically. Just because it benefits me does not mean that I have the moral right to steal from you. Rather, it means that rational self-interest is the only moral way to live your life.

The doctrine of egalitarianism is based on the premise that as long as what you do is for someone else, then it is right. You tell me which is right. You and your neighbor both have some fatal disease that can be remedied by taking a pill. There is only one pill left and it is in your posession.

By the "good of society" ideal, giving the pill to your neighbor is the right choice. Because you are you and can never be considered part of society because society is always defined as something other than yourself. Not only that, but your neighbor has 15 children and 27 grandchildren and volunteers at the hostpital or some shit.

You have none of this. By the doctrine of "good of society", he is a more important person than you. Are you really going to give him the pill? If you are, then you have seriously deep self-esteem issues.

Don't know about you, but I actively wish death on a good 65% of the world. Of the remaining 35%, I wouldn't kill myself for a single one of them.

 

[Grizzly]

Grizz, a Christian?

(laughing to self, but kind of sad because I think Grizz will go to hell when he dies, and I like him )

Awwwwwww! I'm all choked up, buddy. I didn't know you cared. But don't worry about me, man. It's all good. If the "kind, loving, forgiving creator of the universe" is going to get mad at 3/4 of the people in the world for being arbitrarily born into a religion that isn't Christianity and send them to hell, then I don't want any part of that dick anyway. And it would also mean that all things said about him, "kind, caring, forgiving, etc." is bullshit.

I live an ethical life. I have no fear for my "immortal soul".

 

[Kayz]

The doctrine of egalitarianism is based on the premise that as long as what you do is for someone else, then it is right. You tell me which is right. You and your neighbor both have some fatal disease that can be remedied by taking a pill. There is only one pill left and it is in your posession.

By the "good of society" ideal, giving the pill to your neighbor is the right choice. Because you are you and can never be considered part of society because society is always defined as something other than yourself. Not only that, but your neighbor has 15 children and 27 grandchildren and volunteers at the hostpital or some shit.

Y

...and the crux of this is that in theory your neighbor should give the pill to you. Thus, neither of you would take the pill because society says you "must" give it to the other, whom refuses to take it because he wants you to have it.

So....you both die...which benefits neither family. At least one family can go on and prosper, but the laws of society would prevent this.

What about this scenario:

You have a 10 year old son who has terminal cancer and he's in the hospital. In that same hospital is another 10 year old boy who has the same type of terminal cancer. Both boys are going to die, but they are in excruciating pain and are crying for help...but you can't help your son. There is only enough pain medicine to help ONE of the boys. Who do you want to have it and be comfortable??? Your son or a total stranger???

Now I understand that the polite and PC answer is "share the medicine so both of them get some relief"....but that's not what most people would do. Personally, I feel bad for the other child, but I'd much rather see MY son die in peace and pain-free than some stranger whom I do not know and do not care to know. But, I'm insensitive according to many.

 

[Dionysus]

Those are unrealistic scenarios. If we are talking about reality, lets use realistic scenarios, not fantasy. Anybody can dream up unlikely situations to prove any point, no matter how weak.

My point? Ok, how about this: Your neighbor, you know, the one you'd let die? Lets say if your neighbor would live he would create a pill that would cure the cancer of your 10 year old son... Would you the give your pill to your neighbor? Or the heck with it, let your son die?

Best we just deal in realism.

...Again let me point out that I am not in total disagreement.

 

[Grizzly]

That one is easy. Since it is MY son, whom I love and cherish and would do anything to save, it is in my SELF-interest to give the neighbor the pill so that he could save my son which would make ME happy, even if I'm dead.

 

[Dionysus]

You made my point exactly.

We now see how it can be in our self-interest to be beneficial to society.

Thanx Griz!