|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 27, 2010 03:01 PM |
|
|
The problem is, he doesn't answer anything at all. His ramblings get ever more unconnected.
I mean, when you ask, would you let a child die from blood loss or give him a transfusion, pointing to an Uncle that refused the recommended cancer treatment and is still living, is no answer at all.
I suppose, as a parent you can always explain away malnourishment and starvíng of your children with the necessity to fast due to religious reasons. After all fasting is a norml religious practise.
Reading all that crap, I'd really like to see the ire of the State-God come lose on All those looney tune religious fanatics, and take their children away from them.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 03:52 PM |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how someone can advocate a parent's right to kill their child by refusing them a blood transfusion and at the same time scream until they're blue in the face that abortion is wrong, under the logic that a parent doesn't have the right to take the life of their child? Is it me, or does something not add up?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 03:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, you should learn US law. Vaccinations are not mandatory for US citizens. They are mandatory for certain public schools but there are exemptions for allergies, religious reasons, and other reasons.
I admit I don't know much about the US laws. So what happens if a child's parents refuse treatment with tetanus vaccine or serum? Would the health care professional have to call the appropriate state child protective services agency because of the concern about medical neglect?
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 04:16 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:45, 27 Sep 2010.
|
As usual, Elodin oversimplifies the facts.
All US States require mandatory vaccination for enrollment in public school, and for good reason. Some states allow for philosophical or religious exemptions and some do not. You can read about legality of religious exemptions here. By the way, these state exemptions were not originally introduced because the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination was challenged in the courts - in fact, the US Supreme court has upheld the right of States to enforce compulsory vaccination [see Jacobson v. Massachusetts]. Exemptions exist for scientific reasons - 100% vaccination rates have been traditionally viewed as being necessary for "herd immunity", and so allowing a small proportion of people to opt out does not hurt society as a whole. Of course, what happens when a large proportion of people start (falsely) claiming religious exemptions? Hm. Is it any surprise that religious communities are hot-spots for disease epidemics among school children? In any case, scientific understanding of what vaccination rate is required for protection of society is currently being revised.
Vaccination is required for US Military enrollment, and I do not believe there are religious exemptions.
In addition, vaccination is required for legal immigration to the US.
In general, people refuse vaccination for three reasons. (1) They have an immune deficiency. (2) Religious/philosophical reasons. (3) They think vaccines cause autism.
Reasons 2 and 3 are caused by illogical fears and ignorance. People who refuse vaccination on these grounds jeopardize the safety of society for selfish reasons.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 04:28 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:31, 27 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
You didn't answer my question, Elodin.
That's impolite, if nothing.
Josef Fritzl, arrest, yes or no.
Fritzl imprisoned and raped his daughter for over 20 years among other things. Yes, of course he should have been arrested.
@JJ
Quote:
The problem is, he doesn't answer anything at all.
Yet another false statement about me. You are unable to rationally counter my points so you continue to just make up things about me. Sad.
Quote:
I mean, when you ask, would you let a child die from blood loss or give him a transfusion, pointing to an Uncle that refused the recommended cancer treatment and is still living, is no answer at all.
You are either lying or incapable of reading the English language well or have poor reading comprehension skills.
You asked, "Question: As a doc, do you let the child die?" I replied to your question, "Yep, a doctor diagnoses conditions and advises on how to treat conditions. It is not a doctor's role to force an unwanted treatment on anyone."
If a patient does not want medical treatment the doctor is immoral to force the treatment on the patient. If I were a doctor, yes, I would let a patient die if he refused medical treatment because I have absolutely no right to force a medical treatment on him against his will.
I don't know how many times I have asked you throughout the years, but I'll ask again. Please stop lying about me.
Quote:
Reading all that crap, I'd really like to see the ire of the State-God come lose on All those loony tune religious fanatics, and take their children away from them.
You have already stated in the past that a parent teaching a child his religion is racism and should be illegal. I could post quite a list of your anti-theist quotes. I realize that anti-theist loony tune atheists (not all atheists are anti-theists) are very intollerant of the beliefs of others but a free society simply can't exist where loony atheists attempt to force their delusions on everyone else. I like being free and certainly I would not bow to a loony atheist State-god.
@Corribus
Quote:
Can someone explain to me how someone can advocate a parent's right to kill their child by refusing them a blood transfusion and at the same time scream until they're blue in the face that abortion is wrong, under the logic that a parent doesn't have the right to take the life of their child? Is it me, or does something not add up?
Anyone who says I advocate a parent's right to kill their child is a liar.
Sorry if I refuse medical treatment I am not killing myself. I am letting nature take its course.
Oh, I've never screamed about abortion or turned blue in the face. Perhaps your inability to present rational counter-points to my points has led you to have nightmares about me doing such a thing. If you are beginning to obsess about me, that is not a healthy thing.
Anyways, if you can't see the difference between murdering a child because the child would cramp your lifestyle for a few months and not giving a child a medical treatment because it is in some way harmful to the child I pity you.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a blood transfusion is harmful to the child because they think it will result in the child's eternal damnation. I don't share that belief. But anyone who says they can prove that the child's should would not be damned is a liar. Unfortunately, some people are just very intolerant of all viewpoints but their own and would love to force everyone to live by their whims.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 05:51 PM |
|
|
The point has come where yet again enough is just enough.Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
The problem is, he doesn't answer anything at all.
Yet another false statement about me. You are unable to rationally counter my points so you continue to just make up things about me. Sad.
Quote:
I mean, when you ask, would you let a child die from blood loss or give him a transfusion, pointing to an Uncle that refused the recommended cancer treatment and is still living, is no answer at all.
You are either lying or incapable of reading the English language well or have poor reading comprehension skills.
You asked, "Question: As a doc, do you let the child die?" I replied to your question, "Yep, a doctor diagnoses conditions and advises on how to treat conditions. It is not a doctor's role to force an unwanted treatment on anyone."
If a patient does not want medical treatment the doctor is immoral to force the treatment on the patient. If I were a doctor, yes, I would let a patient die if he refused medical treatment because I have absolutely no right to force a medical treatment on him against his will.
Either YOU are unable to understand the problem or you are wilfully stupid:
WHERE does the (unconcious) child - who is the person whose life is at stake - expresses the will to die? It's the godforsaken PARENTS who do it - and you wisely did NOT quote what I said about their duty, and which I will repeat to help you get down to the crux of parental behaviour:
Quote:
The main task of parents is to ensure a child's well-being and make it capable to make its own decisions when it becomes a grown-up. Therefore the parents MUST NOT decide for a child that it's better to die on behalf of THEIR belief, no matter what their belief SEEMINGLY would force them to do.
Do you understand that? Grown-ups can reject medical treatment alright, I have no problem with it, especially when the treatment isn't without an alternative or risky.
However, PARENTS are NOT supposed to sacrifice the life of their children on the altar of religious superstition. They CAN sacrifice their own life as much as they want, if it hurts no one else, BUT they have the goddamn duty to make sure their children can do so on their own later on, especially in clear-cut cases.
There just can be no discussion about this, and every parent who actually rejects a blood transfusion for their child is committing a severe crime and should face trial for it.
People die anyway. Children should not die because their parents are religious lunatics.
Quote:
You have already stated in the past that a parent teaching a child his religion is racism and should be illegal. I could post quite a list of your anti-theist quotes. I realize that anti-theist loony tune atheists (not all atheists are anti-theists) are very intollerant of the beliefs of others but a free society simply can't exist where loony atheists attempt to force their delusions on everyone else. I like being free and certainly I would not bow to a loony atheist State-god.
What I realize is, that anti-social loony tune pentecostals are extremely intolerant of the rights of children to be protected from their religiously deluded parents who would let them die for superstitious fear instead trusting in a loving god, and want to force society into not only to accept their delusions, but to accept them forcing their delusions onto their unsuspicious and trusting children. Those children wozhld like to be free from the torments of their deluded parents and don't want to bow to a loony uncaring Monster-god.
Quote:
@Corribus
Quote:
Can someone explain to me how someone can advocate a parent's right to kill their child by refusing them a blood transfusion and at the same time scream until they're blue in the face that abortion is wrong, under the logic that a parent doesn't have the right to take the life of their child? Is it me, or does something not add up?
Anyone who says I advocate a parent's right to kill their child is a liar.
Sorry if I refuse medical treatment I am not killing myself. I am letting nature take its course.
Oh, I've never screamed about abortion or turned blue in the face. Perhaps your inability to present rational counter-points to my points has led you to have nightmares about me doing such a thing. If you are beginning to obsess about me, that is not a healthy thing.
Anyways, if you can't see the difference between murdering a child because the child would cramp your lifestyle for a few months and not giving a child a medical treatment because it is in some way harmful to the child I pity you.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a blood transfusion is harmful to the child because they think it will result in the child's eternal damnation. I don't share that belief. But anyone who says they can prove that the child's should would not be damned is a liar. Unfortunately, some people are just very intolerant of all viewpoints but their own and would love to force everyone to live by their whims.
That's the summit of ignorance, double-moral and outright criminal foolishness. Even you, Elodin, should see, that letting someone die because you cannot falsify a belief is so completely and dangerously near to the burning witchfires of the past (you couldn't proof they were no witches, could you) that it would fit into the stone age, but not in any year that starts has an AD before its number.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes but what if Burger King offers equally little? If McDonald's and Burger King have a mutually beneficial deal, that none of them offers more than X as payment for the workers?
Deals like this don't work, even if both participants recognise that it would make both of them better off. It's profitable for each one of them to cheat - because if one is paying workers little and one is paying them the marginal product of labour, the one that's paying marginal product will be much better off. Of course, they both know that, so both cheat and the cartel fails. It's basic game theory.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 07:09 PM |
|
|
Not that again.
It's NOT basic game theory, because in game theory only the first cheater benefits. This is not so in economy: if one "cheats" and pays better wages the other can do the same - and better.
So, actually, in economy, if you HAVE an agreement that makes you a nice profit, you can easily keep to it, because cheating FIRST offers no advantage.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 09:48 PM |
|
|
Cheating first does give an advantage. It attracts the other firm's workers. You'll be making more money than you were before.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 10:05 PM |
|
|
Yeah, so? If it works in one direction this month it works into another the next.
Thing is, you can't just quit your job from one day to the next, and if company A tries to atztract workers with better wage offers, company B can simply offer a raise when workers want to quit.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 10:08 PM |
|
|
You can't, but there's always someone who can. And companies know that, so they don't bother having price wars much any more, and sell close to equilibrium.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 11:00 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:01, 27 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
Either YOU are unable to understand the problem or you are wilfully stupid:
WHERE does the (unconcious) child - who is the person whose life is at stake - expresses the will to die?
You did not say the child was unconscious, JJ. Please learn to express yourself with greater clairity.
As I have repeatedly said, if a child is mature enough to make the medical decision himself he should do so. Of course he would have to be conscious to do so. If the child is too immature to make the decision or is not able to make the decdision that does not mean the medical decision defalts to some Marixist lunitic who thinks he has the right to determine everyone's medical care. The decision is the that of the child's parents.
Also, blood transfusions are quite often planned and not just done for accidents. As I said it is ironic that a person who says a teenage girl has the right to murder the baby in her womb but the same teenage girl would not have the right to refuse a blood transfusion. Liberals have such very very bizzare beliefs.
Quote:
It's the godforsaken PARENTS who do it - and you wisely did NOT quote what I said about their duty, and which I will repeat to help you get down to the crux of parental behaviour:
While I don't agree with Jehovah Witness dogma, it is rather harsh of you of all pepole to call them godforsaken. No, I would not describe them as God forsaken.
Quote:
What I realize is, that anti-social loony tune pentecostals are extremely intolerant of the rights of children to be protected from their religiously deluded parents who would let them die for superstitious fear instead trusting in a loving god, and want to force society into not only to accept their delusions, but to accept them forcing their delusions onto their unsuspicious and trusting children. Those children wozhld like to be free from the torments of their deluded parents and don't want to bow to a loony uncaring Monster-god.
Sorry, but:
1) Pentecostals do not object to blood transfusions.
2) Pentecostals are some of the most social people you will ever meet. We have lots of fellowship opportunities and love everyone. 
3) Pentecostals tolerate the right of others to practice their reigion, even very delusional religions like atheism. Try tolerance, JJ. Your blood pressure would probably go down and you might live longer.
4) By religiously deluded parents I assume you are refering to atheists.
5) Yes, God is loving. He began to exist as a man and let himself be slapped around and tortured to death because of his love for us.
6) Sorry Pentecostals don't have delusional beliefs and our beliefs can't be forced on anyone.
7) Jehovah's Witnesses don't try to force their beliefs on you and you should not try to force yours on them.
8) Parents have the duty, right, and responsibility to raise thier children. Loony left-wing bigots in a government office have no right to control the religion or medical treatment of the rest of the citizens.
Parents are constantly making decisions for their children. Sometimesn they make good decisions and sometimes bad decisions. But it is their right as parents to make the decisions.
|
|
winterfate
Supreme Hero
Water-marked Champion!
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 11:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In general, people refuse vaccination for three reasons. (1) They have an immune deficiency. (2) Religious/philosophical reasons. (3) They think vaccines cause autism.
Reasons 2 and 3 are caused by illogical fears and ignorance. People who refuse vaccination on these grounds jeopardize the safety of society for selfish reasons.
Or, if we talk specifically about the AH1N1 virus, which has a roughly 2% mortality rate, then some people, myself included, were relying on herd immunity. 
Seasonal influenza kills more people than AH1N1 did during its peak.
(Then again, AH1N1 was over-hyped and then some, just because media ratings are serious business.  ).
But, yes, I definitely agree with your analysis of vaccinations. I had a classmate in college that fell into the first category (she had some rare genetic alteration that could cause her to suffer paralysis if she got vaccinated).
(We now return to your regular topic.)
____________
If you supposedly care about someone, then don't push them out of your life. Acting like you're not doing it doesn't exempt you from what I just said. - Winterfate
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2010 11:52 PM |
|
|
Mvass, that's pure theory, not reality. With some exceptions, wages don't reach equilibrium, not for any length of time anyway. Although that might depend on what you call equilibrium. Wages won't stabilize like product prices, but they will somewhat stabilize within a VERY broad range that tends to become volatile very easily. It is also far more localized than product pricing (which makes sense given that products can be centrally made and shipped long distances, whereas labor can't)
Quote:
@Bin
That's swell.
Until you try to pay the rent with XP points.
How is what I said any different than going to uni (or even high school)? In both cases you are trading short wages for education, with experience being far more important than the formal education. And true, in either case you might not have any choice. But even if you have to take whatever job is offered to you, you may still be able to choose a direction within that company that gives you better experience. That's true even working at a fast food joint.
Maybe a mod can move this economic discussion out of this thread into a new one?
I have a new on-topic topic for this thread as soon as I get a chance to write it.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:51, 28 Sep 2010.
|
@MVass
One of my friends recently opened an exchange office with his father.
There are several exchange offices in that neighbourhood, I'm talking about 8, or 10, I don't know myself. The thing is, they have a deal, that none of them sets a course lower than what they agreed upon, so that no one gets an unfair advantage and consequently draw everyone's course down.
And it works.
They're all watching each other closely, and my pal can't even think of changing the course to something lower to attract more customers.
Why couldn't it likewise be applied on a larger scale, and with people at stake?
As far as I know, that's called a cartel and those things happen. Whatever your perceived "rules of the game" may be, no matter how you'd play it, in reality, those things CAN happen. The minimum wage law serves to protect the workers from even the possibility that something like that occurs, at least on a scale that big.
@Elodin
"Letting nature take its course"?
Nature is taking its course. One of the most primal instincts of a man, and pretty much every being in nature, is to protect his offspring. We're going against nature by choosing to let our child die, and we're going against God by proclaiming HE WANTS US to let it die when it can be saved.
If you save a child's life, and harm no one along the way, and it clearly keeps the mind and soul it had before the transfusion, what is it exactly that angers God about it?
No, I believe anyone who supports that view is an abomination, not only in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of everyone with any sense of ethics and common sense.
Also,
Quote:
Fritzl imprisoned and raped his daughter for over 20 years among other things. Yes, of course he should have been arrested.
But why?
It was his daughter, why would the State-God have any right to interfere?
And one more thing. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that a man should or shouldn't receive blood transfusions. The Witnesses made that up interpreted some more or less unrelated sentences that way.
It also never says that a father should or shouldn't have sexual intercourse with his daughter and whether he should risk her committing sins in the outside world or keep her safely confined in the basement. It says to love and obey your parents... If there was a large, powerful and well-funded (like the Witnesses) cult of Fritzls doing what Fritzl did but filing it under "religion", how would you feel about it?
@Bin
Good idea. We should transfer all this over there.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They're all watching each other closely, and my pal can't even think of changing the course to something lower to attract more customers.
Why not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:19 AM |
|
|
|
Meh, "nature taking it's course" is a phrase devoid of meaning anyway. What does it mean? I bet nobody can give you a straight answer.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why not?
Because they forgot to read the econ book?
@Bak, In the US, and probably most other places, there are laws against price fixing. However in practice it's quite common. There has been a strong trend in that direction in some industries, especially at the retail level for many computer related products. You can go to five stores and see exactly the same price on MS Vista. "In theory" that shouldn't happen, but it does. I think t should be illegal, but obviously it's not.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:29 AM |
|
|
|
If you're referring to vertical (i.e., manufacturer-retailer) price fixing, the US Surpreme Court ruled a few years ago that it's not illegal in the US.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:31 AM |
|
|
I have a suspicion as to why there's less competition in Bak's example, but I want to see his answer first.
As for Vista - they reached equilibrium.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
