|
On April 05 2017 02:50 JimmiC wrote:
good point. I would be interested to see if the people who went through the surgery compared to those who didn't. I think that saying that they have a serious psychological disorder is accurate but also not politically correct. That being said I don't believe that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.
Disorder is clearly not applicable in the case of homosexuality. The point with homosexuality is that it's completely harmless, so there's no need to qualify it as a disorder. People are simply different from one another, both in body and in mind (thankfully). Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that the vast majority (90%+ I believe) are heterosexual. Nevertheless, that doesn't make them abnormal in the sense that they need medical attention, because there is no reason this minority cannot live perfectly happily and in harmony with the rest of society. And that's the important bit. There's no real reason to treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals. Classifying it as a disorder would be akin to saying gingers have a disorder: they're a tiny minority of the population (5% or so?) that is different from the "norm" in a very obvious manner, but it does not affect their functioning in society in any significant way (despite Southpark).
|
Canada11355 Posts
Hypothetically if transableism is treated the same as transgenderism and I undergo surgery to have my legs removed, am I still eligible for disability money from the government?
|
I'm happy to leave that call to the doctors/psychologists involved. If it becomes common enough soj that it's a significant burden on tax payers with the operations, we can discuss it again at that point, but I really think this will stay a very rare condition.
Too boring answer?
On April 05 2017 07:03 Fecalfeast wrote:
Hypothetically if transableism is treated the same as transgenderism and I undergo surgery to have my legs removed, am I still eligible for disability money from the government?
What about disabled who don't put any effort into rehabilitation? What about people that get injuries in purpose? What about people that engage in very risky activities (extreme sports)? What about people engaging in moderately risky activities (skiing, StarCraft)?
|
My general thoughts.
1) It's not so much about what's a disorder and what's not as what actually works effectively as treatment.
as far as I can tell treating trangender as something that needs to be cured doesn't work and the results show that (not an expert. Treating somebody who thinks their arm needs to be removed I think does work and is certainly better long term than permanently crippling them. Find me a doctor who thinks that paralyzing somebody or chopping of an arm is going to actually be positive and we can talk about it a bit.
2) if somebody wants an arm cut off clearly that does harm to them as opposed to just a transition. Medical ethics would come in here. If I'm making someone less able to do something that's clearly a problem. I haven't heard of any type of thing where someone's life is improved by removing something like an arm. Even if they felt happier they'd still have no arm and that would cause problems. So the question becomes does it actually solve anything and then a matter of cost/benefit analysis. whereas with trans people they are still capable of doing the same things and can be happier. AMA says treating it like something that needs to be cured doesn't work and I trust their opinion.
Even if it showed that physically transitioning had no benefits it still is fundamentally different than crippling yourself.
3) it's going to be more of an issue with robotics in the future. What if a guy wants his arm replaced with a robotic one? Technology is going to make this a lot more complicated but I don't think it's at a point yet where we have to worry. I mean at somepoint their will be an implant that could cripple you temporarily and that would be more of an issue than "hey doc for my well being I need you to permanently cripple me.) I mean we could even start talking about the ethics of surgical/chemical ethnicity rearrangement of your DNA (though I'll be long dead before something like that ever appears.)
|
On April 02 2017 22:31 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2017 22:58 Cascade wrote:On April 01 2017 14:02 Yurie wrote:On April 01 2017 13:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why do people always go nuts when things transition from being free to costing money? Every time I've seen something like that people seem to overreact and go insane. Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. No need to make this political... Original post was about "when things transition from being free to costing money". Comment was "If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do." Which requires quite some roundabout argument to match up with the original post. I think an analogy should be about something being produced at a cost, handed to people seemingly free, but actually charged for in a different way. Carbon tax doesn't fit that. The free delivery would be fresh air, but it's not like it's produced at a cost. Fresh air is the default, and they charge extra for ruining it. That extra cost is then passed on to people consuming carbon-producing products, but it's not like that extra cost is funding fresh air production. The air is fresher because of these taxes, as they reduce how much of these products are produced in the first hand. But it's not the taxes pushed onto the customers that pay for the fresh air. Independently of your thoughts on carbon taxes otherwise, you have to agree that it's not a great analogy? And that taxes paying for any infrastructure (such as building roads or whatever) is a more direct case of getting something seemingly for free, but you're paying for it at a different point.
Paying taxes to keep air breathable is the same as paying taxes to keep roads drivable. Roads a luxury that has zero reason for existing other than laziness, toxic air literally gets people killed.
|
On April 05 2017 07:03 Fecalfeast wrote:
Hypothetically if transableism is treated the same as transgenderism and I undergo surgery to have my legs removed, am I still eligible for disability money from the government?
The short answer is "maybe"
People on disability have to be checked and shown that they are "trying to adapt" and that they are "still disabled."
If the doctor they send tells them that you're chopping off your own limbs to get disability--then there's a good chance they'll consider you fraudulent.
|
On April 05 2017 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2017 22:31 Cascade wrote:On April 02 2017 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2017 22:58 Cascade wrote:On April 01 2017 14:02 Yurie wrote:On April 01 2017 13:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why do people always go nuts when things transition from being free to costing money? Every time I've seen something like that people seem to overreact and go insane. Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. No need to make this political... Original post was about "when things transition from being free to costing money". Comment was "If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do." Which requires quite some roundabout argument to match up with the original post. I think an analogy should be about something being produced at a cost, handed to people seemingly free, but actually charged for in a different way. Carbon tax doesn't fit that. The free delivery would be fresh air, but it's not like it's produced at a cost. Fresh air is the default, and they charge extra for ruining it. That extra cost is then passed on to people consuming carbon-producing products, but it's not like that extra cost is funding fresh air production. The air is fresher because of these taxes, as they reduce how much of these products are produced in the first hand. But it's not the taxes pushed onto the customers that pay for the fresh air. Independently of your thoughts on carbon taxes otherwise, you have to agree that it's not a great analogy? And that taxes paying for any infrastructure (such as building roads or whatever) is a more direct case of getting something seemingly for free, but you're paying for it at a different point. Paying taxes to keep air breathable is the same as paying taxes to keep roads drivable. Roads a luxury that has zero reason for existing other than laziness, toxic air literally gets people killed.
Without saying if roads or fresh air are desirable, we do pay taxes that go straight to building roads. We don't pay taxes that go straight to producing fresh air. So roads are the better example.
|
|
|
The main issue with surgical treatments for transableism is that it would be quite challenging to test them in a double blind study.
Unless the patient asks for the removal of eyes, of course
|
On April 06 2017 02:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 02 2017 22:31 Cascade wrote:On April 02 2017 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2017 22:58 Cascade wrote:On April 01 2017 14:02 Yurie wrote:On April 01 2017 13:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why do people always go nuts when things transition from being free to costing money? Every time I've seen something like that people seem to overreact and go insane. Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. No need to make this political... Original post was about "when things transition from being free to costing money". Comment was "If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do." Which requires quite some roundabout argument to match up with the original post. I think an analogy should be about something being produced at a cost, handed to people seemingly free, but actually charged for in a different way. Carbon tax doesn't fit that. The free delivery would be fresh air, but it's not like it's produced at a cost. Fresh air is the default, and they charge extra for ruining it. That extra cost is then passed on to people consuming carbon-producing products, but it's not like that extra cost is funding fresh air production. The air is fresher because of these taxes, as they reduce how much of these products are produced in the first hand. But it's not the taxes pushed onto the customers that pay for the fresh air. Independently of your thoughts on carbon taxes otherwise, you have to agree that it's not a great analogy? And that taxes paying for any infrastructure (such as building roads or whatever) is a more direct case of getting something seemingly for free, but you're paying for it at a different point. Paying taxes to keep air breathable is the same as paying taxes to keep roads drivable. Roads a luxury that has zero reason for existing other than laziness, toxic air literally gets people killed. Um it would be damn near impossible to feed people and run society as we do now with out roads. There is way to many people to think they everyone could have a garden livestock, or however you think everyone will survive and eat without roads.
Jetpacks. You know you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 06 2017 02:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 02 2017 22:31 Cascade wrote:On April 02 2017 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2017 22:58 Cascade wrote:On April 01 2017 14:02 Yurie wrote:On April 01 2017 13:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why do people always go nuts when things transition from being free to costing money? Every time I've seen something like that people seem to overreact and go insane. Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. No need to make this political... Original post was about "when things transition from being free to costing money". Comment was "If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do." Which requires quite some roundabout argument to match up with the original post. I think an analogy should be about something being produced at a cost, handed to people seemingly free, but actually charged for in a different way. Carbon tax doesn't fit that. The free delivery would be fresh air, but it's not like it's produced at a cost. Fresh air is the default, and they charge extra for ruining it. That extra cost is then passed on to people consuming carbon-producing products, but it's not like that extra cost is funding fresh air production. The air is fresher because of these taxes, as they reduce how much of these products are produced in the first hand. But it's not the taxes pushed onto the customers that pay for the fresh air. Independently of your thoughts on carbon taxes otherwise, you have to agree that it's not a great analogy? And that taxes paying for any infrastructure (such as building roads or whatever) is a more direct case of getting something seemingly for free, but you're paying for it at a different point. Paying taxes to keep air breathable is the same as paying taxes to keep roads drivable. Roads a luxury that has zero reason for existing other than laziness, toxic air literally gets people killed. Um it would be damn near impossible to feed people and run society as we do now with out roads. There is way to many people to think they everyone could have a garden livestock, or however you think everyone will survive and eat without roads.
Transporting goods differently is merely variance.
Dying early from toxins in the air you breathe has no variance, just death.
|
|
|
What if you want to cut off your own arm so you can get a cyborg arm in true transhumanist fashion?
What if you'd voluntarily want to replace your heart with a better working machine?
Where are the ethical boundaries there?
|
On April 06 2017 18:34 Uldridge wrote:
What if you want to cut off your own arm so you can get a cyborg arm in true transhumanist fashion?
What if you'd voluntarily want to replace your heart with a better working machine?
Where are the ethical boundaries there?
Are there any at all? My body, my decisions, as long as i pay for it. If it becomes reliable and affordable, then let's also think about public healthcare funding, but that's long from now. I definitely do not accept that other people's possible ethical issues should affect what I do with my body.
The only true issue is possible immortality vs. limited living space. There we can talk ethics, because in the current mainstream thinking its almost unsolvable. The only practicsl solution is "space for space" aka "have children? die at age xxx at last" but good luck trying to sell that. The second option of granting immortality based on merit or money is even more terrible and letting everyone live likely means killing them all at the end, also not very good.
Sadly this is a little bit sour topic for me now as I have disfunctional the only part of body that wont be cyberreplaceable any time soon, the brain, so I wont profit much even if cyborgisation happen soon 
|
On April 06 2017 18:48 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 18:34 Uldridge wrote:
What if you want to cut off your own arm so you can get a cyborg arm in true transhumanist fashion?
What if you'd voluntarily want to replace your heart with a better working machine?
Where are the ethical boundaries there? Are there any at all? My body, my decisions, as long as i pay for it. If it becomes reliable and affordable, then let's also think about public healthcare funding, but that's long from now. I definitely do not accept that other people's possible ethical issues should affect what I do with my body. The only true issue is possible immortality vs. limited living space. There we can talk ethics, because in the current mainstream thinking its almost unsolvable. The only practicsl solution is "space for space" aka "have children? die at age xxx at last" but good luck trying to sell that. The second option of granting immortality based on merit or money is even more terrible and letting everyone live likely means killing them all at the end, also not very good. Sadly this is a little bit sour topic for me now as I have disfunctional the only part of body that wont be cyberreplaceable any time soon, the brain, so I wont profit much even if cyborgisation happen soon
This kind of libertarian point of view breaks down when you start picking at it.
For starters, suicide. What if someone truly feels they are not made for this world and want to end it (lets call it trans-living, because apparently adding trans in front of your shit makes it hip). Should you try to stop them? In my opinion, you should. Not only because there is probably something clinically wrong with them, but also because by being alive you incur obligations, and ending your life thus has effects that go beyond the very simplistic "my body, my decision".
Perhaps more to the point in this case, assisted suicide or assisted *anything* that has more harm than benefit (such as amputating perfectly good limbs): doctors swear the Hippocratic oath for a reason, and amongst other things the modern version contains:
will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
And simplified versions are often simply "primum non nocere", or "first, do no harm". Most doctors, in most situations will have real problems with performing some cock-a-mamy surgery while upholding their oath. There's a case to be made for assisted suicide in the terminally ill. But beyond that, it is very very hard to find a justification for saying "the person wants this, so hell, lets do it".
And furthermore, this complete self-determination over your body would allow one to sell bodyparts. In fact, in the extreme, what is to stop someone from selling his heart? The problem here is not in the self-determination, it's in the corrosive power of money. We can have this discussion, but in short it's an aberration of perverse incentives.
Of course, most of this doesn't apply to post-humanistic arguments, where the surgery will lead to an "improvement". As for your immortality bit, I am ambivalent. I don't think immortality is an issue we have to worry about: our bodies are not immortal, and in fact very vulnerable (although longevity can continue to increase for a while more), meaning we will either be post-humans in a physical world by the time immortality comes around (aka robots with a human consciousness) or we will be uploaded into a virtual world and achieve immortality in that manner. In either case, lebensraum is far less of an issue (as is, in fact, reproduction).
|
Well, I found the idea of preventing suicide because of "obligations"outrageous. Surely you may chose to live for that reason, but forcing that on others? Who are you? I understand that healthy human brain is wired to live, so that suicidal tendencies are often a sign of mental disorder and such people should be helped. But this should be help, not coercion. If a lucid person insist on dieing, they should be allowed so. We should really stop the pretense and acknowledge that the resistence to suicide is mainly a religious issue and as such should not be forced on people who may be atheist.
The Hypocrates' oath isn't a given principle of the Universe, is dated and can be easily changed. Doctors should really stop seeing themselves as something special anyway (and the societu needs to understand that too and motivate them with appropriate salaries, not by imposing a sense of purpose). Nothing also prevents the emergence of "human improvement technicians" who are not classical doctors.
The living space issue exists for cyborgs as well, possibly even worse because of possible increased resource consumption. Machines can be more demanding than biohumans for energy and materials.
|
Resistance to suicide is not mostly a religious issue (maybe you meant assisted suicide?), as thoughts of suicide are a symptom related to a host of psychiatric illnesses. As you say, the lucid, healthy minded person who seeks out suicide should almost certainly be allowed to do so; the problem here is that differentiating between lucid, healthy minded people and people who are too ill to make their own medical decisions becomes very difficult when the end-goal is suicide. In my experience, even those who would claim that their suicidal desires are unbridled and freely chosen end up reconsidering that notion after therapy, meds, or even just a few intimate conversations with another person. Because you can't exactly reverse a successful suicide, it makes sense that the medical profession and society at large would put up barriers if only to protract the decision making process and sift through the false positives.
|
On April 06 2017 19:45 opisska wrote:
Well, I found the idea of preventing suicide because of "obligations"outrageous. Surely you may chose to live for that reason, but forcing that on others? Who are you? I understand that healthy human brain is wired to live, so that suicidal tendencies are often a sign of mental disorder and such people should be helped. But this should be help, not coercion. If a lucid person insist on dieing, they should be allowed so. We should really stop the pretense and acknowledge that the resistence to suicide is mainly a religious issue and as such should not be forced on people who may be atheist.
Seeing as I'm an atheist, I don't think your assertion is correct. Suicide harms loved ones. Particularly the children and a parent does have a duty to his/her children.
The Hypocrates' oath isn't a given principle of the Universe, is dated and can be easily changed. Doctors should really stop seeing themselves as something special anyway (and the societu needs to understand that too and motivate them with appropriate salaries, not by imposing a sense of purpose). Nothing also prevents the emergence of "human improvement technicians" who are not classical doctors.
I don't know about Poland/Czech republic, but most places I have lived, doctors are amply rewarded (nurses not so much, but that's another story). Doctors take an oath for the same reason lawyers and politicians do: they have a responsibility to their clients that goes beyond what can be placed in a simple contract. Your waving it away indicates to me that you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about.
Human improvement technicians already exist in the case of cosmetic plastic surgery. But that wasn't really what we were talking about. Such surgery is considered "light" (with only a tiny risk of complication). Clearly amputating limbs does not fall within that category.
The living space issue exists for cyborgs as well, possibly even worse because of possible increased resource consumption. Machines can be more demanding than biohumans for energy and materials.
Of course, but it's also far far easier for robots to colonize space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
