EPT"Hurry up and die" - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
edlover420
349 Posts
Forever young! | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
On January 25 2013 02:48 jdsowa wrote: Japan, of course, is known for their high rate of suicide. To burden society or family is considered dishonorable. To die naturally is to die gracefully. The quote in the OP just reflects this attitude. Where does it stem from? It may have something do with the country's racial homogeneity and a sense of communality. Here in the US, we are a country founded by pirates, speculators and religious cults. Nobody feels any common bond, because everyone's from a different background. So everyone is more than happy to abuse the state for their own gain because they don't have any feelings for the folks around them. The idea that one would put the greater good of society ahead of their own personal gratification is the most foreign thing from the mind of an American, and a Westerner in general. Even granted cultural differences, the fact that Aso had to walk back his statement indicates it was offensive in the Japanese context. | ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
if it's other people's money? hell no. if it's your own money? live as long as you fucking want. | ||
|
solsken
Sweden182 Posts
| ||
|
frietjeman
Netherlands26 Posts
"should people have the right to life, at any cost?" if it's other people's money? hell no. if it's your own money? live as long as you fucking want. Sure, you're completely right to a certain extend but sadly it isn't that simply. The way you make it sound it's every man for himself. I doubt many people would like that. The question is how long we should be 'wasting' money on individuals, or rather, when is the point reached where it becomes wasting and no longer spending. Sorry, that gunshot wound is too expensive... Have you even read a single post in this entire thread? | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
On January 25 2013 03:55 StreetWise wrote: To me the issue isn't whether or not someone should have the right to life at any cost(they should), its whether or not they have the right to die. It should be up to the individual to decide if its their time to go. If they are incapacitated there should be someone who can make that decision for them, and if they haven't declared a proxy, it would be assigned to them the same way one would figure out who would inherit their wealth. How can anyone have a right to something that is impossible? | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
|
Maxd11
United States680 Posts
On January 25 2013 04:48 NovaTheFeared wrote: How can anyone have a right to something that is impossible? Contrary to popular belief death is actually a real thing, not just something that happens in movies. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On January 24 2013 20:37 SamsungStar wrote: Utterly wrong. Money and labor productivity are intrinsically connected. Money is the incentive for labor. Without money, you have no production. Wtf would people work for no money? Productive capacity is nothing but an abstract ideal. Reality doesn't work that way. A society rarely, if ever, operates at maximum productive capacity, so no, it still boils down to money because that is the most accurate representation of resources and labor supply. You can't just force people to become doctors and nurses because they have the ability. You have to grow the sector through normal economic activity and market pressures. I'm pretty sure I could handle a nurse's job, but it would take a ridiculous amount of money to convince me to become one. At the end of the day, labor markets are driven by supply and demand and those both function using money. And the logic of putting more money into elderly care because the financial sector sucks too is terrible. Two wrongs don't make a right. Youre kind of just affirming his point that you dont really understand how money, or the health system works "Money is the incentive for labor" - nobody said otherwise. People wont become a doctor if they dont get proper pay, sure, noone said otherwise. This doesnt mean that if you would put twice as much money you would have twice as many doctors, likewise would not treating elderly people not mean that you would save more childrens lives. "You can't just force people to become doctors and nurses because they have the ability. You have to grow the sector through normal economic activity and market pressures. I'm pretty sure I could handle a nurse's job, but it would take a ridiculous amount of money to convince me to become one." Valid point, except it has nothing to do with what he is saying " And the logic of putting more money into elderly care because the financial sector sucks too is terrible. Two wrongs don't make a right. " He didnt really say that. He just said that this is money better spent. Besides, what is talked about in this thread is against the ethic standard that doctors have had for thousands of years | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On January 25 2013 03:30 frietjeman wrote: Have you even read a single post in this entire thread? This thread is about healthcare rationing; if treatment of the gunshot wound were extremely expensive and would be only partial (and leave you in a similar state to a decaying person, unable to survive without constant care), then, yes, it's comparable to end-of-life treatment. But I don't think gunshot wounds generally work that way. | ||
|
Vandrad
Germany951 Posts
On January 24 2013 13:38 Tenshix wrote: Next step: Japan develops immortality to prevent their entire population from dying off. Sounds funny. But we are actually heading this way. | ||
|
grush57
Korea (South)2582 Posts
On January 25 2013 05:37 Vandrad wrote: Sounds funny. But we are actually heading this way. lol yea because immortality is possible | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
It theoretically is. | ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
On January 24 2013 17:32 dani` wrote: So what do you mean by 'our actions are predetermined'? You are saying there is no such thing as free will, right? If I were to suddenly decide today that I am going to emigrate to Australia you'd say that's not a spur of the moment thing but rather, was predetermined my entire life? If so, then I am very skeptical about that statement. Regarding that 'cut-off point', yes in a (utopian) democracy the government should do what the majority of people want. Though I would be highly surprised if a majority of people would vote in favor of a law like 'no form of health care is provided to those who have passed the age of 85'. I know I'm a little late replying to this, but whatever. Yes, there is no such thing as free will. Our actions, decisions etc have already been decided by our brain before we are conscious of making a decision. It's called epiphenomenalism, and is backed by neuroscience. I think utopia and democracy contradict one another, but that's neither here nor there. The question is more should people be able to vote on something like this or not? If they vote against it, then we have no problem do we? | ||
|
number01
203 Posts
On January 24 2013 13:42 Forikorder wrote: when you put someone else in charge of keeping you alive that person should get to decide when enough is enough if someone is 100% reliant on other people to stay alive why should they get the say? why not the people actually keeping the person alive? The same thing is going to happen to you sometime. some younger person is going to have to pay for your old ass someday. Why dont we solve your problem the same way that you are proposing it? | ||
CountChocula
Canada2068 Posts
Have you seen singularityhub.com? Ray Kurzweil and his followers believe being able to upload a scan of your brain into a computer will be achieved in our lifetime and people will achieve immortality, so theoretically it's possible. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On January 25 2013 05:31 7mk wrote: Youre kind of just affirming his point that you dont really understand how money, or the health system works "Money is the incentive for labor" - nobody said otherwise. People wont become a doctor if they dont get proper pay, sure, noone said otherwise. This doesnt mean that if you would put twice as much money you would have twice as many doctors, likewise would not treating elderly people not mean that you would save more childrens lives. "You can't just force people to become doctors and nurses because they have the ability. You have to grow the sector through normal economic activity and market pressures. I'm pretty sure I could handle a nurse's job, but it would take a ridiculous amount of money to convince me to become one." Valid point, except it has nothing to do with what he is saying " And the logic of putting more money into elderly care because the financial sector sucks too is terrible. Two wrongs don't make a right. " He didnt really say that. He just said that this is money better spent. Besides, what is talked about in this thread is against the ethic standard that doctors have had for thousands of years Just what? He tried to divorce the buying power of a nation from its labor market, and then he tried to make a claim that the labor market, and the health industrial complex in particular, could simply be grown by printing more money to do so. All that supposedly mattered was the net "productive capacity" of the nation and how it was allocated. Completely ignoring the fact that nations do not live in vacuums and their labor and financial markets are integrated into a world economy, so that a nation's "productive capacity" is pretty much impossible to quantify seeing as a nation could use their money to buy the productive capacity of other nations (such as outsourcing), and export their own productive capacity to other nations in exchange for hard currency(such as trade surpluses). AKA his entire theory makes absolutely zero sense. Oh then he decided to end his post with the claim that the financial sector is more parasitic than healthcare and therefore spending additional money (or productive capacity) on health care is justified. The most ironic thing about his whole post is that it's couched in a patronizing manner as if nobody else understands what fiat currency is. Which is now followed by your post... that doesn't seem to understand anything that's been said before it. | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On January 25 2013 05:52 CountChocula wrote: Have you seen singularityhub.com? Ray Kurzweil and his followers believe being able to upload a scan of your brain into a computer will be achieved in our lifetime and people will achieve immortality, so theoretically it's possible. It is still not immortality because if someone pull the plug out of the computers or erase the data or the computer goes broken, then they still die. Immortality is literally impossible. We can at most increase our life expectancy, and that's all. | ||
| ||
