|
On January 28 2013 09:54 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.
You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.
Of course people shouldn't have the right to life. This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech. ? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did. Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out. I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist. There is a huge difference between being protected from violence and being protected from death itself.
'Protected from violence' could reasonably cover protection from pathogen-driven disease. But bodies break down regardless.
When it becomes plausible for a society to protect its citizens from old age, I might endorse a 'right to immortality.' At present, it's not.
|
On January 28 2013 09:54 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.
You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.
Of course people shouldn't have the right to life. This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech. ? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did. Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out. I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist. Your point is valid but I think you've also misconstrued his. His point is that people don't have a right to demand others to finance their life. There is a huge difference between being protected from violence and being protected from death itself. When society is forced to pay more than an individual has contributed to keep said indiv. alive, that is in essence saying that it is society's job to protect its citizens from death at all costs, which to me is ludicrous.
I agree that was probably what was in his mind as he posted, but the way he tried to argue it (there is no such thing as rights) was just terrible IMO. Denying the existence or value of rights is not where this conversation ought to go.
For what it's worth, I agree, i don't think there should be a right to be kept alive at whatever cost because the cost is potentially infinite. I feel there are too many people skimming this thread and getting indignant without reflecting on the concept of limited resources. No matter how many police we hire, we can't protect everyone from every murderer, and similarly even if we spend unlimited money on health care we can't keep everyone alive indefinitely. Clearly a balance must be struck.
|
In my view, the big solution isn't just to cut down on helping people as they get old, but rather make it so that they become net contributors to society. Create jobs for old people--cut down on the amount of time old people spend eating up the resources of society. It's not unfilial or mean or selfish to do so--it's more an act of kindness than anything else.
|
On January 28 2013 10:10 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 09:54 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.
You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.
Of course people shouldn't have the right to life. This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech. ? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did. Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out. I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist. Your point is valid but I think you've also misconstrued his. His point is that people don't have a right to demand others to finance their life. There is a huge difference between being protected from violence and being protected from death itself. When society is forced to pay more than an individual has contributed to keep said indiv. alive, that is in essence saying that it is society's job to protect its citizens from death at all costs, which to me is ludicrous. I agree that was probably what was in his mind as he posted, but the way he tried to argue it (there is no such thing as rights) was just terrible IMO. Denying the existence or value of rights is not where this conversation ought to go. For what it's worth, I agree, i don't think there should be a right to be kept alive at whatever cost because the cost is potentially infinite. I feel there are too many people skimming this thread and getting indignant without reflecting on the concept of limited resources. No matter how many police we hire, we can't protect everyone from every murderer, and similarly even if we spend unlimited money on health care we can't keep everyone alive indefinitely. Clearly a balance must be struck.
No, I purport the nihility of rights. The government can assert that you have rights, but certainly there is no compelling argument in favor of the existence of "inalienable" rights. You're in possession of nothing when you exit the womb-- be it dress, rights, or coherent thought.
That for which you argue the affirmative is the illusion of rights bestowed upon thee by government or society. But, I'm afraid those rights are candidly there as a comforting thought for the masses. What rights does one have when he's struck dead by a vehicle on his way to work? What rights did the citizens of Japan have when an atomic weapon was detonated in their skies? Ditto with civilians in the Middle East decimated by drone strikes the United States' President ordains.
Humans are imbecilic creatures-- by far most plaintive of all organisms. The species refuses to accept they are another cog in the machine and instead choose one of two innocuous delusions: that some religion or spiritual means establishes their worth or that the upholding of certain values is superior to a life devoid of such values.
But I ask, what right do you have to life? What right did you give the fly you swatted-- his exoskeleton and organs crushed into the counter top-- or the rat, whose neck was broken by a trap set with your hand?
Ah, alas. We come to the heart of the matter, and the most deplorable of all human deductions. That we are somehow superior, somehow special. The universe bends its knee to our will. We are born with rights that the rest of the universe is without.
|
On January 28 2013 10:54 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 10:10 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:54 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.
You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.
Of course people shouldn't have the right to life. This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech. ? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did. Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out. I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist. Your point is valid but I think you've also misconstrued his. His point is that people don't have a right to demand others to finance their life. There is a huge difference between being protected from violence and being protected from death itself. When society is forced to pay more than an individual has contributed to keep said indiv. alive, that is in essence saying that it is society's job to protect its citizens from death at all costs, which to me is ludicrous. I agree that was probably what was in his mind as he posted, but the way he tried to argue it (there is no such thing as rights) was just terrible IMO. Denying the existence or value of rights is not where this conversation ought to go. For what it's worth, I agree, i don't think there should be a right to be kept alive at whatever cost because the cost is potentially infinite. I feel there are too many people skimming this thread and getting indignant without reflecting on the concept of limited resources. No matter how many police we hire, we can't protect everyone from every murderer, and similarly even if we spend unlimited money on health care we can't keep everyone alive indefinitely. Clearly a balance must be struck. No, I purport the nihility of rights. The government can assert that you have rights, but certainly there is no compelling argument in favor of the existence of "inalienable" rights. You're in possession of nothing when you exit the womb-- be it dress, rights, or coherent thought. That for which you argue the affirmative is the illusion of rights bestowed upon thee by government or society. But, I'm afraid those rights are candidly there as a comforting thought for the masses. What rights does one have when he's struck dead by a vehicle on his way to work? What rights did the citizens of Japan have when an atomic weapon was detonated in their skies? Ditto with civilians in the Middle East decimated by drone strikes the United States' President ordains. Humans are imbecilic creatures-- by far most plaintive of all organisms. The species refuses to accept they are another cog in the machine and instead choose one of two innocuous delusions: that some religion or spiritual means establishes their worth or that the upholding of certain values is superior to a life devoid of such values. But I ask, what right do you have to life? What right did you give the fly you swatted-- his exoskeleton and organs crushed into the counter top-- or the rat, whose neck was broken by a trap set with your hand? Ah, alas. We come to the heart of the matter, and the most deplorable of all human deductions. That we are somehow superior, somehow special. The universe bends its knee to our will. We are born with rights that the rest of the universe is without.
There's no distinction between what I call rights and you call the "illusion of rights". Rights is really just a shorthand for useful human concept that allows societies to function. Not an aspect of objective reality like the speed of light. The point where I lose your argument is the leap from "rights are an illusion" to "we shouldn't have rights". You mention some cases where rights were not respected, such as dropping of nukes and massacring of citizens, but all you've done is strengthen the argument that rights should be respected, since the cases you pointed to are rightfully viewed by many as atrocities.
|
On January 28 2013 11:12 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 10:54 decado90 wrote:On January 28 2013 10:10 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:54 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 09:50 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 09:08 SamsungStar wrote:On January 28 2013 08:52 Zahir wrote:On January 28 2013 03:48 decado90 wrote:
Their is no such thing as a right. You are entitled nothing.
You aren't alive because you're special-- you're a live because two people had sex. Your existence is just another meaningless part of the inexorable universe.
Of course people shouldn't have the right to life. This troll post brought to you by the right to free speech. ? That makes no sense dude. What he says is completely correct. Life is not an entitlement, as children in Pakistan and Mali will tell you. His post was brought by the internet, electricity, and a computer. Not the right to free speech. Or are you trying to say people in China can't go on the internet and post in a forum? Because they don't have a "right" to free speech, but I'm pretty sure they can do what he just did. Ill clarify, his posts medium contradicted its message. "There is no such thing as a right" denies that societal constructs can have meaning. A fairly absurd point as most people alive today live in modern nation states, enjoying the benefits of rights codified in laws - most notably, the right to protection from violence - usually in exchange for some level of responsibility. Without the invention of rights as a meaningful basis for organized thought and action, societies would never have advanced beyond prehistoric levels, let alone produced the computers and electricity that made his post possible - an inconsistency I felt obliged to point out. I believe what he probably was getting at is that people should earn what they get... But people do, in fact, earn their rights. Sometimes by fighting for them, other times by working for them. A person works to support a society so he can have the right to not have his life taken away from him by some random aggressor ... That is earning a right. Whether that principle should carry over into the right to not die of old age, is doubtful, since the cost of keeping someone alive continually rises, and therefore it's impractical for any government to pretend it can guarantee such a right. However, the point is each case needs to be examined on its own merit. Simply dismissing all rights is a garbage argument; rights are one of the foundations without which civilization can't exist. Your point is valid but I think you've also misconstrued his. His point is that people don't have a right to demand others to finance their life. There is a huge difference between being protected from violence and being protected from death itself. When society is forced to pay more than an individual has contributed to keep said indiv. alive, that is in essence saying that it is society's job to protect its citizens from death at all costs, which to me is ludicrous. I agree that was probably what was in his mind as he posted, but the way he tried to argue it (there is no such thing as rights) was just terrible IMO. Denying the existence or value of rights is not where this conversation ought to go. For what it's worth, I agree, i don't think there should be a right to be kept alive at whatever cost because the cost is potentially infinite. I feel there are too many people skimming this thread and getting indignant without reflecting on the concept of limited resources. No matter how many police we hire, we can't protect everyone from every murderer, and similarly even if we spend unlimited money on health care we can't keep everyone alive indefinitely. Clearly a balance must be struck. No, I purport the nihility of rights. The government can assert that you have rights, but certainly there is no compelling argument in favor of the existence of "inalienable" rights. You're in possession of nothing when you exit the womb-- be it dress, rights, or coherent thought. That for which you argue the affirmative is the illusion of rights bestowed upon thee by government or society. But, I'm afraid those rights are candidly there as a comforting thought for the masses. What rights does one have when he's struck dead by a vehicle on his way to work? What rights did the citizens of Japan have when an atomic weapon was detonated in their skies? Ditto with civilians in the Middle East decimated by drone strikes the United States' President ordains. Humans are imbecilic creatures-- by far most plaintive of all organisms. The species refuses to accept they are another cog in the machine and instead choose one of two innocuous delusions: that some religion or spiritual means establishes their worth or that the upholding of certain values is superior to a life devoid of such values. But I ask, what right do you have to life? What right did you give the fly you swatted-- his exoskeleton and organs crushed into the counter top-- or the rat, whose neck was broken by a trap set with your hand? Ah, alas. We come to the heart of the matter, and the most deplorable of all human deductions. That we are somehow superior, somehow special. The universe bends its knee to our will. We are born with rights that the rest of the universe is without. There's no distinction between what I call rights and you call the "illusion of rights". Rights is really just a shorthand for useful human concept that allows societies to function. Not an aspect of objective reality like the speed of light. The point where I lose your argument is the leap from "rights are an illusion" to "we shouldn't have rights". You mention some cases where rights were not respected, such as dropping of nukes and massacring of citizens, but all you've done is strengthen the argument that rights should be respected, since the cases you pointed to are rightfully viewed by many as atrocities.
Rather, rights are not an illusion, they are just an abstraction. There's a difference. But saying they're an illusion sounds a lot cooler and more dramatic. Tyler Durden had it wrong. Self destruction is the fool's shallow indulgence. Self improvement is quite literally the only way to live, that is the only way to thrive and be happy to the fullest extent possible. It's obvious which category that kind of nihilism falls into. Don't know what it is with kids these days and rejecting all conception of their own faculty of knowledge as a useful tool for human living; or with them and rejecting human living as a worthy endeavor for that matter, and yet still continuing to live, if even only in some meager, half-assed, self-contradictory way.
|
didnt read all the thread but choosing to stop healthcare on people over a certain age is rather disturbing. Every citizen has the same rights regardless of his age.
And for example, if healthcare is stopped after the age of 80 and precisely at that age a man in perfect form gain a tumor he is condemned to die just because he had birthday 5 months ago and he doesnt longer stay in the 'healthcare protection' ? this is disgusting, depressing, with no respect to elder people who are considered like items to trash once used.
|
if you've raped a child or murdered and innocent person, you should be killed. thats just how i see it
|
|
|
I voted no, because there is clearly a point where you are spending so much on one person that hundreds of others suffer.
For those who don't know, there is (in the UK at least) already a whole industry based around these kind of questions. When the NHS is offered a new drug or treatment by private companies, they do a cost benefit analysis - comparing it to existing drugs and treatments, before deciding if they should use it. Deciding how much life is worth is a necessary task, and already done. If you don't do it you can't manage societies limited resources.
With this said, I have a problem with the view which a lot of people in this thread hold - basically that someone's contribution to society is based upon how rich they are. I see little correlation. People who are born into rich families don't contribute more. Arms dealers don't add more to the world than charity workers, even if they get a better salary. Bankers aren't better to have than professors.
People of true worth or genius aren't even always recognised in their lifetime. Was Van Gogh not a good contributor because he died penniless?
I'm not arguing against capitalism, I think it's the best way to generate wealth, and does incredible good. But there's no need to pretend its winners are especially worthy. To come back around to the thread, what about the non-monetary goods people contribute? The stories this dying grandfather tells to his kids? No one pays for them, but they're worth so much.
|
I'm not sure if some of you guys actually read the guardian article that was linked. There's two completely different issues here. The one that you guys are debating around the public cost of subsidizing the health care of the elderly is really a function of the societal structure of a particular country. If there were population equilibrium, this really wouldn't even be a controversy. (The US is somewhat of an exception but that's beyond the scope of this post/thread.) We would care for our elderly and once we reach an advanced age, we'd expect the same benefits when our children replace us in the work force. This concept of general welfare is a pretty straightforward extension of the social contract.
The real point of discussion, one that takes much a far larger portion of the article, is about end-of-life care. The elderly obviously form a large portion of the recipients of terminal care but really it could be about anyone. The problem here is that the general public isn't as well educated regarding this type of "care" as those in the medical profession. Let's just say that in a recent survey of doctors (I don't have the link, sorry), most said that they would refuse end-of-life care if faced with a terminal illness. Apparently it's a gruesome affair to futilely keep someone alive. Most doctors would accept only pain medication and would prefer to go peacefully in this scenario.
|
This is how supposedly "civilized" people rationalize monstrous acts.
|
Sorry for the bump, but this quote from Marginal Revolution really struck me and reminded me of the thread:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/from-the-comments-14.html
The banning of catastrophic-only plans infuriates me the most. Those are the only plans that are actually financially sensible for a healthy individual to purchase. Everything else on the market is a perverse by-product of the employer-based insurance system.
Worst case scenario with a catastrophic-only plan is you end up with $10,000 in debt. That’s a debt load many times smaller than what the Federal government thinks students should take out to get a college degree. We’ll let you borrow $100,000 to get a sociology degree but, we think that $10,000 is an unconscionable amount to pay for medical expenses? So unconscionable that we have to FORCE YOU to buy a plan with more extensive coverage?
Of course, we all know the real reason for this. it’s meant to force healthy young people to subsidize healthcare for older sicker people. Just force them to pay more for insurance than they ought to, and force them to buy more extensive coverage than is rational.
|
Wasn't this exact thread started a few months back or something? I fondly remember the same title, the same graphs and everything.
|
On January 24 2013 13:44 MysteryMeat1 wrote:
I dont want to live past 80. Actually i don't want to live past the age where i can't do anything. For some people like my grandpa who is 85 and can walk fine as long as he has a cane. Thats fine but the moment i can't get out of the house put me out of my misery.
Yeah that's easy to say but I bet you think differently about that once you hit that age.
|
On May 24 2013 02:48 TheToaster wrote:
Wasn't this exact thread started a few months back or something? I fondly remember the same title, the same graphs and everything.
Right, I bumped it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
