Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Who is a "parasite"?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 00:11:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I')f not then what is the point in the discussion?
I see these laws as reflecting the common perception of wrongdoing.
We are not here talking about bureaucratic red tape type law but life and death. Confusing the two is likening them; just another form of doublespeak.

The point of the discussion is to examine these issues without retreating into relying on their legal status as a means of stifling the discussion itself.

'Law' is little more than codified custom, and as such it is not some kind of absolute standard. My interest in starting this thread was to examine the underlying beliefs and ideas, the customs, modes of thinking and such, that underpin the laws themselves with regard to some of these issues.

Why do we find it culturally acceptable, for example, for elders to rot away on life support as long as possible, denying them a quick and painless death, and yet equally acceptable to practice genocide elsewhere simply because we wish to exploit a peoples' resources? Why do we demonize attempts to strengthen the gene pool, when Nature herself demands such strengthening in all other species? Why do we excuse dereliction of duty that results in death with little more than a wrist-slap? What are the cultural rationales for some of these seeming contradictions? Are they even rational? What if they're not? What might be some rational alternatives?

These are some of the sorts of questions I had hoped to see addressed here. I'm already aware of what's legal and what isn't; that's not the point. The point is to examine why certain actions in this particular sphere are illegal, why others are not, and to try and discern whether or not the rationales that determine which are which remain viable in the face of the changing world we now face.

The point was simply discussion, not emotional mud-slinging. That is, after all, what a discussion forum is for, is it not?



One of my teachers told me "Whether one believe Man is an animal having a spiritual experience or a spirit having an animal experience makes little difference; the point is perceiving that there is a spiritual experience. Compassion comes from the realization that others too are having this experience and should be valued as equal to the self."
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 00:20:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'Y')ou are making the argument that the sin of omission is morally equivalent to the sin of commision.

Not precisely. The sin is willing omission. And yes, both the Lifeguard and the Fireman who willingly refrains from the attempt are equally guilty. They are bound by the code of their profession which holds their preference subordinate to the lives they are sworn to protect. They may not save everyone, but they are expected to make the attempt, and they are rightly held to account if they do not.


That is a romantic but fundamentally incorrect assessment of what a fireman or lifeguard is bound to do. There are many reasons you don't go out to save someone, one is that you simply consider it too dangerous and you yourself are likely to get in trouble. Although many of New York's Bravest did walk into the Trade Center before it collapsed, at a certain point they went in no longer, the decision was made it was too dangerous.

Choosing not to save someone is NOT morally equivalent to killing them. That is a ridiculous argument at face value, its common sense and its reflected in the legal code as well. People are NOT tried for Murder if they don't run into a burning building to pull someone out, whether they are employed as a Fireman or not. They ARE tried for Murder if they Torch a building and somebody is stuck inside. If you Gas somebody while they are in the Shower at Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen, you are GUILTY of MURDER. You are NOT Guilty if you Hid Anne Frank in your Attic but could not hide every Jew in Amsterdam in your attic. This is so obvious as to be a frivolous argument from your side. You cannot save them ALL, but you CAN save as many as you can. That is the Moral High Ground, it is unassailable.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 01:08:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'T')hat is a romantic but fundamentally incorrect assessment of what a fireman or lifeguard is bound to do.

Why? What makes it 'incorrect'? Is it that they shouldn't be held to such a standard? Or merely that they aren't?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are many reasons you don't go out to save someone, one is that you simply consider it too dangerous and you yourself are likely to get in trouble.

If their acceptance of such a role required that they put the lives of those they had sworn to protect ahead of their own, then wouldn't this be an inexcusable justification for not at least trying? If we don't levy such a requirement, why not? Should we?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hoosing not to save someone is NOT morally equivalent to killing them. That is a ridiculous argument at face value,

Precisely. At face value. But is it really, if one has sworn to at least make the effort? I'm not speaking of failing to save them, but of not attempting to.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou cannot save them ALL, but you CAN save as many as you can. That is the Moral High Ground, it is unassailable.

'As many as you can'. That is the crux of this discussion. If by saving ten a thousand others perish, but by sacrificing those ten the thousand survive, which choice really entitles one to the High Ground? Does either?
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 01:20:33

When Australian troops in Galipoli were repeatedly ordered to run to certain death by British officers a new ethic of the battlefield emerged.
Late in the Vietnam War the same kind of insubordination became part of military subculture.

If you are a soldier and you are ordered to fulfill a 'Certain Death Mission' with no chance of any real advance; what do you do?

Answer: shoot the officer.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 01:31:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'W')hen Australian troops in Galipoli were repeatedly ordered to run to certain death by British officers a new ethic of the battlefield emerged.
Late in the Vietnam War the same kind of insubordination became part of military subculture.

If you are a soldier and you are ordered to fulfill a 'Certain Death Mission' with no chance of any real advance; what do you do?

Answer: shoot the officer.

Ok. So what you are implying then is that ethics change depending on circumstance. Is that correct?
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 01:52:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'W')hen Australian troops in Galipoli were repeatedly ordered to run to certain death by British officers a new ethic of the battlefield emerged.
Late in the Vietnam War the same kind of insubordination became part of military subculture.

If you are a soldier and you are ordered to fulfill a 'Certain Death Mission' with no chance of any real advance; what do you do?

Answer: shoot the officer.

Ok. So what you are implying then is that ethics change depending on circumstance. Is that correct?



I am directly answering your stupid idea of asking emergency service officers to swear to commit suicide if ordered to. How many firies, police, military or ambulance officers would agree to such stipulation in their contract?
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 02:30:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', ''')As many as you can'. That is the crux of this discussion. If by saving ten a thousand others perish, but by sacrificing those ten the thousand survive, which choice really entitles one to the High Ground? Does either?


Now you are moving the argument to Spock territory, aka "The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the One (or the Few)." In this case, what you are dealing with is the hypothetical case that if you work to insure the survival of the few, you might in the process insure the death of many more. When you talk about Ownership of Doomsteads, using the resources of that Doomstead only for the few means the rest not in the succor of said Doomstead die. So, are you then guilty of murder because you did not help those starving outside the doomstead?

You would be if said doomstead had MORE resources than you and your chosen few actually need to survive, and you didn't share the SURPLUS. If however there is ONLY enough for the chosen few and NO MORE, then you are NOT guiltyof murder. Just like with the Fireman or the Lifeguard, when your OWN survival is jeopardized by trying to save the life of another, you are relieved of the moral compulsion to aid the other person. Nobody can COMPEL another to give his own life to save another, that is a Gift only the individual can give to others with his OWN decision. And in fact some people WILL do this, and we Elevate them to a Moral High Ground above all others. We call them HEROES. We give such people the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It happens regularly in war that some men will give their lives to save others. However, no Officer can COMPEL you to do that, and if you don't believe that its necessary you just don't follow such an order. As SeaGypsy pointed out, you might very well choose to turn fire on the one who had the temerity to give you such an order.

When the Big Show comes to a Theatre Near You, you may very well be faced with such questions of life and death. When such a time comes, only the individual can decide what his own life is worth, it cannot be decided by any other man. Only God can make such a decision without moral ambiguity, that is the nature of the definition of God. You may in the fight for survival be faced with the decision to gun down another man, when its your life or his life that hangs in the balance. Or you may be faced with the decision to take the food from another to give to your starving child. Or you may be faced with the decision of making a suicide run on a machine gun nest to help your buddies survive. Or you may be faced with the decision of turning around and blowing the Lieutenant giving you an order to run into a hail of bullets to Kingdom Come. Those decisions are YOURS to make, nobody else's.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 02:39:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') am directly answering your stupid idea of asking emergency service officers to swear to commit suicide if ordered to. How many firies, police, military or ambulance officers would agree to such stipulation in their contract?

What you're doing is

a) Yet again putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about them being ordered to do anything. I am talking about them willingly agreeing to do so of their own accord as part of their oath of service. No one is ordering them to take said oath.

b) Yet again evading a direct question by attempting to change the subject. If you're not willing to abide by the stipulated bounds of the subject under discussion then kindly refrain from commenting. Your repeated non sequiturs and deliberate attempts to distort my meaning do nothing to further discourse.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 02:58:11

Some thoughtful response RE, thank you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'N')ow you are moving the argument to Spock territory, aka "The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the One (or the Few)." In this case, what you are dealing with is the hypothetical case that if you work to insure the survival of the few, you might in the process insure the death of many more.

Exactly, and this is a moral quandary I find that I have not yet been able to resolve for myself, because I don't know that it is right to save a few at the expense of many, and I'm suspicious of anyone claiming it is via special pleading.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen the Big Show comes to a Theatre Near You, you may very well be faced with such questions of life and death. When such a time comes, only the individual can decide what his own life is worth, it cannot be decided by any other man. Only God can make such a decision without moral ambiguity, that is the nature of the definition of God. You may in the fight for survival be faced with the decision to gun down another man, when its your life or his life that hangs in the balance. Or you may be faced with the decision to take the food from another to give to your starving child. Or you may be faced with the decision of making a suicide run on a machine gun nest to help your buddies survive. Or you may be faced with the decision of turning around and blowing the Lieutenant giving you an order to run into a hail of bullets to Kingdom Come. Those decisions are YOURS to make, nobody else's.

So I again sense a similar conclusion to what SeaGypsy's example implied; namely that ethics appear to be largely situational.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 03:29:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'S')ome thoughtful response RE, thank you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'N')ow you are moving the argument to Spock territory, aka "The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the One (or the Few)." In this case, what you are dealing with is the hypothetical case that if you work to insure the survival of the few, you might in the process insure the death of many more.

Exactly, and this is a moral quandary I find that I have not yet been able to resolve for myself, because I don't know that it is right to save a few at the expense of many, and I'm suspicious of anyone claiming it is via special pleading.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen the Big Show comes to a Theatre Near You, you may very well be faced with such questions of life and death. When such a time comes, only the individual can decide what his own life is worth, it cannot be decided by any other man. Only God can make such a decision without moral ambiguity, that is the nature of the definition of God. You may in the fight for survival be faced with the decision to gun down another man, when its your life or his life that hangs in the balance. Or you may be faced with the decision to take the food from another to give to your starving child. Or you may be faced with the decision of making a suicide run on a machine gun nest to help your buddies survive. Or you may be faced with the decision of turning around and blowing the Lieutenant giving you an order to run into a hail of bullets to Kingdom Come. Those decisions are YOURS to make, nobody else's.

So I again sense a similar conclusion to what SeaGypsy's example implied; namely that ethics appear to be largely situational.



What pleading are you talking about?

My implication was that society has evolved beyond the point where it is acceptable for an Officer to effectively Execute his own soldiers, or for those soldiers to execute the citizens of his own country.

http://www.answers.com/topic/right-of-revolution

This article introduces the history of the right of revolution.
This right applies to those on my and RE's side of the debate not to those on your side TW.

"The second major stream of thought was developed in the 1680s against the increasing absolutism of the later Stuarts. Parliament established a constitutional monarchy in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, relying on John Locke's secular social contract theory. Individuals in a state of nature delegated power to government for the protection of their lives, liberties, and estates, but when lawmakers acted contrary to these ends, they used force without right and thus made themselves "rebels" in "a state of War with the People, who [were] thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience," as Locke argued in his Second Treatise on Government (1690). Power then reverted to the people, who had the sovereign right to dissolve the government and form it anew. Locke's was an ideology of successful revolution, but in the early eighteenth century a "country" opposition emerged against England's monarchy. John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon warned of government's inherent tendency to subvert popular liberty and corrupt the "mixed" constitution, but while this radical Whig ideology was marginal in England, it became the lens through which many Americans viewed British actions."
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 10:26:13

deleted
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 10:40:36

The corner TW has painted himself into is thus:

If he is not talking about changing laws to allow unwilling people to be culled; is he suggesting we all take up a personal position to Euthanize those we come across who we think deserve it?

If the laws don't change (Globally) he is encouraging what is now defined as murder. He can't just come out and say it straight because to do so would violate the CoC.

If the laws do change; to the extremes of some of his suggestions in this and the 'Euthanasia Smokescreen for Eugenics' Thread: they render the State Null and Void under International Law over 400 years old.

So do we become murderers, or allow the State to become a murderer, or defend our rights against both civilian murder and State sponsored murder?

I am on the defending rights end of this equation and I will fight to the death for it.

For using Euthanasia as a Smokescreen for Eugenics; TW should stand condemned.

I, like Ludi would prefer he had the testicular fortitude to break the CoC and come out into the open.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 10:58:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'i')s he suggesting we all take up a personal position to Euthanize those we come across who we think deserve it?.



He said only people who are terminally ill and voluntarily want to be killed should be killed. He clarified his position about this. He said voluntary euthanasia of the terminally ill should be legalized.

Are you saying he was not clarifying, but instead changing his position?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 11:07:06

Ludi you missed this: (posted yesterday on another thread)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:46 pm


Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Posts: 378
Just a little quote from TWilliams: posted today on another thread.


That's ok deMolay. Ludi thinks that because I would prefer to see certain groups of people --namely those that are most likely to be first ravaged or abandoned if/when societal collapse occurs-- compassionately euthanized rather than left to fend for themselves, that I'm therefore an evil bastard. Realists are frequently thought of as such by Idealists. I don't mind...

_________________
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:08:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote(' TWilliam', '
')
That's ok deMolay. Ludi thinks that because I would prefer to see certain groups of people --namely those that are most likely to be first ravaged or abandoned if/when societal collapse occurs-- compassionately euthanized rather than left to fend for themselves, that I'm therefore an evil bastard. Realists are frequently thought of as such by Idealists. I don't mind...




What if the "certain groups of people" would rather be left to fend for themselves than to be killed? Would they then be killed against their will?

Self-styled "Realists" are often evil bastards.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:46:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'T')he corner TW has painted himself into is thus:

I haven't 'painted' myself anywhere. YOU have been attempting to paint me by refusing to accept my repeated clarifications, by quoting me out of context in ways that support your distorted picture of me, by avoiding difficult questions and by positing situations that rely on established custom (law) for their support, rather than addressing the custom itself, which is the original intent of this discussion.

Since you insist on continuing to indulge in such subterfuge, I am through addressing you on this issue.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat if the "certain groups of people" would rather be left to fend for themselves than to be killed? Would they then be killed against their will?

Of course not. I've already made it clear that when I speak of euthanasia, the qualifier voluntary is a given. And that extends to the right of those who are legally responsible for those who are unable to choose for themselves to voluntarily choose for them. SeaGypsy is attempting to imply meaning in that quote that does not exist because I have already stated elsewhere that it does not.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 16:28:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')Of course not. I've already made it clear that when I speak of euthanasia, the qualifier voluntary is a given. And that extends to the right of those who are legally responsible for those who are unable to choose for themselves to voluntarily choose for them. SeaGypsy is attempting to imply meaning in that quote that does not exist because I have already stated elsewhere that it does not.



That's about as clear as someone can be. Thank you. :)

Sorry about screaming at you earlier. :oops:
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby vision-master » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 16:37:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course not. I've already made it clear that when I speak of euthanasia, the qualifier voluntary is a given. And that extends to the right of those who are legally responsible for those who are unable to choose for themselves to voluntarily choose for them. SeaGypsy is attempting to imply meaning in that quote that does not exist because I have already stated elsewhere that it does not.


What if the 'state' is legally responsible for those who are unable to choose for themselves?

Posted today on another forum. :cry:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am (unbelievably) still in the same home the mortgage company reposessed over a year ago. I haven't made a payment in 16 months. It's spring now. The sheriff WILL come. One car is broken, the other is falling apart. I can't pay ANY bills. We've been mooching off my 21 year old daughter who can't pay her own. My in-laws have been paying our bills for us, and they live on the other side of the country. They're not happy about it. Aside from what my daughter's bought for us, we've been eating exclusively from food pantries for well over a year. Now we can't even go to our doctor's appointments or get our meds because we have no health insurance. Now that I am officially NOT disabled, I don't qualify for any governmentally subsidized programs in this state. My wife is bipolar and diabetic. She's tried suicide umm... lets just say, a bunch of times since all this started. She has to file too. I have no choice but to give up. We're talking about appealling, but really, what's the point? They win. This guy has all but signed our death warrants. How do they sleep at night? I have 2 sons who are active duty US Army. While they were in high school, I embarassed them enough by being the dad that layed around like a bum while everyone else's had jobs. I won't dishonor them further by killing myself. It's time to get up and be the bum that can't hold a job because he keeps getting fired for attendance issues.
__________________
Try to stay healthy, sane, have fun.
Spinolio-colloid cyst/craniotomy 11/04- headaches/migraines, epilepsy, cognitive loss, memory loss, ataxia, aphasia, degenerative discs, dual miniscectomy, depression
vision-master
 
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 22:52:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')hat's about as clear as someone can be. Thank you. :)

Sorry about screaming at you earlier. :oops:

You're welcome, and no worries Ludi. I rarely take offense...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'W')hat if the 'state' is legally responsible for those who are unable to choose for themselves?

I should think that somewhere along the line there is an individual who serves as representative of the state in such instances. I would assume that the burden of such decisions would rest upon that person's shoulders.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Who is a "parasite"?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Tue 10 Mar 2009, 23:04:07

Hi TW; so have we gotten anywhere now? You have affirmed your support for free choice in Euthanasia; which I applaud.

You concept of 'Self Supporting Prisons for grifters (and so forth)'; conceptually interesting but when 'free' people can very rarely achieve this outcome, what chance is there for your idea?

I would suspect that these 'Prisons' would be akin to hell on earth with walls& bars. Is that better than letting someone die by natural causes or 'culling' them?

Please correct me but I seem to have found another contradiction in your thinking on this thread; at one point you are suggesting this is not about legislation another that it is. Who else is going to build these prisons then get them filled but the State?

Got any better ideas?
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



cron