The Glade 4.0

Gravy or syrup?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Gravy, please...with Mom's biscuits!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

You're making the same mistake I pointed out earlier, DFK - you're assuming that an action that doesn't violate any rights can't be judged immoral on some other grounds. That's not the case, though. There are plenty of other criteria one could use. Suffering, for instance. It's not logically inconsistent for someone who believes it's immoral to cause suffering to conclude that although "rights" are fluid/determined, government-sanctioned slavery was still immoral because it caused a great deal of suffering.

Perhaps if you view the world of 1800 through the lense of 2010, RD. However it would be incorrect to do so. Common thought at the time, not just in America, but around the globe was that slavery not only caused no suffering, but instead was a favor to the "mongel races" who were considered to be sub-human. From the viewpoint of the 19th century slave holder, and all slaveholders prior, slavery granted stability, provided a step up from hunter/gatherer societies, and instilled Christian values in savages. Far from suffering, it was considered to be an undeserved gift at the time.

That said, even were I to agree that suffering were legitimate, you have still failed to reconcile your notion with the fact that the other values you speak of are spiritual values, and are not in colflict with rights based values.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Oh I definitely agree that rights-based values are not necessarily in conflict with other value systems. In fact, I think mixing value systems, if done well, is the best approach. I'm just pointing out that it's a mistake to say that anyone who rejects the concept of inherent rights is logically compelled to think that anything government sanctions is automatically moral.

That's not exactly the case. Many people saw slavery that way. However, many others did not. Britain banned the slave trade by 1807 (and we did the same in regards to the international trade the following year), and abolished most slavery by 1834, although it didn't just go away for adults as they were converted to "apprentices" for a time. Sweden and the Netherlands had banned the slave trade shortly after Britain did. The view that slavery was beneficial was hardly a universal one amongst the major powers of the time. The group that pushed the Slave Trade Act through in 1807, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, formed in 1787.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

SuiNeko and RD get it.

I view rights more as an ethical construction in practice than moral. I can find something to be someone's right but can still speak against the person undertaking the action. Drugs for example.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

NO

I have only read up to page 5 in this thread, having been directed here this morning.

I am not a slave.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

This is a little misleading, as if I recall correctly SG does rehabilitation work, not emergency work.

Out of curiosity SG, would you feel the same if you were an ER doctor? If they couldn't pay or prove they could pay would you withhold life saving care?

You're simply shifting the goalposts. Nor, for that matter, is her response misleading, as SG works primarily for a Medicare/Medicaid facility as it is. Don't attempt to "discredit" her simply because she disagrees with the "unstated" assumptions you guys conveniently add every time someone disagrees with you on this matter.

Again, what gives you the right to demand her time and service? I mean ...

We can't have all the enlightened liberals putting their money where their mouth is on this one, right?

_________________

Khross, I'm not shifting goalposts.

The accepted norm today is that it's only emergency care that is "obligatory" by hospitals. I'm not attempting to "discredit" SG's opinions, I'm merely pointing out that based on my understanding of SG's specialty that the care she was providing wasn't life or death medical attention. That doesn't diminish it's value, but in my mind it's not the same as being the doctor in the ER who tells the gunshot wound victim that they're **** because they can't afford the procedure. My "misleading" comment was towards DS bringing her in as the "official word".

And lastly, your link, while a pathetic commentary on the occasional lack of compassion of the human race, is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Additionally, your bullshit assumption that all 20 people who passed him were "enlightened liberals" is insulting and inflammatory, in addition to being beneath you.

You are, as the discussion is about the concept of Medical Care as a RIGHT. Indeed, your shifting goalposts are further demonstrated in your response ...Right, because you're making assumptions about what she does. Stroke, Heart Attack, Long Term Late Life Management for Chronic Diseases ... that's her kind of rehabilitation care.It is? I wouldn't know, since you assumed that SG's specialty has nothing to do with life or death treatment. I mean, you are talking out of your *** about your understanding of the medical profession and her job in an attempt to discredit her. So, why can't I do the same with the lovely people from the Blue Blue City of New York?

_________________

Whatever Khross.

If you're intent on being an argumentative prick, then I'm not interested in talking with you.

Aizle:

Oh, now you're going to take your ball and go home? That's no fun. Why don't you apologize to SG for making assumptions about the nature of her work? Why don't you apologize to SG for attempting to discredit her opinion because you feel, "She doesn't do the kind of work" the thread wasn't talking about? You shifted the goalposts, attacked another poster, and then get all huffy when someone calls you on it?

You know what? Go **** yourself.

_________________

I never suggested that you be a slave, SG. Please don't take their frame of my point of view as my actual point of view.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

How else is anyone supposed to view it, Monte? You have stated that you have a fundamental right to her services, regardless of the ability to compensate her for it. When she must labor for you, at your direction, without the ability to deny you her services, you have made her a slave.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You could view it rationally, for starters.

In this country, Education is a right. Every kid has a right to a public education.

We have teachers who work for the state. They make a good wage, get good benefits, and can quit the profession any time they wish.

Saying that the medical industry should be laid out similarly is not the same thing as saying anyone and everyone is entitled to SG's time whenever and however they want it. She would choose to be a doctor. She would be paid for her time. She could choose to not be a doctor if she wished, and she could do something else. If someone knocked on her door, she would not be obligated to be a doctor right then and there. You could not rationally call her a slave in such a situation. She would have chosen to be a doctor. She would be compensated for being a doctor. She could choose to not be a doctor. And when she wasn't on the clock, she would not have to be a doctor just because someone asked her to.

Your definition of a right is irrational. Just because I see health care as a right does not mean I think doctors should do everything someone tells them to do exactly when they tell them to do it. That's just crazy.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Every child has the right to an education in the sense that I cannot justly pass a law that would deprive any child or group of children the ability to seek to educate themselves. Beyond that, any attempt to lable or educational system as a right is a failure of the largest degree. Our system is one which doesn't educate well, and in many cases doesn't even attempt to, and protects and over-compensates poor educators at the expense of the students. Our education system here in the United States is nothing more than a unions jobs shop which happens to produce acceptable levels of education at about a 5-10% as a secondary bi-product. Your rhetoric does not match the reality you've helped create.

Saying the same thing of health care, and implementing such a system, does infact make slaves out of those doctors who currently practice; essentially telling them that they have the ability to flee to the North if they don't like their situation. If the education system is to be a lauded model, I can't wait to face a reality of unionized doctors, with decreased standards of practice, who are educated well beyond their intellegence.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, every child has a right to attend school. If they don't become educated when they do that, it's on them, ultimately. We can beg and plead and cajole and a lot of them still just can't stand to sit in a seat and work when they could be hanging out and eating at McDonalds.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Why?

That is the only logically consistent position to take. It may not be the only morally consistent position to take, but we're not discussing that.





False.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That isn't true. It's perfectly logically consistant to say that rights are established by society, as is government to serve that society, which includes the rights it granted itself.. Government, therefore cannot morally change the rights that society established.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That is moving the goalposts. Monte did not specify anything of that nature. She is not a plastic surgeon, and she does not perform elective care. The question stands correctly tied.

Now a follow up question.... SG: do you feel that your skills and qualifications and the expense you needed to take on for these skills should earn you more than someone who asks "do you want fries with that?"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Fries are not a right DS.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Obviously they are, since they are offered for inclusion with any order.

_________________