Aizle wrote:
Hilarious enough, you did EXACTLY the same thing that you accuse me, Monty and TheRiov of. You took umbrage and started attacking instead of asking for clarification or asking me to rephrase something.
I intentionally did exactly the things you three do. It was a calculated move. It also failed, as I anticipated it would. You see, contrary to what you might think, I actually value all three of you as members of this forum. I think you have interesting outlooks and ideas to present, but I don't think any of you respect the other members of this community enough to actually engage these conversations productively. So, let's look at this thread ...
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?
First, you dismiss SquirrelGirl's opinion because of an assumption you made as to her work. Second, you shifted the goalposts. And, third, you presented a loaded question in an attempt to straw-man her position. The thread had been, up to that point, about whether or not people had the right to demand healthcare services from physicians. But, you didn't have enough respect for a forum member to prevent you from attempting to discredit their very firm and explicit opinion by attacking them as a person. Instead of debating the issue at hand, you immediately tried to make it about SquirrelGirl's morality as it fits into your world view.
So, I called you on it, and you responded:
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.
But you still didn't get the point ...
1. You continued to assume you knew more about SquirrelGirl's authority to comment as she did than I do or she does.
2. You actually did shift the goalposts, because EMTALA was mentioned only as statement of fact: currently, hospitals and ambulatory care providers cannot refuse to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. They can't even refuse to treat them for a minor cold or non-life threatening injury/illness, as DFK! has pointed out more than once.
3. You got all offended when I made the same sort of assumptions you did.
Indeed, instead of actually saying, "Ooops, I'm sorry. Let me re-state that." You told us you were going to pick up your ball and go home. Yet, I did nothing more than post in the same dismissive, assumption based manner you did.
Now, let's look at Monte's posts in response to SquirrelGirl's obviously long and well considered post.
That's insane.
Slavery is forced, uncompensated labor for which you have no choice. For example, if someone has kidnapped you and forced you into prostitution, you are actually a really real slave. If you get captured, stuck on a boat, brought to the new world and then are forced to work for a master, and you are not paid, you are a slave.
If you are a doctor, you could certainly choose where you worked. And like any other employee, you may or may not have a choice as to *when* you work (i.e., what shift). As for with whom - I do not think it's slavery for doctors to have to treat anyone who comes across their doorstep so long as that doctor is employed and getting paid.
Using the word Slavery to describe your fear is honestly insulting to the history of *actual* slavery in the world. You would not be a slave in a nationalized system. Not even close. Call me when they put an actual chain around your neck, physically split up your family, when you count as only 3/5 a person in terms of the census, when you cannot vote, and when you are literally property. Until then, stow the slavery bullshit. It's demeaning for someone of your intellect.
Just because Ayn Rand or some other idiot conservative philosopher extends the definition of Slavery to describe any situation in which your total freedom is limited doesn't mean you are actually enslaved. Seriously. Get over yourself. Anyone who thinks that taxes are slavery - you're nuts. Plain and simple. If you think that someone working in a public system that considers something like education to be a right is a slave, you are nuts as well. Go have a sit down and nice long moment of deep introspection.
If you are not toiling with an overseer who's got an actual whip in his hand, you are not a slave. If you are not forced to work for nothing, you are not a slave. If you have not been literally auctioned off, you are not a slave. What you are is someone who has made a serious rhetorical error, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
So, yeah, if Monte didn't post exactly as I described his posts in this thread, then I have no idea what to tell you. If the immediate evidence is not convincing, there's no point in attempting to convince that the behavior you two displayed in this thread prior to my little tirade was both disdainful and disrespectful.
I painted a target on myself by posting in exactly the manner you two employ on a regular basis. And when both of you continued to persist in your insults and disrespect, I called you on it just as you both "call us idiotic, misguided" conservatives on our "racism" and "misogyny" and whatever else it is about our politics that you guys object to so viscerally.
I do, however, find it amusing that when I engage in precisely the behavior both of you employ on a regular basis, it's somehow reason to question my mental health.
In fact, there's a post something 50,000 characters long in the "Debt is a Cancer" thread which received no substantive response. It was full of links and other explanations for the terms. Yet, it was dismissed because it didn't aligned with an undisclosed and unrevealed "source" touted as "common knowledge." But, you know, I established my credibility here posting in said manner for 6 years. And the response was always the same ... "Don't you dare presume to educate me." Which, I guess, is what's this really about ...
You guys gets defensive when I ask what you know about a subject before I post something long and detailed. But, see, that's actually a sign of respect in real discussion and debate. By attempting to establish what you know, before I post something jargon laden or from a particularly academic (in the sense of journals no one but other publishing Ph.D.'s read), I try to get a feel for how much I have to explain or detail, so I don't waste your time or leave about important background information. In fact, I did so at least once in this very thread:
Montegue:
Since you seem to have latched on to the epistemological notion of objectivity, in two threads now, why don't you explain it to the rest of us. "Objectivity" obviously means something different to you than it does the rest of us.
To which the response was ...
You know, just because you want to categorize me according to philosophical categories doesn't mean I have to follow suit. Nor does it mean I have to lay out a correct academic accounting of these philosophies in order for my points to be relevant.
Objective - out of the self.
Subjective - within the self.
For example. Objective - the moon is not made of Swiss cheese. This is verifiable through observation and objective evidence.
Subjective - I believe the moon is made of swiss cheese. This is not verifiable through either observation or objective evidence. It is something a person would take on faith, or would believe in spite of available evidence.
Objective - Rights are constructs of man.
Subjective - I believe that man was endowed with rights by a Creator being.
If the subjective example were to be changed to "Man was endowed with rights by a Creator being", it would be a false statement, unless the speaker were able to provide actual proof or evidence beyond their own subjective belief.
Now, if you want to have a useless conversation about weather or not what we perceive is real, you will need to have that with someone else, preferably while stoned and staring up at the aforementioned wheel of Swiss cheese. I am actually typing on a keyboard. My cat is actually rubbing my leg. These things are not "maybe" happening. They are not "maybe" real. They are real. They are happening. Objectively.
Which is, again, exactly the same manner of behavior which I'm condemning. Odd how I asked for clarification and got dismissal and pedantic superiority ...
Of course, in another thread, where Leshani is posting about his work and certain complications/difficulties, we got this:
Well, they won't really know if it will have much of an effect until the economic impact is felt. My guess is that as the Latino population clears out of the police state of Arizona, they will begin to feel the pain, and there will likely be some political change.
Sorry no fencing lessons, Leshani.
So, well ...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
