>
> I haven't commented much here, especially further on in the post. It's not
> because I haven't read your post, or have anything against it - I agree with a
> large proportion of it. It's simply that there is so much of it that I don't
> have the time or opportunity to comment in quantity.
Not expected to. When you engage in a dialog, you don't expect the other party(ies) to respond to every anecdote, etc. We're basically saying the same sorts of things -- but with minor tweaks and anecdotes.
> A friend once posed the question, "Is suicide justified?" (it would be
>> great if I could insert a lengthy pause in YOUR reading, here, so you
>> could actually *think* about that question -- in EXACTLY those three
>> words!).
>
> My immediate response would be the same as yours, I think.
The question becomes one of whether or not you would invest the effort to come up with "an answer" or avoid it as too difficult. Just like the more exotic "thought experiments" I suggested (save kids by sacrificing someone else, etc.)
I've been fascinated by these sorts of questions as they really force you to think hard on your values, how you parse the subtleties of each scenario, etc. (I didn't have a "liberal arts" education so was never exposed to things like "Psychology")
It's /not/ fine to say "my equally ignorant, uninformed and inexperienced
> pastor read the answer in 2000 year old book about a different culture in a
> different time, so I'll accept his word for it".
+42
> I attended a (supposedly secular) presentation at a local "place of
>> worship" a month or two ago. Of course, most of the attendees were
>> "worshippers".
>>
>> It was *scary* to find myself surrounded by the *equivalent* of a (black)
>> Southern Baptist group engaged in "group-speak" ("Amen", etc.) and realize
>> the sort of "group-think" that was happening to promote that! "I thought
>> this sort of thing only happened as stereotypes in movies?!"
>
> It's amazing the ease with which being in a group affects your own attitudes
> and behaviours.
People want not to think. Whoever "assumes command" in a crisis situation (even if he's "just the guy who happened to be sitting next to you on the bus BEFORE it crashed) is typically "followed" -- even if his/her decisions are flawed (and we already assume no one knows anything definitive about his/her CAPABILITIES... yet, you'll let *him* lead you from the burning building, etc.)
On holiday recently, we were at a "medieval banquet" with a knights'
> tournament. People at the event were divided up and given a coloured tunic,
> then sat in groups - our group was to cheer for "the blue guy", another group
> cheered for "the red guy", and so on. You get carried away. When the knights
> were fighting each other, ganging up on each other, imprisoning and torturing
> each other, it was perfectly clear to us that the blue guy was a good guy - it
> was his enemies that were the evil ones, and we were calling for their blood.
> Objectively, "our" guy was just as evil and nasty as the others, yet we "knew"
> he was the good guy.
Isn't that what spectator sport is all about?
> A side-effect of this would be that everyone who relies on a government
>> program of some sort (i.e., the populations that the current initiatives
>> tend to suppress) would be incentivized to get that credential! And,
>> then be fully capable -- without artificial restraint -- of voting.
>>
>> One could similarly require that credential in financial transactions:
>> banking, stocks, etc. -- as a way of ensuring and validating legitimate
>> ownership. Thus fight any "fraud" in income hiding, etc.
>
> You would be guaranteed that a certain proportion of people would see such an
> ID scheme as an invasion of privacy, or against their "right" to anonymity.
Of course! But, the thinking isn't along those lines -- or any other lines that would address ALL of these "potential opportunities for fraud". Rather, pick one approach, and "wink" as you claim what a good solution it is to an unsubstantiated problem!
Groups that help register people to vote (and, the hypothetical groups that would undoubtedly help them get this ID) are then legislated against (again, claiming that these are opportunities for fraud). One suspects that if you provided free transportation for the individual voter to hand carry their registration form to the registrar, an attempt to make THAT illegal would ensue.
[I.e., the "voter fraud" issue is a red herring]
> [Many people here have two homes -- one typically in another state
>> (i.e., voting district). What mechanism is in place to prevent them
>> from voting in both places -- "mail in ballot"? Wouldn't want to
>> allow or even TEMPT folks who are "well off" to consider trying to beat
>> the system in that way!]
>
> Here in Norway, you have to provide a valid identification for voting, but
> there is no national ID card (they keep talking about introducing one, but the
> bureaucracy involved seems too complicated for anything to actually happen).
> They accept passports, drivers license, bank cards, and a few other cards (all
> with your name, picture, and social security number).
But, none prove that you are a legal resident *or* indicate where you SHOULD be voting! E.g., there is nothing *practically* stopping me from asking for a mail-in (absentee) ballot from the location of my "Summer residence" to be mailed to me at my "Winter residence". Fill out the absentee ballot. Drop it in the post. Then, walk in to the local voting place and cast a vote *there*, as well.
"Trust me, I'm entitled to cast this ballot and I'm entitled to cast it here!"
I present a driver's license. My SSN is not present there. Possessing a driver's license is not proof that you are entitled to vote.
And, folks who are entitled may not have a driver's license, few have passports (I was 30 before I had the need for one), etc. I know people who don't have checking accounts! I can imagine those without credit cards (and, for the most part, only passports and DL's have photos).
Does financial status dictate right to vote?
> I know of two cases where DNRs were not honored. It was actually the
>> *threat* of a future lawsuit in the event they continued to be ignored
>> that caused them to be honored: serve notice to staff in the presence
>> of witness along with ANOTHER copy of the Advanced Directives -- so
>> they can't claim they "lost it".
>
> In Europe, the explicit wishes of patients (or relatives) comes quite low down
> in the list of priorities - the main emphasis is on treating patients in the
> best way known to the medical staff, according to current practice and
> regulations. For the most part, you do what the doctor recommends, with little
> influence.
Here, patients have "rights" -- to know what the treatment is, what it entails, to be able to refuse it (though there are limits on this and cases where patients have been forced to have treatments despite their personal or religious objections). Indeed, it is partly this that causes our health care expenditures to be so much higher than other parts of the world -- often with no better results. Demanding cosmetic surgery instead of "just stitch it up", insisting on the latest treatments (regardless of cost or expected outcome), etc.
As we've said in this thread, people here (US) don't want to "think hard" about these problems -- easier to just ask for "The Works" (esp if "it's not *my* money -- it's the insurance company's, gummit's, etc.)
>> It seems that there are strong genetic influences on our susceptibility
>>> to addiction (for /all/ addictions). Maybe we should all be genetically
>>> screened at birth, and only those with the right genes are allowed to
>>> buy drugs or alcohol.
Wait for the next Chinese "experiment" to excise the addiction gene at conception? :-/
>>> My "proof" of the nonexistence of a deity: if THIS is the
>>>> BEST he could come up with...
>>>
>>> "If we were truly created by God, then why do we still occasionally bite
>>> the insides of our own mouths?" (Dara O'Briain)
>
> If you haven't seen Dara O'Briain's sketches on religion (and many other
> topics), spend some time with him on Youtube.
I look for *fewer* things to do on-line, not more. :< Despite my lengthy posts, etc. I type fast enough that my online activities don't amount to much "real" time.
I *would* recommend Twain's "Letters from the Earth". He points out the ludicrousy of most of these (Christian) concepts of morality, heaven, etc.
As Thermoman (somewhere in season 2 of _My Hero_) commenting about all the dreadful things that are eaten over the XMAS holiday, the folks we spend it with, etc. "And you look FORWARD to this?"
More house guests. So, I've been ordered to get my shi^H^H^H great stuff off the living room floor :-/ (Women. Just don't seem to have the right "priororities"! "Why can't you go to THEIR house??")