Warning: H*lm*t content

TimC writes:

On 2005-08-22, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On the other hand, if your religious beliefs include a belief in the
goodness of violence (which includes denying medical care to those who
need it), then just come right out and say it.

I'm perfectly for a law stating that if you break a law in a severely
blatant and stupid manner, then you are responsible for your own
medical needs resulting from that action.

You should keep in mind that people who break the law in a "severely
blatant and stupid manner" could possibly be doing so because they (a)
are a lot smarter than you; or (b) know something that you don't; or
(c) are unlucky, not stupid; or (d) are suffering from mental illness
of various types and severities; or (e) are suffering some emotional
distress; or (f) had a momentary lapse in concentration; or (g) was
distracted at a critical moment; or (h) ... any one of countless other
circumstances about which few if anyone is in a position to
judge. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. I seem to recall someone
in this forum recently getting a little taste of such judgement based
on ignorance when she "rolled" (rode) her bicycle on the
footpath... shudder/

Being "perfectly for" such a law is really being quite lacking in
compassion and empathy for other people, as well as showing a fair
degree of hubris in proposing to attempt to set some standard worthy
of Solomon for judging the stupidity of people.

Moreover, judging people on their stupidity really is the dregs of the
totalitarian barrel, because there is no limit to what can be judged
stupid. Do you have your papers with you? No? How stupid of you! :-)


On the other hand, yes, society should share all medical costs
resulting from something out of a person's control.

Once we track down this "society" person, you mean?

Practical problem: we can't define what's in a person's control
(unless you don't care about injustices occurring).




Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.


instead of humans becoming stupider and stupider each year for the
past 100 years.

Think television, think sausage factory obedience schools. Then
consider that schools and TV didn't get that way by chance. Then
you'll have some appreciation for why people are getting stupider and
stupider: they are are being made that way because stupid, passive,
and obedient people are easy to control.


Imagine how much more responsible car drivers may become for their
own actions?

Sounds like a brave new world. Can hardly wait! ;-)

David



--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient
means for going backwards.

-- Aldous Huxley

Euan Wrote:
.... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australi
that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy plac
to
put lights :-) Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Robinson dismisses the idea that repealing the laws will result i
masses of helmetless cyclists taking over the city. "Most cyclists ar
interested in their own health and safety, learn to read roa
conditions and would choose to wear a helmet when they feel it might b
needed."

I hope that I'd remember to put it on when I know that I'm going t
fall off:-

--
ProfTournesol

TimC wrote:

Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity, instead of humans becoming
stupider and stupider each year for the past 100 years.

Is this why young people appear to be more stupid?

Theo
Older therefore smarter?

TimC wrote:

As an ex amateur astronomer, I can heartily endorse banning
lightpoles (and all other forms of light pollution).

Agreed. No light poles in our estate.

Theo
Saving up for a bigger telescope.

David Trudgett wrote:

You should keep in mind that people who break the law in a "severely
blatant and stupid manner" could possibly be doing so because they (a)
are a lot smarter than you; or (b) know something that you don't; or
(c) are unlucky, not stupid; or (d) are suffering from mental illness
of various types and severities; or (e) are suffering some emotional
distress; or (f) had a momentary lapse in concentration; or (g) was
distracted at a critical moment; or (h) ... any one of countless other
circumstances about which few if anyone is in a position to
judge. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. I seem to recall someone
in this forum recently getting a little taste of such judgement based
on ignorance when she "rolled" (rode) her bicycle on the
footpath... shudder/

This calls up the issue of responsibility. Everyone is responsible
for the consequences of their actions. It doesn't matter
what excuses get cooked up for them. When I crashed
my bike into another rider, it was my fault for
not paying attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my
responsibilty. I was tired, I had a lapse of concentration
and I was unlucky. So what? It was still my fault and I
fully expected to be judged accordingly. As such, I paid for
all the damage and did my best to make sure my crashee was ok.

Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.

Oh dear.

Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
everything down to the ground.

Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
chance?

On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
David Trudgett wrote:
Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.

You obviously don't say "ramen" at the end of your prayers.

Oh dear.

Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
everything down to the ground.

Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
chance?

No! They're His noodly appendages!
http://www.venganza.org/

--
TimC
I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was
a Linux geek from the way I *walked*. -- Skud

On 2005-08-29, TimC wrote:
On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
chance?

No! They're His noodly appendages!
http://www.venganza.org/

Yea, verily, I have been touched by His Sliminess ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

"Bleve" writes:

This calls up the issue of responsibility.

You should recall that we were discussing withholding medical care
(perhaps only if the person can't afford it), not personal
responsibility per se. The fact that people are to some extent[*]
responsible for their own actions, does not imply that the medical
attention they receive should be determined by what they happen to be
able to afford on their current slave wage, or by some kind of policy
of retribution for wrongs committed.

[*] Generally to a great degree, but less, perhaps, than is usually
recognised, I suspect.


Everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions.

"Personal responsibility", "everyone is responsible", and similar
wordings, are motherhood statements incapable of disproof on their own
terms. This is because they are programmed to be good by definition in
the current group mind think. Yet, as universal generalisations, they
are just plain wrong.

Just to give a tiny, microscopic example: everyone has lapses in
concentration. These lapses are absolutely unavoidable, because only
machines never relax their concentration. To say that one is
"responsible" for an accident resulting from such a lapse of
concentration is to apply an unattainable standard of perfection to
human beings. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can choose the time or
place of our next little lapse in concentration, and to say that one
is "responsible" for an accident that may occur during one of those
lapses is bizarre in the extreme.

Now, of course, we can work hard at minimising such concentration
lapses, and also at minimising the effects of them when they occur
(such as through the use of redundant systems, like copilots on
aeroplanes). But no matter how hard we work, we can never totally
avoid accidents caused by this factor in human nature; which means
that, all other things being equal, one cannot morally be held
responsible for a lapse in concentration.

For those who think they have perfect control over their own mind,
they should try a little experiment. Lie down in a quiet room by
yourself and begin to clear your mind of all your various thoughts,
cares and current worries. Try to "centre" your mind in stillness and
peace, excluding all those random thoughts impinging on your
consciousness. See how long you can keep your mind clear in that
way. Can you manage 30 seconds without drifting off on some
spontaneous line of thought? What about a whole minute? Two minutes?
If you do this, you will see how little control you have over even
your own thoughts.


A couple of further little points about lapses in concentration. The
first is simply to note that cars and bicycles do not have redundant
systems like aeroplanes do[**], so lapses in concentration can be and
often have been fatal (or severely debilitating).

Second, the law does not allow "lapse in concentration" as an
acceptable excuse for unavoidable, practical reasons. In a nutshell,
the reason is that there is no practical way to tell if a person
really did have an unavoidable lapse in concentration, or is just
lying about it, or just neglected to mention that the lapse occurred
in the middle of sending a text message (for instance).

The upshot of this aspect of the law is that it has injustice built
right into its very foundation. Those who do suffer from a real and
unavoidable lapse in concentration will be judged in the same way as
the liar and the person who could care less about safety.


[**] Of course, we know that every man automatically gains a copilot
upon marriage, but for our current purposes, we will overlook this
anomaly... ;-) Also, some advanced cars are beginning to incorporate
traffic warning systems and so on, which are likely to improve safety
a bit in this regard.



It doesn't matter what excuses get cooked up for them. When I
crashed my bike into another rider, it was my fault for not paying
attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my responsibilty. I
was tired, I had a lapse of concentration and I was unlucky. So
what?

So, unless you are lying, or you have a machine-like perfect control
over concentration, you are not morally responsible for the
accident. This is the basic meaning of "accident", after all.

Of course, life is not necessarily that black and white, and
therefore, moral responsibility occurs in *degrees*, rather than
simply existing or not existing. Depending on your personal
circumstances, it is *possible* you were partially responsible for
riding while tired (but as we cyclists know, who can avoid
that?). Likewise, if your lapse of concentration was because you were
listening to music while riding (thereby creating an obvious and
needless distraction), there could be moral responsibility involved
there, too.

So, don't let me get in the way of your being a martyr. If you really
want to blame yourself, then go ahead. After all, you're the only one
who really knows how guilty you really are. No judge, no jury can know
it, but *you* can.


It was still my fault and I fully expected to be judged accordingly.
As such, I paid for all the damage and did my best to make sure my
crashee was ok.

As any decent person would. This is a different matter from moral
responsibility.



Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.

Oh dear.

Do I know you, darling? :-)



Have you heard of Intelligent Pushing? Did you know that
there's an alternative theory to gravity? God pushes
everything down to the ground.

Haven't heard of that one. Perhaps you could explain it some more...



Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
chance?

Clean shaven, babe, but I don't feel compelled to use the Occam brand.

Are you trying to make a point?


David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Philosophical anarchism, decentralism, required that we follow the
Gospel precept to be obedient to every living thing: "Be subject
therefore to every human creature for God's sake." It meant washing
the feet of others, as Jesus did at the Last Supper. "You call me
Master and Lord," He said, "and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Then if I, your Lord, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
one another's feet. I have set you an example; you are to do as I have
done for you." To serve others, not to seek power over them. Not to
dominate, not to judge others.

-- Dorothy Day, Ave Maria, December 17, 1966, pp. 20-23.

(Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)

TimC writes:

On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
David Trudgett wrote:
Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.

You obviously don't say "ramen" at the end of your prayers.

What have prayers to do with science? Dozens and dozens (at least) of
very qualified and knowledgeable scientists dispute the flimsy basis
of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds. Forget
about religion, this is science, man.

David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Mr Howard's ideal in these areas [health and education] has always
been a public safety net for the poor, with everyone else free to buy
privately the best quality service they can afford. This is the
hidden logic behind his otherwise piecemeal changes to Medicare.

-- Ross Gittins of the SMH explaining to us how Howard's plan is
to make sure that you and your children receive only the level
of medical care and education that your low wage can afford.

Stuart Lamble writes:

On 2005-08-29, TimC wrote:
On 2005-08-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Occams razor is very blunt 'round here. Do you have a beard, by
chance?

No! They're His noodly appendages!
http://www.venganza.org/

Yea, verily, I have been touched by His Sliminess ...

Playing with your snake again, Stuart? LOL ;-) Sorry, I just couldn't
resist that one. No one's perfect... :-)

Cheers,

David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

On another level there is a principle laid down, much in line with
common sense and with the original American ideal, that governments
should never do what small bodies can accomplish: unions, credit
unions, cooperatives, St. Vincent de Paul Societies. Peter Maurin's
anarchism was on one level based on this principle of subsidiarity,
and on a higher level on that scene at the Last Supper where Christ
washed the feet of His Apostles. He came to serve, to show the new
Way, the way of the powerless. In the face of Empire, the Way of
Love.

-- Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, May 1972.

(Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)