First thought; "Great Used Car Huckster." Second thought; "Can't Speak Spanish." Third thought; "But can identify with the sizable Russian minority." Fourth thought; "Can't close the milk carton never mind a deal."
You get it. What are your thoughts? Also, I admit being sufficiently uninterested. Anyone got a synopsis of the the recent reverse migration? Anything to do with the tens of thousands of damage to a certain vehicle? Or should I say two vehicles since Damion's carcass probably did a job on the underside of some bus somewhere.
P.S. "Real" posts after I take cupcakes to the 3rd grade.
75 comments:
first and murst you slackers
BTW, how do we know casey went back to the rents' place?
Re: MRSA (previous thread).
The conflict between a disease carrier's rights and the general public's health was resolved twenty-odd years ago, and firmly in favor of the disease carrier's rights to live a normal life, regardless of the cost to public health.
Quarantines will be a thing of the past. Our border-hopping TB carrier was not the first and will not be the last of the Typhoid Marys whose rights to spread disease--whoops, I mean whose right to privacy--will be protected by the law and by various advocacy groups.
My community has a problem with Whooping Cough among a population from an area so remote in Central Mexico that they don't speak Spanish.
@Dawg,
Where did you find that Vegan bus? It's hilarious.
Back on subject, I think Casey's next job should be as CEO of Citigroup. As awful as he it as finances, I don't think he's capable of loosing™ more money than what a Harvard-educated CEO is capable of losing.
PV, you should go over to
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/11/citigroup-1348-billion-in-level-3.html where we are having all kinds of geeky fun with Citi. People making godcalls and rolling d20 hit dice.
The cow and chicken make it look more like a transitively vegan bus.
Akubi, all i do is google image search with fancy words and safe search turned off.
The Typhoid Mary story is such a fascinating case story, I recommend everyone read it. Here it is at Wikipedia.
And I fully support privacy rights!!! The right of my private body to not be infected when active steps can be taken!
The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance is worth a read. There are some truly nasty interactions between international air travel, a free society, and our current antibiotic-heavy approach to health care.
"And I fully support privacy rights!!! The right of my private body to not be infected when active steps can be taken!"
I prefer the right not to be imprisoned under the excuse that some germ hidden inside my body could harm somebody else even though I don't feel sick. How convenient! Who can prove that they don't have any, and how?
How do you know that your own body is not harbouring any such germs? All human bodies have been exposed to various infections and have developed antibodies (in many cases, it is not even the germ itself that is found by tests, but those antibodies). And how could one make sure that no infection whatsoever is present when the individual is not aware of it? Hourly tests for most diseases known to mainkind? What if it is in the patient's best interest to live with a disease when it can't be eliminated or treatment is even more dangerous? Or when treatment is likely to reduce his or her life?
Some people believe that after they die, they go to heaven if they were good while living on Earth. Atheists believe that this is the only life. I'm one of them. Every single day reduces the time available for me to live before I become a rotting corpse. You have no right to make me waste a precious portion of my lifespan by being imprisoned in order to reduce the probability of you catching some disease. If I catch a disease from you and die, too bad for me. If you catch a disease from me and die, too bad for you. I don't owe you anything, and neither do you. And that Mary would probably not have insisted on working as a cook if she was provided with money without having to work. But she had to make a living and, quite understandably, she chose her usual profession and probably had few other options.
Monica: "If I catch a disease from you and die, too bad for me."
Uh huh. I suspect you'll hang on to that mindset until you're actually presented with the real possibility of catching a communicable, deadly disease, at which point there will be a sudden change in attitude.
This "everyone has the right to enjoy their life" attitude will last about as long as it takes people to figure out what will happen if someone with SARS got on a plane and landed in a dense metropolitan area in the U.S. or Europe. At that point, the right of one person to enjoy their vacation vs the rights of millions to stay disease-free will be an easy decision to make.
PV,
agreed. The jackass in GA that flew overseas knowing what he had was a selfish prick. Now he and his father/family are dealing with multiple lawsuits which they should. WTF was he thinking.
911's can be very tricky to drive on a race track if you don't know what you are doing. With the engine in the rear, the car wants to reverse itself like a pendulum because the engine is behind the rear axle and wants to switch places if you lift the throttle any.
Just like Snowflake likes to do. How ironic?
The decision would be easy: I would let the person remain free, knowing that (aside from the fact that s/he may not really be in contact with millions of people, or not in sufficiently close contact) only a small proportion of people are infected, fewer actually get sick, and very few die, and if they do, they must have been the most fragile individuals.
Indidentally, for the health of the population as a whole, it would be better if more children were born but the most vulnerable individuals were not saved from death and allowed to breed. So far for the common good, since you seem to care about that.
By the way, since I'm almost 40, if I must die of disease, I'm ready to accept my biological destiny. I saw enough on this Earth, and it is just fair to let somebody younger take my place. What I don't want is that if, on the contrary, my body can still sustain life, thank you very much, to be deprived of even the smallest portion of that time (even if partially, since I would only be in some kind of quarantine and not dead) for the sake of others. I don't even owe that to my own mother.
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/archives/agalleries/1918flu/1918flu.html
The 1912 influenza was so virulent people would sicken at work and drop dead on the sidewalk walking home.
If something like that happens again, martial law WILL be declared, and any large city is not going to be a nice place to be in. Small towns pretty well locked themselves up during the 1912 one. No public gatherings, no weddings, no funerals, no school.
Educate yourself about it:
Like wildfire, the virus cut a wide swath of devastation behind as it headed to the West Coast. At its peak some 30 cases were reported daily in San Mateo—fortunately, the deaths from this horrific flu never matched the numbers back East.
No matter, everyone was frightened of every sneeze, of every sniffle, of every cough. In San Francisco legislation required “every person appearing on the public streets to wear a mask”.
Pontificate all you like about your rights: they will end (at least for the duration) at the declaration of martial law.
Probably, but only because most people would be too afraid to assert their rights. If nearly everybody simply refused to comply, that would simply not work (neither would law enforcement, and I hope that some day, people finally make police and prison disappear). What could they do? Shoot everybody?
By the way, I actually agree with the actions of that guy with TB. I have actually attended school and exams after being in contact with someone with measles and even while I had it myself. I had a very mild case and long hair, so my own parents (who, by the way, did not miss work either) did not realize that I had it, too. But my brother had been diagnosed, so it must have been measles.
I'm actually proud of it, since I have defeated the disease through my body's own means rather than because of an invasive act (vaccination) and still passed my exams. And if I have acquired antibodies against that same disease, I got the real thing. I have earned them myself! I don't know if anybody else got sick, and I don't care. I met my objectives, such as passing my exams, and I did not further complicate my life because of a disease that was more contagious (or deemed so) than really making me sick. That's all that matters.
In the past 2 years my son has had scarlet fever and whooping cough. Each time the pediatrician told me I was stunned. What hell is going on? It's uncontrolled, unregulated mass immigration. We're getting third-world diseases that were once uncommon here.
My son is in a different school now and hasn't had any repeats of those illnesses. People who say no to basic safeguards against communicable disease, such as quarantine, are full of it.
I believe we need immigrants. We need more skilled/educated immigrants who can pass basic health screening. Instead we make the process hard for legal migrants and make it easier for unskilled sick immigrants. The person who isn't here legally can now drive to the hospital with their new valid driver's license for illegal aliens and get free treatment at the local county hospital. If you disagree with this process you are labeled a hater. Remarkable times we live in.
Monica -
I think you are missing a vital point - our rights are not absolute, they end when they interfere with anothers rights.
I hate traffic, but that does not allow me to drive down the sidewalk and run over pedestrians.
Typhoid Mary killed three people. Society had every right to lock her up. She was not sick herself, but as a carrier, she was a clear danger to others.
Also -
"Only a small proportion of people are infected, fewer actually get sick, and very few die, and if they do, they must have been the most fragile individuals"
Rebecca pointed out the Spanish Flu. That swept through communities and caused havoc. It did not only kill the week and most fragile, it took out a large percentage of the worlds population(estimates range up to 100 million people worldwide!).
We are overdue for a good pandemic. I seriously doubt MSRA will be it though - it has been around for a while (just getting press now), but something more scary will come along.
"Probably, but only because most people would be too afraid to assert their rights. ... What could they do? Shoot everybody?"
Assert their rights? Tell you what - if a pandemic comes through and someone infected is trying to "assert their right" to infect me? I'll shoot them myself.
Sorry... I'll "assert my right" to remain alive and uninfected.
You remain under the delusion that you have an absolute right to do as you please, regardless of the danger to others. Won't work.
The influenza virus disproportiately kills the young and strong - it is actually the immune response that is fatal, not the disease. Quite a different story than measles, Monica. I wouldn't worry too much about it, if you live through an influenza epidemic, you will be so traumatized by the death and disease that you will barely notice what goes on around you. There were many documented cases of it after the Influenza. I suspect the Roaring 20's were a reaction to having simply lived.
Best book on what is to come is based on what happened: The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History: Books: John M. Barry by John M. Barry.
Read it and grow up.
I have an absolute moral right to be free. I did not say that other individuals would not try to deprive me of my rights. If I can do what I please anyway, that's morally right. I wouldn't necessarily succeed, but it is perfectly right, morally.
But tell me something: if you shot those people, wouldn't you 1) ruin your life because you would be severely punished and 2) do so (and kill others in the process) when it is not even sure that you would have become sick at all, let alone died? Contact does not equal disease or even sufficiently close contact, and danger does not mean that it will happen in your case. You can't kill others because something is merely possible or even reasonably likely, nor would you be better off in jail for a long time than sick for a short time, if you even get sick at all. If you are so afraid, stay indoors, wear a mask, soak your hands in hand sanitizer, and so on, but don't force others to stop enjoying their own lives if they do not share your concern.
> I have an absolute moral right to be free.
How about drunk driving? Do you have an absolute right to get very drunk and then drive home?
Seriously - it is the same right. Do you have the absolute moral right to drive drunk?
No? Society is correct for restricting this? Why?
As to: But tell me something: if you shot those people...
It would not be a severe punishment - it is a clear case of self defense.
Also - it's not clear that I would become sick, let alone die...
Silly argument, and here is why: Using that logic, the only time I would be justified was once I was dead. Protecting ones self at that point is too late, wouldn't you agree?
More to the point, you've ignored the entire premise - someone infected is a danger to others. The entire basis for involuntary commitment is "a danger to self or others". You do not have to kill someone to get locked up, just be a threat to them.
I have an absolute moral right to be free. I did not say that other individuals would not try to deprive me of my rights. If I can do what I please anyway, that's morally right. I wouldn't necessarily succeed, but it is perfectly right, morally.
Suppose someone would like to empty your bank account, or perhaps even kill you. If you really believe what you said above, you would support their right to do those things. Do you? Or do you selfishly believe that your right to life and property trump their right to do as they please?
In the real world, rights sometimes conflict. "My rights always take precedence" is not a moral way to resolve those conflicts.
How about smoking and drinking while pregnant? Do you have an absolute moral right to do these things or are the rights of the child taken into consideration? If you walk down the street infected with a disease that kills 2/3 of those infected, do I have the absolute moral right to be free of your infection? Or is it, as you suggest above, entirely my responsibility to take precautions by staying home, washing my hands, wearing a mask. I suspect your behaviour would soon be taken care of by those aware of your attitude. Those who do not consider others in their behaviour would soon be checked by those same individuals. Personally, I would be the first to report you to the local health department as being a danger to others.
If you drink and drive, you are doing something on purpose. If you simply carry around your own germs, you are not doing that on purpose. Driving is an active activity. You are driving. Carrying disease is a passive activity. You, the person, have the right to continue to be happy, even if that means going among people. It's just too bad if the physical part of you happens to have some germs, which was not something that you wanted. But then, if you feel fine, or not to sick, go enjoy yourself.
As for danger to others and civil commitment, I'm against that. I can understand that you can't actually go and kill people, and that the society may want to put away murderers. But if anybody is crazy but not a killer, let him be free. If anybody is sick, let him be free, too. I'm definitely against that notion of danger.
First of all, danger to self should not count, as the right to self-determination includes the right to self-harm and self-annihilation. As for danger to others, disease is not like murder, where the person is harming others on purpose. There is a moral obligation not to kill others by shooting, for example. There is nothing of the sort if others just happen to get sick after seeing another individual. If they are afraid, let them stay away, not that individual. If the individual can be locked up, this is a violation of human rights.
I saw a cool video on you tube with school buses racing. Maybe the dynamic duo should do that.
What's the difference between knowingly and willfully exposing somebody to a disease knowing that they may die from it, and knowingly and willfully pointing a gun at somebody and pullng the trigger knowing that the bullet may kill them? In each case you make a conscious choice to expose the other person to risk by your actions.
Stealing somebody's property is also wrong, but smoking or drinking while pregnant is not. It is only a bad idea from a medical point of view, and that, mostly for the baby. Or, the woman is an adult individual while the child is not even born yet and may not even be born alive or survive infancy. The mother's rights are more important. She did survive well past infancy and paid her dues. And she may be able to have other kids, if it comes to that, while the opposite is not true for the baby, not for many years anyway and possibly never.
Shooting someone to avoid disease is not self-defense because, no matter how sure you may feel, the fact is that you cannot guarantee that you would have died. And yes, even if most people died, I would still support the right of one individual to carry his or her germs on the street. It is up to the other people to take their own precautions, if they are afraid.
While I support your absolute moral right to be a uninformed, I do not support your absolute moral right to infect women, children and the unsuspecting of a disease that even "May" only kill them. I suspect you are vocal in your opinion regarding your rights, and that come the next epidemic, we will not need to worry about you exercising your absolute moral right to kill others by exposing them to a pathogen. I suspect one of your neighbors or family will take care of the risk, no matter how small.
Driving is an active activity. You are driving. Carrying disease is a passive activity.
ANY driving should be banned then. :)
We restrict drunk driving because of the increased risk to others. The driver is not in control and cannot be safe. Same with carrying disease - they cannot be safe.
But if anybody is crazy but not a killer, let him be free.
Charles Manson. He has never killed anyone, just sent others to do it. Should he be free?
John Hinkley. Tried to kill Reagan, failed. Still locked up.
There are any number of people who are locked up for being crazy, specifically for being a danger to others - yet have not actually killed anyone. Shall we set them free?
Might be better if we did. Manson wouldn't last a week on the outside... can't even be in general population, the last time he was, another inmate set him on fire. Save the CA tax payers a lot of money to just let him out.
It is up to the other people to take their own precautions, if they are afraid.
Then why restrict drunk driving? By the same logic, it should be up to you to dodge the car if you don't want to be hit.
Seriously - take a logic and critical thinking course, your skills in this are horrible.
"What's the difference between knowingly and willfully exposing somebody to a disease knowing that they may die from it, and knowingly and willfully pointing a gun at somebody and pullng the trigger knowing that the bullet may kill them?"
The bullet is meant to kill them and you want to kill them. Unless you are actively contaminating them the way a poisoner would put arsenic in their tea or inject germs in their veins, disease is a mere accident. And there is also the certainty factor. If you can shoot properly, you will certainly injure or kill the victim. Catching a disease is like getting pregnant if the man tried to pull out before ejaculation. It happens in a certain number of cases, maybe even up to 20%, but there is by no means any kind of certainty and chances are still in the person's favour. If the bullet goes through your body, you will be injured or killed. Disease is much less certain. And there is a difference between a bullet hole and most diseases. The bullet is likely to produce more suffering.
Shooting someone to avoid disease is not self-defense because, no matter how sure you may feel, the fact is that you cannot guarantee that you would have died.
By your argument, shooting someone who is shooting at you is not self-defense because you cannot guarantee that you will die from gunshot either. Shooters sometimes miss their targets, and people don't always die from being shot.
People, MRSA has been around for some time now. Yes there are going to be people that get really sick because of it, but that is nothing new. However, this knee jerk reaction that we are seeing, hospitals testing everybody, putting people in isolation if they have it, treat everyone even if not symptomatic...and don't even get me started about the class action lawsuits that the lawyers will make millions on while the people get a coupon that says "2 dollars off vancomycin"
Anyway, what do you think is going to happen if we start throwing antibiotics at every person with MRSA? That's right, RESISTANCE. If people think it is a SUPERBUG now, wait until there is no way to stop it....
"And there is a difference between a bullet hole and most diseases. The bullet is likely to produce more suffering."
I was content to sit on the sidelines and let those more well-spoken than me reply to earlier posts, but I had to jump in on this one. What are you basing this comment on, Monica? Have you both been shot and experienced a drawn-out, painful, fatal illness? Neither have I, but there are many, many diseases I would never wish on myself or my family. On the other hand, bullet wounds in many parts of the body are easily treated.
I suspect you haven't experienced any life-threatening diseases first-hand (other than possibly acquiring a case of the measels) or seen your family members go through any of these horrible diseases. I hope you don't have to, as I imagine your opinion would quickly change.
I have already stated that carrying disease is passive. If someone tries to shoot you, he is actively trying to kill you. By the way, of course some attempted murders, such as Hickley's, may be a good reason to justify commitment. I did not elaborate on all the circumstances. That's a good point.
But unlike shooting, or drunk driving, transmitting a disease is not done on purpose. Just sitting around is not the same thing. The disease carrier is just minding his own business, not shooting someone with disease-carrying syringes. He is PASSIVE. Doing NOTHING. If that's enough to make him a danger, well, are you aware that dandruff is caused by a bacteria? We are all carrying all kinds of germs.
While I support your absolute moral right to be a uninformed,
BTW: Rebecca - Beautifully put. Very nice comment. :)
While it can be fun to argue with someone who holds an untenable position, it does grow tiresome eventually...
Let's hit the core: Monica claims to have an absolute moral right to be free.
Let's kill that assumption right there - can anyone put forward a right that is absolute? It is a bit of a trick question, because there are no correct answers - no right is absolute.
Feel free to put forward any right you feel is absolute. I'm quite happy to poke holes in it (if others don't do it faster).
Life? Plane going down, two people, one parachute. Which persons right to life is absolute? Only one will survive.
I'm sure she'll try the "morally absolute" - a nice attempt to avoid this little detail. Morally, both have the right to try to take the parachute. Fine... but they are still depriving the other person of their "absolute" moral right. It is a nice distinction that is used to muddy the argument, but ultimately it fails for the same reason.
The basic premise she was arguing is false. Undermines the rest of what she is saying.
This has to be a troll. It's just too mind blowingly piss poor thinking.
And Property Flopper, thanks.
You've stated this distinction between passive and active many times, but failed to make a case for why it should matter. Failing to fix a leaky gas line in my building is passive. Does that mean I bear no responsibility if a fire starts, destroying the buildings on either side of me?
I could just as well argue that breathing germs into a public place is active.
I have already stated that carrying disease is passive.
Completely missing the point, either intentionally or just plain missing it.
It does not matter if the activity is passive or active, what matters is the conflict of rights.
My right to be safe vs. anothers right to be free. A person does not have the right to put me in danger. Freedom can (and is) restricted when it interferes with others rights to be safe.
Nobody would impede your right to be free AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT ENDANGERING OTHERS. When you cross that line, you lose the right to freedom.
I cannot randomly fire a gun in the air - I am not trying to hurt anyone, but I could. That danger to society justifies restricting my freedom.
Repeated without the ad hominem:
Exactly, Ogg. It's an ACTIVE DECISION to risk infection, knowing the dangers posed.
The basic premise she was arguing is false. Undermines the rest of what she is saying.
Not only is the basic premise false, her initial position is arguably amoral. Kind of shaky ground to build a moral argument on.
Ogg -
It could be argued that she is following Ethical Egoism as a moral philosophy, but...
Under that assumption, she would also have to support her neighbors shooting her if she became sick - it is in their best interest...
Nice to see most (with at least one exception) of those on the board have taken a logic course or two...
There is a difference between not being able to save everybody in an emergency (like in the case of the parachute) and violating a person's rights because, although that person is not doing anything, there is a chance that other people who are around may get sick.
Now, you may feel that you have to fix a gas line. However, an individual's body is not just property. It should be up to the individual what to do with his or her own body. Most people don't want to be sick, but trying to get well is something they are doing for themselves. They don't have to do it for others, and asking them to do so, or to be imprisoned for the sake of anybody else's health, is just not right.
Carrying disease inside a building is still passive. The individual is not doing it on purpose. They are carrying disease the same way they are carrying their blood or internal organs, if they wish to be present on the premises.
Ain't objectivism grand? You're the single most important person in the world, just like everybody else!
wE HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OUR FREEDOMS AS LONG AS WE DO NOT TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IN THE PROCESS. oPPS, CAPS LOCK. SORRY, I did not mean to shout.
Monica,I hope I do not work with you or shop where you shop, or go to the same movie theater as you. Your attitude is very selfish.
But very "Natural Selection" to the inhumane extreme.
Great thread and I think MRSA is the next epidemic.It survives on fabric and hard surfaces 90 days and can infect skin that does not have lesions from just touch.Yes it has been around a long time and here are the numbers:
snip;
Fortunately, the day was saved, because I got a perfect example, a horrifying example, a terrifying example, a terrifyingly, horrifyingly perfect example of exponential growth from JMR Paul Harder, who reports that he has looked into the number of deaths attributed to Methicillin-resistant Staphlococcus aureus in the USA, and finds that "MRSA deaths are increasing EXPONENTIALLY!!!"
Note the use of all capitals, and the three exclamation points, which seems entirely apropos since MRSA has evolved from ordinary staph germ into a deadly microscopic murderer that can't be killed with antibiotics, and practically nothing can stop it from killing you by, for example, eating your flesh.
He admits that the data is murky, but "as best as I can gather" he says, the trend is:
2007 90,000 +
2006 13,000
2005 3807
2004 1629
2003 955
2002 487
2001 229
2000 201
1999 155
Now, that is exactly what exponential growth looks like! Perfect!
It gets truly ugly when he says that the extrapolation is that there will be "46,000,000 deaths in 2011", which does not have any exclamation points at all, which I cannot explain because in my Mighty Mogambo Mind (MMM) there are several! Like that one right there!! Or the two right there!!! Now three!!!!
http://news.goldseek.com/RichardDaughty/
1193756400.php
I knew I had heard this shit before, but it's been 35 years since my last logic class:
(wiki)individualist anarchism:
One of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism was Max Stirner,[44] who wrote The Ego and Its Own (1844), a "founding text" of the philosophy.[44] Stirner's philosophy was an "egoist" form of individualist anarchism according to which the individual does as he/she pleases, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules,[45] and society has no responsibility for its members.
And it still stinks to high heaven 35 years after I first heard it.
FMW: You may be right about MRSA. My sister works as a tech in a large hospital and she knows the dirty little secrets behind hospitals. Entire wings have been closed and sterilized due to MRSA with no wird to the public. Nobody with a compromised immune system should be in a hospital. Ironic, no?
My money is on Bird Flu, though for the "Big Get".
@ Monica:
At this point I get the impression that your position is built out special cases. Arguing around that isn't any fun, nor is it even remotely productive, so I'll stop.
May you be surrounded by people who agree with what you've said in this thread.
I would agree about Bird flu, but for the fact that there is too much press. MRSA is hush hush, no panicked public, no problem. So, a few kids die whilst the Government prepares. All school MRSA deaths are "isolated incidences", according to MSM.
My money is on MRSA. When it is against the law to be without health insurance,like it is now with car insurance, (Hillary and Obama) then TPTB will anounce a
new pandemic, MRSA.
Monica:
"Shooting someone to avoid disease is not self-defense because, no matter how sure you may feel, the fact is that you cannot guarantee that you would have died."
No, lassie, it is INDEED self-defense.
There is a crime in many jurisdictions called "Depraved Indifference"...it is almost always a felony.
Depraved Indifference would be exemplified by a repeat DUI/DWI offender driving drunk yet agin, and recklessly, past a schoolyard or playground.
Or someone who has been informed by competent medical authorities that they carry the AIDS virus continuing to have unprotected sex without their partners' knowledge or consent,(yes...there are people who consent to have sex with HIV+ and AIDS carriers...google "bug chasers").
In either of those situations, a citizen would be absolutely justified in taking deadly force to stop this behavior, as it represents grave risk of inflicting death or grievous bodily injury to himself or other innocent parties.
What jury would convict such a citizen? Not one that I would sit on.
And, if you think that the weak should die to make way for the strong, then you really shouldn't object to being euthanized if your body is so weak that it harbors microorganisms that could cause harm to the strong.
I am a seaman, and the term quarantine comes from the practice of isolating ships at anchor in a harbor for 40 days,(quaranta).
This wan't fun,watching your shipmates die, and waiting your turn, but it was absolutely necessary, and was instituted after the experience of the Black Death, which was brought to Europe in a cargo ship that made landfall at Sicily from the Crimea.
FMW: Agree absolutely.Both are epidemics, one here and now, one to come. One will take them a few at a time, maybe a few hundred, the other will take a few thousand or hundred thousand at a time. And absolutely on the TPTB announcement. And also agree on the media overkill. It's actually counterproductive in that it anesthetizes us.
Bilgeman: Daughter of Merchant Mariner here. '44-'46. 18 years old when he joined up. Liberty Ships. One HELL of a man. Fireman/Water Tender.
Rebecca:
If you're ever in Bawlmer:
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/jbrown.htm
or Frisco Bay:
http://www.ssjeremiahobrien.org/
The oldest bucket I've ever hand-fired:
http://www.maritimematters.com/independence.html
(Ahhh, 15 decks directly below the forward stack...in Hawaii, no less)
and the biggest:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/ships.asp?ship=60&type=FastSealiftShip
BIG...FAST...SCARY,(especially since I didn't have an operational low-water alarm, though I didn't know that at the time).
Bilgeman: Father's ships:
Pan Georgia
S.S. Antelope Hills
Jerrett Huddleston
S. S. Francis F. Culkin
I took a teleological suspension of the ethical ages ago so I really can't follow what you guyz are saying - if it doesn't involve fishnets and stuff :).
Nonetheless, I second property floppers comment regarding Rebecca's:
Property Flopper said...
While I support your absolute moral right to be a uninformed,
BTW: Rebecca - Beautifully put. Very nice comment. :)
Kind of funny I missed this discussion after it blew up, I was at the doctor. As some people know, because I bring it up too often, because it's on my mind, I am currently "immunocompromised". Basically from my work overseas at orphanages and children's hospitals, and getting sick here in the US from a flood, my immune system has had the shit beat out of it.
Would I change anything? No. I helped people and children, gave hope, saved some lives, or at least gave them a smile for a while. What have a lost? I don't donate blood. I regularly visit my doctor and the infectious disease department to see if anything turns up. My brother had a skin positive TB test and successfully went through the treatment and is fine. When I had shingles this year, I stayed home. When my sister-in-law had cancer and was in the hospital, I stayed home so I didn't risked anyones lives in the hospital. Could they have handled it, probably, but I wasn't going to risk it.
Does it suck being sick and staying home alone? Yes, but you make the most of it. I will not go out and risk getting others sick. My husband and I were planning on having children, but we will not have any unless we are sure they will be ok.
I know I can't convince you to change your mind, but I've concerned that you Monica are planning on becoming a doctor. You're going to take an oath to save lives; how can you have your current world view and honestly uphold that oath?
"And, if you think that the weak should die to make way for the strong, then you really shouldn't object to being euthanized if your body is so weak that it harbors microorganisms that could cause harm to the strong."
I would, because it would be an issue of killing a person who is strong enough to survive despite harboring microorganisms in order to protect the weak who may die. If I were weak, I would die myself because of the disease, and that would be fine if nothing can be done from a medical point of view. But you can't kill someone because you assume that person's very presence could get you sick. It may not even be true. And there is a difference between being sick and actually doing what those HIV-infected persons are doing, although it their partner consents, I don't see the problem.
Quarantine may have saved lives, but maybe some people who died or got sick while in quarantine would have survived or not gotten sick if allowed to escape, especially if they were together with sick individuals during quarantine. I would rather contaminate you discreetly if that happens by chance than catch a disease by being with several infected people, when otherwise there was still a chance of avoiding infection if it did not happen up to that point. The thing to to from the individual's point of view is to run away from sources of infection in case that particular individual can still save himself, not to be locked up with the sick and potentially sick. Quarantine is a crime against humanity, as it is unwarranted imprisonment and it puts in danger whoever was locked up in a contaminated environment when that person would otherwise have survived.
I live in Montreal, and I don't go out much. I shop on the Internet. Me too, I prefer avoiding people because they may harbor disease, but I don't feel compelled to do so when I don't feel like it.
I'm not a doctor, but even if I were, I see no problem (other the risk of contamination from the patients). Saving lives is part of a doctor's duties, but that's just work. It's like repairing a car or treating an animal, if it can be done, although one can't give up as easily. Besides, many patients are not going to die. They are just sick or even healthy but having a checkup.
Jake; you have my appreciation for your work and it's results. My father has MDL and is in the final stages of dying from it. He has had 6 years of excellent medical care since his diagnosis, and has outlived his prognosis. Even though I know he has only possibly days or weeks to live, I would never go over with a cold he could catch. Because it might take one single sunrise from him. I value every minute of his life, as much as Monica seems to value every single moment of hers. He takes all the appropriate precautions. but I still don't want him exposed to someone who thinks exposing people to measles is no big deal.
And I hope to CHRIST I never have a doctor who believes saving lives is "just work", like repairing a car.
I still think Monica is trolling. I refuse to believe anyone can hold beliefs like this and live in civilized society.
The civilized society is just a bunch of other people who are often in my way. They are also creating the material conditions necessary for my (and everybody else's) physical comfort, as I live in the city and buy food instead of ploughing the fields. The civilization produces all kinds of good things, including art, jewellery, and the medical science that may save my ass some day (plus the information that I can get, or already have, myself, such as a basic understanding of disease transmission). But it's still everybody for himself.
As a matter of fact, I don't like being in a "civilized society". If I could have a shack in the woods with food and Internet access, I would be happy to stay there by myself and communicate by email and blogging with other individuals who are otherwise safely out of my way.
Definitely trolling.
Why? Is there any particular reason to like being with actual, disease-carrying human organisms when I can just peruse their written work or communicate with them from a distance if and when it is convenient to me?
Since I do tend to like some individuals more than others, you won't believe it, but I actually like Casey, to the extent that I can like anyone. I actually like the fact that he did things that are not socially acceptable and had the guts to tell the world about it. I actually find him smart.
Really incredibly definitely trolling.
It was a pretty good troll for a while, but it overplayed its hand at the end. Talking about "actual, disease-carrying human organisms" after spending the whole thread asserting the right to be one was a bit over the top. And the "I have contempt for society but am happy to sponge off of it" angle? Um, that's been done around here. Stopping a couple of posts earlier would've been better.
Too much, too fast, too soon.
Yes, Ogg, I second the assessment. Good troll, (golf clap), had to go for that last exposition. Should have faded to black earlier.
The difference is that I may choose not to be with the "diseases-carrying organisms" when I can and if I feel like it, but I'm not forcing them to submit to treatment or quarantine or killing them in "self-defense". That's a huge difference. And everybody is "sponging off" the society in the sense of using the material and intellectual work of other people. I'm not "sponging off" in the sense of being supported without working. Somebody is actually paying me for my work, and of course I'm buying goods and services produced by others, including food. In that sense, the existence of other individuals is useful after all. But there will always be enough of them. In fact, the planet is overpopulated. I don't have to sacrifice my freedom for the sake of their health.
Wow. Finally things are petering out.
Monica, you "don't have to sacrifice [your] freedom for the sake of their health" but you have to accede to their opinions on the matter if you wish to engage society. In other words, play by the rules or play by yourself.
Monica is obviously a robot and has no rights. Fire away.
Troll:
" would, because it would be an issue of killing a person who is strong enough to survive despite harboring microorganisms in order to protect the weak who may die."
You are not a person. You are a pestilence carrier and a threat to your host organism.
LOL @ property flopper (I'll shoot them myself), old and bilgeman (just above).
Enjoy your Tuesday all.
ttfn
PS. Scariest Troll ever, if a troll at all, imo.
I vote Bilgeman wins the thread. Very funny.
Post a Comment