That's an interesting argument for putting the buttons on the right -- one I've never heard.
Do you also think that the taskbar should be on the right side of the screen? or that the Start button in Windows is difficult for users to move the cursor to? (Seriously, I'm curious what else you might think is placed poorly.)
The only reason I can think of that the right is better than the left is that it's the place that people expect it to be for historical reasons. If I were to try to pick the most rational place, I would choose the left because the top left is where my culture starts things -- so, the buttons are where the window "starts", in the upper left. But I don't give a hoot, and in fact I've never even had a problem going between Win and Mac on a daily basis.
Good point. And even Athens wasn't a direct democracy, because only a minority of residents got to vote. Direct democracy is reasonable for groups of people numbering in the order of hundreds; and best suited for groups of people numbering in the tens.
Indeed, very true. That's why atheists should stop biatching about the current establishment clause (freedom from *AN* establishment of religion) and begin lobbying for a new one (freedom from *ANY* establishment of religion).
But until we have that, we shouldn't pretend that we do.
Either he's ignorant of the issues, or he's a liar because he is stating something which implies the opposite of the truth.
Or he didn't write with perfect clarity. That's what I suspect, but if you actually think he was intentionally lying, or didn't even understand basic triage, then in that case your reaction isn't overwrought.
Indeed, I have only my imagination; likewise the uncircumcised. Alas, imagination is a human's only basis for empathy, each of us stuck forever in only a single mind.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your point. Great point, old chap. I'm not trying to have an argument.
I just wanted to salt the conversation with a some recent scholarship, which (apparently) shows that not only were the laborers paid, and not slaves, but enjoyed better-than-average nutrition (ie, they ate well, including meat -- a fact that apparently modern science can establish), and drank alcohol. This is merely an interesting side-note to the topic of building pyramids, given the popular belief that slaves built the pyramid. (Moreover, the laborers were not Jewish, another popular belief.)
It's not the existence of a preference, it's basing the preference on need versus a moral judgment. I don't think the OP is saying triage is a moral hazard, nor is there anything he wrote that suggests he is unaware of triage. But do you normally base triage on a checkbox on the patient's ID card? No, that's outside our normal triage procedures.
Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?
Jeez, I keep seeing people make this totally vacuous argument.
Do you realize that the medical establishment takes extreme caution to weed out low-quality organs? I mean, you obviously do not realize that, so go ahead and consider yourself educated. If you are a smoker, your lungs aren't going to be donated. If you are a drinker, your liver is going to fail the test. But in both cases, your eyes might be of use, or something else.
Could the donor also make other stipulations, such as that the organs can't be used for a Republican, or for an abortion rights advocate, or for a Jew? Those are honest questions -- would you allow only the one exception (other organ donors) or does the principle apply more widely?
Right. A person with a bad liver can still be an organ donor -- for the rest of their organs. In fact, I bet the person could still volunteer to be a liver donor, but then the liver itself would be declined. Thus the person would still qualify.
My advice is to make and enjoy your sandwich quietly. In the unlikely event that somebody asks you about it, straight up lie to their face and insist that the bread is made specially without yeast. If they doubt you and point out that your bread sure looks leavened, just continue to lie, tell them it's not. (And if they ask you why you are eating a ham sandwich, lie again and tell them it's chicken. And if they ask you about the slice of cheese, lie again and tell them it's -- uh -- hummus or something.)
In my estimation, the lie is less of a sin than allowing yourself to be needlessly controlled by nonsense. Don't make a stink about it, don't invite controversy -- just do your thing peacefully, and use baldfaced lying to defend yourself if necessary.
This advice is modeled after The Invisible Man: "overcome them with yeses"; YES this is unleavened bread; YES I am sure of it; YES this is kosher meat; YES I am staying kosher for Passover.
The answer to your question is that the policy is not designed to maximize utility, but rather to protect the preferences of a minority position which carries some moral weight. Lots of people (not including myself) don't want their dead bodies hacked up, and our society gives a lot of weight to people controlling their own bodies (and other property) after death.
I'm an organ donor, but much like with other public policies, I prefer the law to accommodate reasonable minority preferences. (Obviously, "reasonable" is a political determination.)
Agreed. All the doctors I know (which is a handful) are like this.
But, I hang out with generally nice people, and it seems likely to me that at the fringes of medicine there are doctors who would do such a thing -- not, many of them, though.
That makes logical sense, but there is Egyptian science from the last decade or so which shows pretty conclusively that the workers weren't slaves, they were paid laborers. In any case, slaves or not, the evidence supports the theory of combined human might as the power source.
Can YOU come up with a method of moving those tons of rock, that doesn't require electricity, or gasoline or diesel power?
I haven't thought very hard about it, but I'd get all my friends together and push it really hard, probably while it is on rollers, and hopefully up a ramp. If that didn't work, then I'd think about it a little longer and probably come up with another idea.
You certainly have a strong opinion, but don't think that all people agree. I rather like my circumcised penis, and I'm rather glad it was done when I was a baby. Your mileage may vary -- and, obviously, yours definitely does.
The obvious failure in the logic of your deduction is (ironically) that you apply logic to a religious belief. How silly of you to do so. I can tell you aren't religious, because a religious person would never have attempted to use logic in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think "vote" means what you imply that it means. I don't "vote" for President by moving to Australia.
That's an interesting argument for putting the buttons on the right -- one I've never heard.
Do you also think that the taskbar should be on the right side of the screen? or that the Start button in Windows is difficult for users to move the cursor to? (Seriously, I'm curious what else you might think is placed poorly.)
The only reason I can think of that the right is better than the left is that it's the place that people expect it to be for historical reasons. If I were to try to pick the most rational place, I would choose the left because the top left is where my culture starts things -- so, the buttons are where the window "starts", in the upper left. But I don't give a hoot, and in fact I've never even had a problem going between Win and Mac on a daily basis.
Good point. And even Athens wasn't a direct democracy, because only a minority of residents got to vote. Direct democracy is reasonable for groups of people numbering in the order of hundreds; and best suited for groups of people numbering in the tens.
I don't think "democracy" means what you think it means.
Indeed, very true. That's why atheists should stop biatching about the current establishment clause (freedom from *AN* establishment of religion) and begin lobbying for a new one (freedom from *ANY* establishment of religion).
But until we have that, we shouldn't pretend that we do.
Either he's ignorant of the issues, or he's a liar because he is stating something which implies the opposite of the truth.
Or he didn't write with perfect clarity. That's what I suspect, but if you actually think he was intentionally lying, or didn't even understand basic triage, then in that case your reaction isn't overwrought.
Indeed, I have only my imagination; likewise the uncircumcised. Alas, imagination is a human's only basis for empathy, each of us stuck forever in only a single mind.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your point. Great point, old chap. I'm not trying to have an argument.
I just wanted to salt the conversation with a some recent scholarship, which (apparently) shows that not only were the laborers paid, and not slaves, but enjoyed better-than-average nutrition (ie, they ate well, including meat -- a fact that apparently modern science can establish), and drank alcohol. This is merely an interesting side-note to the topic of building pyramids, given the popular belief that slaves built the pyramid. (Moreover, the laborers were not Jewish, another popular belief.)
It's not the existence of a preference, it's basing the preference on need versus a moral judgment. I don't think the OP is saying triage is a moral hazard, nor is there anything he wrote that suggests he is unaware of triage. But do you normally base triage on a checkbox on the patient's ID card? No, that's outside our normal triage procedures.
(But it still might be a good idea.)
Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?
Jeez, I keep seeing people make this totally vacuous argument.
Do you realize that the medical establishment takes extreme caution to weed out low-quality organs? I mean, you obviously do not realize that, so go ahead and consider yourself educated. If you are a smoker, your lungs aren't going to be donated. If you are a drinker, your liver is going to fail the test. But in both cases, your eyes might be of use, or something else.
Probably because he's a troll, that's why.
Could the donor also make other stipulations, such as that the organs can't be used for a Republican, or for an abortion rights advocate, or for a Jew? Those are honest questions -- would you allow only the one exception (other organ donors) or does the principle apply more widely?
Right. A person with a bad liver can still be an organ donor -- for the rest of their organs. In fact, I bet the person could still volunteer to be a liver donor, but then the liver itself would be declined. Thus the person would still qualify.
My advice is to make and enjoy your sandwich quietly. In the unlikely event that somebody asks you about it, straight up lie to their face and insist that the bread is made specially without yeast. If they doubt you and point out that your bread sure looks leavened, just continue to lie, tell them it's not. (And if they ask you why you are eating a ham sandwich, lie again and tell them it's chicken. And if they ask you about the slice of cheese, lie again and tell them it's -- uh -- hummus or something.)
In my estimation, the lie is less of a sin than allowing yourself to be needlessly controlled by nonsense. Don't make a stink about it, don't invite controversy -- just do your thing peacefully, and use baldfaced lying to defend yourself if necessary.
This advice is modeled after The Invisible Man: "overcome them with yeses"; YES this is unleavened bread; YES I am sure of it; YES this is kosher meat; YES I am staying kosher for Passover.
The answer to your question is that the policy is not designed to maximize utility, but rather to protect the preferences of a minority position which carries some moral weight. Lots of people (not including myself) don't want their dead bodies hacked up, and our society gives a lot of weight to people controlling their own bodies (and other property) after death.
I'm an organ donor, but much like with other public policies, I prefer the law to accommodate reasonable minority preferences. (Obviously, "reasonable" is a political determination.)
Agreed. All the doctors I know (which is a handful) are like this.
But, I hang out with generally nice people, and it seems likely to me that at the fringes of medicine there are doctors who would do such a thing -- not, many of them, though.
That makes logical sense, but there is Egyptian science from the last decade or so which shows pretty conclusively that the workers weren't slaves, they were paid laborers. In any case, slaves or not, the evidence supports the theory of combined human might as the power source.
Can YOU come up with a method of moving those tons of rock, that doesn't require electricity, or gasoline or diesel power?
I haven't thought very hard about it, but I'd get all my friends together and push it really hard, probably while it is on rollers, and hopefully up a ramp. If that didn't work, then I'd think about it a little longer and probably come up with another idea.
You certainly have a strong opinion, but don't think that all people agree. I rather like my circumcised penis, and I'm rather glad it was done when I was a baby. Your mileage may vary -- and, obviously, yours definitely does.
The obvious failure in the logic of your deduction is (ironically) that you apply logic to a religious belief. How silly of you to do so. I can tell you aren't religious, because a religious person would never have attempted to use logic in the first place.
Which judges are practicing medicine? Certainly not the ones in this article.
I'm not a junkie, but I always assumed they didn't enjoy it, but merely thought it was worth it.
Holy crap, does that mean that thimerosal actually has a preventative effect for autism!?
Indeed, a classic troll. It is a plainly stated sentiment, not overtly outrageous, yet so easy to pick apart as to attract maximum angry responses.
Ugh. I disagree.