But what this law is effectively doing is removing ownership of the deceased person from the family and passing it to the state.
Exactly! And while I'm sure we all know some people who have terrible families, I think the state is all too happy to play on fears of individual families making the "wrong" decision and to present itself as the enlightened benevolent decision maker who should have the right to decide.
Just to throw out some "slippery slope" possibilities -- could the government also decide that you are "opt-in" to a DNR order by default?
That is the specific slippery slope scenario I have in mind. And I've actually worried about that since the late 1980s.
This gets very, very tricky. I don't think presumed consent in this particular area bothers me per se, but I can imagine a lot of other issues where presumed consent would scare the living daylights out of me. Sounds like a very slippery slope.
The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open. The State governments have proven themselves powerless to stand against even the smallest tyrannies time and time again. Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
And they established a fantastically effective and expensive compulsory school system to teach all this stuff so that would noone would ever question the need for a strong federal government
I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.
No, at that point what you have is one possible service provider in a potentially competitive market - as opposed to the monopoly system we have now.
No, under anarchy, you have the right to defend yourself; you just don't have the right to force other people to pay for your defense. So, for example, if you believe you need to go to war against brown people in the Middle East to defend yourself, you could; you just couldn't force everybody who disagrees to support you financially and give their children up for a draft.
But someone has to set policy for all of you, otherwise you just have anarchy
Anarchy would be awesome. That's the state of not having parasites (rulers). Or as I like to call it, being grown up. Setting rules simply for the sake of having rules is ridiculous.
Being welcomed to a country you are not citizen of is not a human right
Being able to buy and sell and rent property and employ people is. The government doesn't own this country and has no right to set policy for all of us.
It's so freaky to see this today, because yesterday my wife texted me at work and said "There's a show I want you to see. Black Mirror season 3 episode 1." I hadn't heard of it before, she showed it to me last night, and now I see this.
joining with the fast-food, airport, home care, child care and higher education workers who are leading the way and showing the country how to build an economy
Because everybody knows that Uber drivers, fast-food, airport, home care, child care, and higher education workers are the best experts to look to for economic knowledge.
While I'm no fan of government regulation, I have the feeling that this is part-and-parcel of "too big to fail", and requires government intervention. Companies should not be allowed to grow beyond a certain size. If a company reaches that size, it must divest or split itself into smaller, independent entities.
Surely the main reason we have such monstrously large companies is government intervention in the first place, due to the "too big to fail" mentality.
when "Mexican" is a nationality and arguably an ethnicity, not a race
I'm kind of surprised how much traction this idea got as a refutation to Trump's racism. Trump was a jerk to Mexicans, and I call that racism, but you can call it something else if you want. I would never want to see him imposed on my Spanish-speaking friends, so there was no way in the world Trump was ever going to get a vote from me.
And there's no left-wing media fabrication about it. I'm decidedly not left-wing.
Wikipedia's NPOV policy is actually a good standard, although sometimes the implementation leaves something to be desired. And trying to follow it was a very good exercise for me earlier in life. It taught me how to speak about multiple points of view respectfully even when I disagreed with others.
Under NPOV you don't report "absolute truth." You report what people believe, why they believe it, etc. It can be very insightful as a tool to understand other viewpoints.
As if the people who get elected under the secret ballot system are any better than the people who get elected when we can freely show people our ballots. We get abused either way, and the abusers always justify it by saying it's for our own good.
Good for you. Isn't it great that you live in a nation that allows you to think and say all those things where the only consequence is a record is kept on a system that you consciously and freely choose to continue using?
Yes it is, and I don't believe any of that came from democracy. I believe it came from freedom.
I don't look chubby and I've lost 16 pounds this year. I don't live in the suburbs. And I don't have a clue what any of this has to do with what I've said. I don't think I'm disconnected from reality: I'm happily married, a father of 8, involved in several fulfilling community activities.
FYI the guy with the "dickless" comment isn't me. And I'm far past the age to buy beer, although I hardly ever do so unless I need it for cooking bratwurst.
It is, in fact, very useful information that the OP is a voter who does not vote. Depending on his reasons not to vote he can either be swung to one side or should be ignored entirely
Slashdot Mirror
But what this law is effectively doing is removing ownership of the deceased person from the family and passing it to the state.
Exactly! And while I'm sure we all know some people who have terrible families, I think the state is all too happy to play on fears of individual families making the "wrong" decision and to present itself as the enlightened benevolent decision maker who should have the right to decide.
Just to throw out some "slippery slope" possibilities -- could the government also decide that you are "opt-in" to a DNR order by default?
That is the specific slippery slope scenario I have in mind. And I've actually worried about that since the late 1980s.
This gets very, very tricky. I don't think presumed consent in this particular area bothers me per se, but I can imagine a lot of other issues where presumed consent would scare the living daylights out of me. Sounds like a very slippery slope.
I got the opposite of you. I insinuated that socialism was bad and teachers jumped on me.
The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open. The State governments have proven themselves powerless to stand against even the smallest tyrannies time and time again. Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
And they established a fantastically effective and expensive compulsory school system to teach all this stuff so that would noone would ever question the need for a strong federal government
Space bar is not a crazy keystroke and has nothing to do with HTML standards. I would seriously fire a web developer who spoke like this.
Yes, but some experts want you to give them more attention, so therefore they have concluded your attention span is not long enough.
I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.
No, at that point what you have is one possible service provider in a potentially competitive market - as opposed to the monopoly system we have now.
No, under anarchy, you have the right to defend yourself; you just don't have the right to force other people to pay for your defense. So, for example, if you believe you need to go to war against brown people in the Middle East to defend yourself, you could; you just couldn't force everybody who disagrees to support you financially and give their children up for a draft.
But someone has to set policy for all of you, otherwise you just have anarchy
Anarchy would be awesome. That's the state of not having parasites (rulers). Or as I like to call it, being grown up. Setting rules simply for the sake of having rules is ridiculous.
Being welcomed to a country you are not citizen of is not a human right
Being able to buy and sell and rent property and employ people is. The government doesn't own this country and has no right to set policy for all of us.
It's so freaky to see this today, because yesterday my wife texted me at work and said "There's a show I want you to see. Black Mirror season 3 episode 1." I hadn't heard of it before, she showed it to me last night, and now I see this.
joining with the fast-food, airport, home care, child care and higher education workers who are leading the way and showing the country how to build an economy
Because everybody knows that Uber drivers, fast-food, airport, home care, child care, and higher education workers are the best experts to look to for economic knowledge.
While I'm no fan of government regulation, I have the feeling that this is part-and-parcel of "too big to fail", and requires government intervention. Companies should not be allowed to grow beyond a certain size. If a company reaches that size, it must divest or split itself into smaller, independent entities.
Surely the main reason we have such monstrously large companies is government intervention in the first place, due to the "too big to fail" mentality.
"I have certain rules I live by. My first rule I don't believe anything the government tells me." -- George Carlin
Obviously the complete eradication of one's own existence is the best possible solution to those problems.
when "Mexican" is a nationality and arguably an ethnicity, not a race
I'm kind of surprised how much traction this idea got as a refutation to Trump's racism. Trump was a jerk to Mexicans, and I call that racism, but you can call it something else if you want. I would never want to see him imposed on my Spanish-speaking friends, so there was no way in the world Trump was ever going to get a vote from me.
And there's no left-wing media fabrication about it. I'm decidedly not left-wing.
And what is Singles' Day?
The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.
So yet another infringement of free speech.
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias
Wikipedia's NPOV policy is actually a good standard, although sometimes the implementation leaves something to be desired. And trying to follow it was a very good exercise for me earlier in life. It taught me how to speak about multiple points of view respectfully even when I disagreed with others.
Under NPOV you don't report "absolute truth." You report what people believe, why they believe it, etc. It can be very insightful as a tool to understand other viewpoints.
Yoghurt. That's all I have to say. It should not have taken years to change yoghurt to yogurt.
As if the people who get elected under the secret ballot system are any better than the people who get elected when we can freely show people our ballots. We get abused either way, and the abusers always justify it by saying it's for our own good.
Good for you. Isn't it great that you live in a nation that allows you to think and say all those things where the only consequence is a record is kept on a system that you consciously and freely choose to continue using?
Yes it is, and I don't believe any of that came from democracy. I believe it came from freedom.
I don't look chubby and I've lost 16 pounds this year. I don't live in the suburbs. And I don't have a clue what any of this has to do with what I've said. I don't think I'm disconnected from reality: I'm happily married, a father of 8, involved in several fulfilling community activities.
FYI the guy with the "dickless" comment isn't me. And I'm far past the age to buy beer, although I hardly ever do so unless I need it for cooking bratwurst.
It is, in fact, very useful information that the OP is a voter who does not vote. Depending on his reasons not to vote he can either be swung to one side or should be ignored entirely
Or turned over to the authorities. :)