Thank you for not rehashing false information. Since it's a Holiday and I have a bit of extra time let me see how well I can express my opinion.
First, it would be important to classify the heart as a single organ required for life. There are numerous other organs that would fall in to that same category. Additionally, there are singular organs which facilitate procreation, and still more singular organs that would be required to make our appearance (nose, mouth, etc..). It would be best for me to lump all of those organs into the same class when discussing something like the heart, because the morality of transplant and donation would be the same for teach of those organs.
I leave out the brain from the list above very intentionally. The brain is the single organ that defines who we are. While one may argue that other aspects of our appearance define who we are, I simply point out that during our lives our body is constantly changing. If our mind remains our own while our body undergoes physical changes, then our physical appearance can not truly define who we are. You can read the works of Renee Descartes to help understand this perspective.
Those thoughts out of the way, let me further clarify that there are two types of donation. One where a person gives up a part of themselves while alive, the other where a person is diseased and can not offer consent to the removal of parts (which includes any part of the human body, including blood). A person signing a sheet prior to death does not change that point of consent. A person who is dead may have changed their desire to donating an organ prior to death and not been able to communicate that change. I would agree that legally we accept their signature from prior to death, just like we accept the signature of family members offering the donation in lieu of the deceased being able to communicate their desires. This establishes the donors into those that are able to communicate willingness, and those that can not. It is important to note that people that are unable to express their desire based on other reasons (coma, anesthetics, etc..) would still be in the category that can communicate willingness.
Deceased When a person is unable to communicate willingness there should be no legal or moral issues with donating organs, with numerous caveats and either prior consent or consent of immediate family. Caveats include that the process for receipt of donations must be fair and impartial. The removal of organs should be performed in a way that respects the body (no mutilation). Financial incentives for donation should be minimized to reduce illegal harvesting of organs. The health of the organs should be tested to ensure recipients receive healthy organs. There should be no attempt to acquire or damage organs that have been excluded from donation. There should be no attempt to coerce additional donations from the family. I could become more detailed, but in the essence of time and continuity will end this list of caveats. I will add that many of these protections are already in place to some degree.
Living Consensual When a person is willing to donate, there should be no legal or moral issues with donation with numerous legal and moral caveats (as with those that are unable to communicate). A person should not be allowed to end their own life in order to donate an organ (which does indicate that a person could not donate their heart). A person should not allow the mutilation of their body in the process of donating an organ. Any financial compensation from donation must be minimized to nullify the risk of people harvesting organs for profit. If the person would damage their body to the point where they would become a burden on society the donation should be denied. Risks associated with certain types of operations both for the donor and recipient should weigh heavily on whether or not the operation is allowed. Most of these items are things we currently do, with the exception of reducing the valu
I also did not state that people weren't harmed by illegal organ harvests, I simply said there was little evidence of it.
What? I'm sorry, but you can't redefine words on the fly and maintain any form of logic. This is another string of broken logic. You obviously see no problem with Bill Clinton redefining "is", therefor you can never be wrong and never have to review facts.
Not answering an unrelated question is not being defensive, it's trying to maintain focus and continuity of the current stream of thought. I can suggest you spend a whole lot of time studying Socrates to learn why continuity of thought is important. He's a great example of a great mind.
I'm pointing out a reality, where people are being given choices that they may not be healthy enough to make. If we already have this issue today, why would that reality change with body donation? It would not, and your assertion that it would be different is not grounded in reality.
I simply asked you questions. It's not a tactic and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply asking questions. Attacking me or assigning me motives has nothing to do with the debate. Telling someone to go find it themselves is considered poor form and would never be accepted in a formal debate.
First, it is a tactic to divert the topic. Whether you did so intentionally or not is not being called out, nor should it be.
2nd point, asking you to read something on the same page less than 6 inches above is very reasonable. It's not requiring you to do anything except for using the scroll bar. If I had said to "go to the library" or "go purchase my book" sure that would be an unreasonable request.
_YOU_ provided the negative. You claimed that people are not harmed by organ theft. It is very easy to determine that your statement was false by using the positive I started with. Then you use fallacy and bad logic attempting to defend your initial statement. Why not just admit that you are wrong?
As I mentioned previously, correcting bad logic is not an attack. If you sincerely perceive it as an attack, you should seriously consider seeking professional help. I can't possibly tell from where I sit what your real thoughts are. You could simply be playing ignorant to appease some immature emotional desire. This is why several points do not claim you are delusional or broken, but rather point out that you are delusional/broken if you truly believe your own position (I.E. denying facts, refuting fact with opinion).
I won't bother with your last paragraph, because it diverts from the points already provided. If I answer that, as I did with "solving the black market issue" you can simply point to another scenario which you believe to be different. It's not the topic, and not what I wrote about so be content with the answers provided. If there is future topics regarding heart transplants perhaps we can discuss it there, assuming that you can stay on topic.
The fallacy you made was comparing a whole body to an organ or some blood. They are not the same, and my example was to show how it was different. Your assumption that I approve of prisoner having organs removed is wrong. Why not ask my opinion instead of inserting it for me? The example was given to show here ethics has already taken us. There have been numerous governments suggesting that we could/should harvest organs of prisoners. While it's not legal, the dialogue has already been opened.
Since you believe it's none of your or my business what other people do, consider that euthanasia may be granted to elderly people with Alzheimer's and autistic children in a country in Europe soon. If the mentally disabled can choose to kill themselves, would they be able to choose to be body donors? That thought should bother you. It is society's job to protect those that can not protect themselves.
I've asked you very specific questions which you choose not to answer. Are you against heart transplants is a question that requires a simple yes/no. Why not just say so.
Untrue, I told you that I had already written my opinion so there was no need to rewrite the statement. A lack of desire to find information does not magically make things not exist. Nor does someone pointing to a written statement in the same thread instead of rewriting the statement mean that they choose not to provide an opinion. If you believe what you stated to be correct, you have a brain not working properly. If it was the first time you had chosen a tactic, I may have a different opinion of you. You have used the same broken logic several times now.
Any claim can be made, but you have yet to provide a single source for your claim. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative.
Same statement as above applies. You stated very clearly that currently people are not harmed for organs. Google is very easy to use, and you can easily find that your statement is not true. If you want me to be a dick, I could post some "let me google that for you" links, but there is no need. You were and are dishonest, and your failure to look at facts does not make facts non-existent. It means that you have a delusion that you don't want to get rid of by reviewing facts contrary to your belief. Stating that you can't find evidence that I'm correct while conceding the point is a circular statement with no logical definition since the two statements conflict and negate each other.
My last point on that topic is that if it was so hard to find information on the subject, why is there a whole Wiki page on it?
I don't propose a solution to the black market organ trade, because that is not the subject the post is about. The post, and article are about whole body transplants, which is for the 3rd time different. If you donate a kidney, willing or not, you can still live. If you donate your body, willing or not, you don't. I would agree that body snatching is a speculation. That speculation is grounded in what we currently know in criminal activity, combined with what we know humans are capable of. Humans are not all good, and we can't ignore that when talking ethics and logic.
What I did propose a solution to, is limiting the impact of science in areas that become detrimental to innocent humans.
Back to your diversionary question "how to fix black market organ trade" the issue is not solvable by humans. Just like drug use is not solvable, nor is gambling, theft, murder, etc... Many things are done because we are taught greed, and have a need to survive and a desire to prosper. That is human nature, and while we are humans we live with our own reality. We could teach something other than greed, but that would not fix our need to survive or desire to prosper. We catch people doing illegal things and punish them appropriately to keep society as safe as possible, but that is not a "fix".
Personally I don't believe that a person gets schooled by someone dumping out a few sentences of simple to spot fallacy. But I am glad to see that the week minded among us are still easily fooled by appeals to emotion, straw men, and red herrings. "MERUHKUH!" right?
Yup, you are correct it was a different post to start, in my defense autosort on reload seemed to not notice. My apologies for having you confused with a different post. That said, my position is still in my original post and I did answer someone else regarding my position on organ transplants. The answer does not change, nor does my opinion regarding there being a huge difference between an organ transplant or blood transfusion, and being able to put a head onto a new body.
If you read down from my original post searching for my name you can find the opinions. No sense in re-hashing what I have already written. Other points require no re-reading, such as the current black market for organs which causes harm and death to innocents.
Good thing we have superior master race philosopher-princes such as yourself to show the way then, eh?
This is a straw man argument, in addition to an appeal to emotion. Is it not the currently considered master race's philosophers coming up with this type of tech and you believing them to be right? Yeah, please go study some basic rhetoric because that statement is a failure.
No, we aren't. Nowhere near. There is ample food and fresh water for the entire human race right now and plenty to spare. Where there are shortages the problems are invariably political.
With the shit we are getting that people are calling science, you don't know this. No more than the scientists that have claimed that the Earth can not sustain more than 2 billion humans with our current use of materials and abuse of ecosystems can be absolutely sure. Since that science takes current use, dumping, processing, pollution, and other factors into account I'll take their work over your sci-fi speculation myself.
Energy from the planet? What is that? You want energy it's raining on us from all sides and on high. If you covered a single digit percentage of the unused portions of the Sahara with old fashioned PV cells you could easily supply enough energy for all of Europe. And although I'm sure that a superior intellect such as yourself doesn't need this pointed out, that's not a recommended course of action but an illustration of the universe of insane abundance we live in. NO we do not require oil for transportation, NO we do not require oil for plastics, NO we do not require oil for fucking fertiliser, google the reasons yourself.
Red herring. Even if it's technically feasible, we currently use oil for all of these things. Wait, maybe you are the master race's philosopher that will get us to change our evil ways and do something not being done? I'm fine if you want to be the pitch man, but your argument is irrational because it's not what we are currently doing!
Hopefully this shock therapy has rattled your teeth enough that you'll think twice before unloading another bladderload on the internet.
I do realize that you were not talking to me, but who's teeth do you plan to rattle with science fiction material? Who is exactly unloading a bladder load, when you refute some relatively easy to find scientific study with sci-fi material? *shrug* Last I checked, we are trying to use Star Trek for ideas, but we currently can't use water for fuel in our Warp Drives man!
Are you arguing that organ donation is bad because someone might be killed for their organs?
You are the one that brought up organ donation, as if its the same as the article covers. It is not the same, and I have corrected you on that twice.
You stated that there is nobody being killed currently for their organs. I told you that was absolutely wrong, and gave you the way to find out how you were wrong.
Correcting false statements is not an attack, it's correcting false statements. There is a vast difference which should be obvious.
The answer to the dilemma in my opinion was given in my original post. The one that where you made a strawman argument that I was against organ donation and blood transfer, remember? If not, go back and read it again. I then pointed out that my opinion is not against organ donation, but donations which could cause someone to lose their life to benefit someone with enough money. Something that you deny based on your opinion, not based on facts, happens today.
There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy.
Your failure to look for and find information does not mean that things do not exist. There is a very large black market of organ thefts, and very well documented.
Your second point is just as bad. Science has been able to clone organs for some time for humans as well, but the black market still exists. Hmm, can you logically comprehend that this market would still exist even if all legal restrictions were lifted? If not, you really really should work on your reasoning skills because they are broken. It would be cheaper to steal organs than clone them, so the market would still exist. It also has something to do with greed, and people wanting things that they currently don't have and doing anything to get them. If Richguy1 want's a new heart, does he want the defected one he was born with that was cloned or an athlete's heart that worked better than average? Richguy2 was born with a tiny penis, and wants the biggest he can find in his own color. If that's you and you wake up having to pee like a woman the rest of your life.. well, you keep on thinking that everyone in the world is a good guy looking out for your best interests.
If it was not the law protecting people, then why have they tried so hard to hide it? Why are they attacking a person that released information on a perfectly legal activity, with perfectly legal data?
Some people simply disgust me, and no I'm not going to get her point when the title of the essay intends to diminish the fact that the Government broke it's own laws. Whether or not there were meritorious points in the article the INTENT is wrong!
I find it really really interesting that while all of this starts to hit the press, all that CNN, ABC, NBC and Fox can talk about for a week is a bullshit trial in Florida where the same media has created a circus of ethnic hatred. It's now using the bait it put sugar on 2 years ago so that everyone tries to look at something other than the Government Agencies and their heads that broke the law and should be in jail.
Shame on you if you continue to fall for this open propaganda and brainwashing.
1200 people from Bangladesh just whispered "go read a newspaper". People already sacrifice themselves so that someone makes an extra buck, so what's different if they want more time on Earth to make more bucks? Of course we should probably ignore reality so that you can maintain your delusion right?
You give an easy to spot fallacy. If I get a flat tire, can I demand to take your whole car? Quite a bit different, so you should hold your comments about whack jobs until you behave unlike one.
A more comparative analogy would be "Do I object to someone having all of their blood removed in order to save their brother's life?" Yup, to me that crosses the line. How about "Do I object to a prisoner getting both kidneys removed in order to give a rich guy a longer life?" Absolutely, the prisoner needs at least 1 kidney to live.
Relatively speaking, how many people die of gunshots or stabbings to the head that could facilitate a body transplant? Not many, but of course as with other things if we allow something like this to be pursued we'd probably see an increase in those types of deaths. You know, just so someone can make enough money to live for a year while giving someone else a new life. It already happens for organs in some countries, so lets not make believe that this would be any different.
For posterity, I stated "could" and not "would". Go read an English and basic Rhetoric book! The speculation is fair given the following.
How much of the brains natural decay is based on other illnesses in the body? Lower blood flow with age due to artery congestion? Poisons in the system due to liver, kidney, appendix, intestines wearing out? How about decreased oxygen in the blood from unhealthy lungs? Poor break down of nutrients from aging stomach and intestinal tract?
It's fair to assume that it would make a huge difference based on normal human growth patterns.
In addition to young body benefits, you are discounting that medication, vitamins and specific diets can never prolong the life span of the brain.
I assume that we will make progress in those areas, and the brain can be better for wear than the rest of the body in time.
Longevity via healthy diet, exercise, medication, cures to diseases, etc.. is not the same as being able to remove a part or whole of a body from a different person and use it as you see fit.
Do you have more money than Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Rupert Murdoch? David Rockefeller? Probably not. What if you have a physique that they want? It allows abuse at an unknown level. Naively believing that these people don't cause harm is denying facts. Naively believing it can't be you as a recipient is also denying facts.
Morally and ethically, this simply should not happen and should not be pursued. There are boundaries we need to maintain for the safety of humanity.
In essence, this could provide eternal life to someone with enough cash. Typically those are not the most outstanding members of society that hold society's best interests as their own. How many nobles slaughtered their own as well as others for the fountain of youth? Go read a history book!
As a followup to my other response, if this magical backdoor into every Windows system on the planet is so great, then why was there a need for Stuxnet to ever come into existence?
The NSA should have built-in access to every Iranian Windows computer without the need for highly complex malware package!
You fail to understand the difference between a back door and spyware. A back door would allow the installation of such a piece of software, but would not be the spyware itself. This code worked around normal protection in Windows for security and privilege escalation, as well as avoided malicious software detection from AV software. In addition, there has been information leaked that told you that there are back doors in Windows for the US Government (and perhaps other Governments). The part that was not clear is whether NSA has people working at MS to ensure that they have and know about back doors, or MS employees facilitate their whims for creating these back doors.
I use 2-3 monitors side by side, just like the person above. To code, debug, etc.. I have to move those windows all over the place. Having a desktop remove my real estate is foolish, and yes certain apps lock you into a certain mode where I can't have freedom.
Some things have just become hidden, and people have to learn new methods of finding them. Other things, like screen real estate are not excusable. If you sit on Warcraft all day, you won't care. If you actually use the screens actively, Win 8 and 8.1 cause harm.
Since I use my screens, I don't want flashy shit all over. I don't want default neon that I have to tone down just to be able to focus on what I need to do. I want and need clean, effective, easy to control window management. Win 8.x is like some kids toy in appearance, like the Facebook Home app for phones. Why not just let professional's work?
By the way, that is the one thing that is simply not excusable. Other things, sure we can learn new ways. Screen management is obstructive, not constructive. If you defend that and give work around side by side BS, I will believe you are just a shill.
It is a way to turn a quick buck and show the shareholders that MS can make money with something other than XBox. Let us look at the long list of garbage shareholders are dealing with at MS.
Windows Phone is a dud, Windows 8 was simply horrible and I'm not sure if they can make it work. They keep pumping money into advertising, and people keep pulling out the old MAC vs. PC commercial telling them how stupid that tactic was and still is.
Server is still losing market share to Linux and Desktops are losing market share to tablets, phones, and MAC computers. It was never a boom town, but Exchange and Outlook was cheaper than Lotus Notes so people went that route.
IIS never saw huge adoption, but the reduced server footprint means that more webapp servers are moving to something other than MS products. Office and other productivity software has been stagnant for over a decade.
Bing is still a joke, and as with Windows 8 they keep paying people to tell you how good it is when we all see what the search engine market looks like.
So this is a way of them screwing people in order to turn a quick buck. Even if it shoots their own foot off, they don't care. I have two words for people thinking that they do care, which is "Windows 8".
All in all, I believe that this is a good thing! While it has taken a long time for justice to happen, and the failure of the US Justice system to make happen, Capitalism is killing off a monopoly all on it's own. It's going to be a slow and painful death, but a well deserved one. It also shows that a corrupt justice system just makes things worse! If they would have done their job in the first place and chunked them up like AT&T, they might still be thriving as several separate companies. (I emphasize the "might" there because it is a rhetorical fallacy to make a claim.)
^THIS^! Any excuse they can find to make it a "normal" will be given, no matter how many people tell them that it's dangerous. I think people are finally starting to catch on to the game, but they are slow to waken. The more people nudging them the sooner they awake.
The people in power have been outsourcing everything possible to off shore work, against the law in many cases (several pieces of DOD work have been outsourced to South American countries). The only thing they are trying to keep local are the people needed to implement a police state when desired.
You only need to look at what they are doing and compare that to the state of our economy to figure out that they want the country to collapse. They are trying as hard as they can to make it collapse without being obviously criminal.
I did spell out the formal fallacy, learn to read. There is no reason to point out an informal fallacy when the formal was used prior and given. An ad hominem would not be correct for a debate, but we are not debating. You can scream untrue statements all you like, it does not somehow make them true. You can read the Wiki page for fallacy all you like, and still not understand enough rhetoric and logical skills to use the terminology that you find there. Pasting them here won't make you any more correct, when you are starting with provably false statements.
Since you fail to understand that making false statements is a formal fallacy there is no point in discussing anything else. Labeling me as giving a fallacy based on an untruth does not make you correct, it makes you a habitual liar (narcissistic?). Yelling unfair when told you presented an untrue statement does not make your statement true. Continuing to use informal fallacy to justify your first position based in falsehood won't make you correct either.
Those are very basic rules of logical debate, of which you seem to understand absolutely nothing about.
If you have hurt feelings, grow up and admit when you are wrong. If you behave like an ass, expect to be treated like an ass.
If anything, one recent study suggests, the growth of immigrant workers in American companies helps younger American technical workers — more of them are hired and at higher-paying jobs — but has no noticeable consequences, good or bad, on older workers.'"
Those same people seem to think that NAFTA really helps American's as well, but our economy in shambles for well over a decade seems to prove them wrong. And no, I will not bend logic to suit their purposes as they do to suit themselves.
Providing lower paying jobs for non citizens while taking away jobs from US Citizens does not increase pay for US Citizens. The fact is that it reduces US jobs and harms the economy. The Henry Ford model was right and we have Detroit and Flint's economy and collapses to show he was correct. These people are just idiots, and it's too bad that so many suckers actually believe their bullspit.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for not rehashing false information. Since it's a Holiday and I have a bit of extra time let me see how well I can express my opinion.
First, it would be important to classify the heart as a single organ required for life. There are numerous other organs that would fall in to that same category. Additionally, there are singular organs which facilitate procreation, and still more singular organs that would be required to make our appearance (nose, mouth, etc..). It would be best for me to lump all of those organs into the same class when discussing something like the heart, because the morality of transplant and donation would be the same for teach of those organs.
I leave out the brain from the list above very intentionally. The brain is the single organ that defines who we are. While one may argue that other aspects of our appearance define who we are, I simply point out that during our lives our body is constantly changing. If our mind remains our own while our body undergoes physical changes, then our physical appearance can not truly define who we are. You can read the works of Renee Descartes to help understand this perspective.
Those thoughts out of the way, let me further clarify that there are two types of donation. One where a person gives up a part of themselves while alive, the other where a person is diseased and can not offer consent to the removal of parts (which includes any part of the human body, including blood). A person signing a sheet prior to death does not change that point of consent. A person who is dead may have changed their desire to donating an organ prior to death and not been able to communicate that change. I would agree that legally we accept their signature from prior to death, just like we accept the signature of family members offering the donation in lieu of the deceased being able to communicate their desires. This establishes the donors into those that are able to communicate willingness, and those that can not. It is important to note that people that are unable to express their desire based on other reasons (coma, anesthetics, etc..) would still be in the category that can communicate willingness.
Deceased When a person is unable to communicate willingness there should be no legal or moral issues with donating organs, with numerous caveats and either prior consent or consent of immediate family. Caveats include that the process for receipt of donations must be fair and impartial. The removal of organs should be performed in a way that respects the body (no mutilation). Financial incentives for donation should be minimized to reduce illegal harvesting of organs. The health of the organs should be tested to ensure recipients receive healthy organs. There should be no attempt to acquire or damage organs that have been excluded from donation. There should be no attempt to coerce additional donations from the family. I could become more detailed, but in the essence of time and continuity will end this list of caveats. I will add that many of these protections are already in place to some degree.
Living Consensual When a person is willing to donate, there should be no legal or moral issues with donation with numerous legal and moral caveats (as with those that are unable to communicate). A person should not be allowed to end their own life in order to donate an organ (which does indicate that a person could not donate their heart). A person should not allow the mutilation of their body in the process of donating an organ. Any financial compensation from donation must be minimized to nullify the risk of people harvesting organs for profit. If the person would damage their body to the point where they would become a burden on society the donation should be denied. Risks associated with certain types of operations both for the donor and recipient should weigh heavily on whether or not the operation is allowed. Most of these items are things we currently do, with the exception of reducing the valu
I also did not state that people weren't harmed by illegal organ harvests, I simply said there was little evidence of it.
What? I'm sorry, but you can't redefine words on the fly and maintain any form of logic. This is another string of broken logic. You obviously see no problem with Bill Clinton redefining "is", therefor you can never be wrong and never have to review facts.
Not answering an unrelated question is not being defensive, it's trying to maintain focus and continuity of the current stream of thought. I can suggest you spend a whole lot of time studying Socrates to learn why continuity of thought is important. He's a great example of a great mind.
I'm pointing out a reality, where people are being given choices that they may not be healthy enough to make. If we already have this issue today, why would that reality change with body donation? It would not, and your assertion that it would be different is not grounded in reality.
I simply asked you questions. It's not a tactic and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply asking questions. Attacking me or assigning me motives has nothing to do with the debate. Telling someone to go find it themselves is considered poor form and would never be accepted in a formal debate.
First, it is a tactic to divert the topic. Whether you did so intentionally or not is not being called out, nor should it be.
2nd point, asking you to read something on the same page less than 6 inches above is very reasonable. It's not requiring you to do anything except for using the scroll bar. If I had said to "go to the library" or "go purchase my book" sure that would be an unreasonable request.
_YOU_ provided the negative. You claimed that people are not harmed by organ theft. It is very easy to determine that your statement was false by using the positive I started with. Then you use fallacy and bad logic attempting to defend your initial statement. Why not just admit that you are wrong?
As I mentioned previously, correcting bad logic is not an attack. If you sincerely perceive it as an attack, you should seriously consider seeking professional help. I can't possibly tell from where I sit what your real thoughts are. You could simply be playing ignorant to appease some immature emotional desire. This is why several points do not claim you are delusional or broken, but rather point out that you are delusional/broken if you truly believe your own position (I.E. denying facts, refuting fact with opinion).
I won't bother with your last paragraph, because it diverts from the points already provided. If I answer that, as I did with "solving the black market issue" you can simply point to another scenario which you believe to be different. It's not the topic, and not what I wrote about so be content with the answers provided. If there is future topics regarding heart transplants perhaps we can discuss it there, assuming that you can stay on topic.
The fallacy you made was comparing a whole body to an organ or some blood. They are not the same, and my example was to show how it was different. Your assumption that I approve of prisoner having organs removed is wrong. Why not ask my opinion instead of inserting it for me? The example was given to show here ethics has already taken us. There have been numerous governments suggesting that we could/should harvest organs of prisoners. While it's not legal, the dialogue has already been opened.
Since you believe it's none of your or my business what other people do, consider that euthanasia may be granted to elderly people with Alzheimer's and autistic children in a country in Europe soon. If the mentally disabled can choose to kill themselves, would they be able to choose to be body donors? That thought should bother you. It is society's job to protect those that can not protect themselves.
I've asked you very specific questions which you choose not to answer. Are you against heart transplants is a question that requires a simple yes/no. Why not just say so.
Untrue, I told you that I had already written my opinion so there was no need to rewrite the statement. A lack of desire to find information does not magically make things not exist. Nor does someone pointing to a written statement in the same thread instead of rewriting the statement mean that they choose not to provide an opinion. If you believe what you stated to be correct, you have a brain not working properly. If it was the first time you had chosen a tactic, I may have a different opinion of you. You have used the same broken logic several times now.
Any claim can be made, but you have yet to provide a single source for your claim. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative.
Same statement as above applies. You stated very clearly that currently people are not harmed for organs. Google is very easy to use, and you can easily find that your statement is not true. If you want me to be a dick, I could post some "let me google that for you" links, but there is no need. You were and are dishonest, and your failure to look at facts does not make facts non-existent. It means that you have a delusion that you don't want to get rid of by reviewing facts contrary to your belief. Stating that you can't find evidence that I'm correct while conceding the point is a circular statement with no logical definition since the two statements conflict and negate each other.
My last point on that topic is that if it was so hard to find information on the subject, why is there a whole Wiki page on it?
I don't propose a solution to the black market organ trade, because that is not the subject the post is about. The post, and article are about whole body transplants, which is for the 3rd time different. If you donate a kidney, willing or not, you can still live. If you donate your body, willing or not, you don't. I would agree that body snatching is a speculation. That speculation is grounded in what we currently know in criminal activity, combined with what we know humans are capable of. Humans are not all good, and we can't ignore that when talking ethics and logic.
What I did propose a solution to, is limiting the impact of science in areas that become detrimental to innocent humans.
Back to your diversionary question "how to fix black market organ trade" the issue is not solvable by humans. Just like drug use is not solvable, nor is gambling, theft, murder, etc... Many things are done because we are taught greed, and have a need to survive and a desire to prosper. That is human nature, and while we are humans we live with our own reality. We could teach something other than greed, but that would not fix our need to survive or desire to prosper. We catch people doing illegal things and punish them appropriately to keep society as safe as possible, but that is not a "fix".
Personally I don't believe that a person gets schooled by someone dumping out a few sentences of simple to spot fallacy. But I am glad to see that the week minded among us are still easily fooled by appeals to emotion, straw men, and red herrings. "MERUHKUH!" right?
Yup, you are correct it was a different post to start, in my defense autosort on reload seemed to not notice. My apologies for having you confused with a different post. That said, my position is still in my original post and I did answer someone else regarding my position on organ transplants. The answer does not change, nor does my opinion regarding there being a huge difference between an organ transplant or blood transfusion, and being able to put a head onto a new body.
If you read down from my original post searching for my name you can find the opinions. No sense in re-hashing what I have already written. Other points require no re-reading, such as the current black market for organs which causes harm and death to innocents.
Good thing we have superior master race philosopher-princes such as yourself to show the way then, eh?
This is a straw man argument, in addition to an appeal to emotion. Is it not the currently considered master race's philosophers coming up with this type of tech and you believing them to be right? Yeah, please go study some basic rhetoric because that statement is a failure.
No, we aren't. Nowhere near. There is ample food and fresh water for the entire human race right now and plenty to spare. Where there are shortages the problems are invariably political.
With the shit we are getting that people are calling science, you don't know this. No more than the scientists that have claimed that the Earth can not sustain more than 2 billion humans with our current use of materials and abuse of ecosystems can be absolutely sure. Since that science takes current use, dumping, processing, pollution, and other factors into account I'll take their work over your sci-fi speculation myself.
Energy from the planet? What is that? You want energy it's raining on us from all sides and on high. If you covered a single digit percentage of the unused portions of the Sahara with old fashioned PV cells you could easily supply enough energy for all of Europe. And although I'm sure that a superior intellect such as yourself doesn't need this pointed out, that's not a recommended course of action but an illustration of the universe of insane abundance we live in. NO we do not require oil for transportation, NO we do not require oil for plastics, NO we do not require oil for fucking fertiliser, google the reasons yourself.
Red herring. Even if it's technically feasible, we currently use oil for all of these things. Wait, maybe you are the master race's philosopher that will get us to change our evil ways and do something not being done? I'm fine if you want to be the pitch man, but your argument is irrational because it's not what we are currently doing!
Hopefully this shock therapy has rattled your teeth enough that you'll think twice before unloading another bladderload on the internet.
I do realize that you were not talking to me, but who's teeth do you plan to rattle with science fiction material? Who is exactly unloading a bladder load, when you refute some relatively easy to find scientific study with sci-fi material? *shrug* Last I checked, we are trying to use Star Trek for ideas, but we currently can't use water for fuel in our Warp Drives man!
Are you arguing that organ donation is bad because someone might be killed for their organs?
You are the one that brought up organ donation, as if its the same as the article covers. It is not the same, and I have corrected you on that twice.
You stated that there is nobody being killed currently for their organs. I told you that was absolutely wrong, and gave you the way to find out how you were wrong.
Correcting false statements is not an attack, it's correcting false statements. There is a vast difference which should be obvious.
The answer to the dilemma in my opinion was given in my original post. The one that where you made a strawman argument that I was against organ donation and blood transfer, remember? If not, go back and read it again. I then pointed out that my opinion is not against organ donation, but donations which could cause someone to lose their life to benefit someone with enough money. Something that you deny based on your opinion, not based on facts, happens today.
There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy.
Your failure to look for and find information does not mean that things do not exist. There is a very large black market of organ thefts, and very well documented.
Your second point is just as bad. Science has been able to clone organs for some time for humans as well, but the black market still exists. Hmm, can you logically comprehend that this market would still exist even if all legal restrictions were lifted? If not, you really really should work on your reasoning skills because they are broken. It would be cheaper to steal organs than clone them, so the market would still exist. It also has something to do with greed, and people wanting things that they currently don't have and doing anything to get them. If Richguy1 want's a new heart, does he want the defected one he was born with that was cloned or an athlete's heart that worked better than average? Richguy2 was born with a tiny penis, and wants the biggest he can find in his own color. If that's you and you wake up having to pee like a woman the rest of your life.. well, you keep on thinking that everyone in the world is a good guy looking out for your best interests.
If it was not the law protecting people, then why have they tried so hard to hide it? Why are they attacking a person that released information on a perfectly legal activity, with perfectly legal data?
Some people simply disgust me, and no I'm not going to get her point when the title of the essay intends to diminish the fact that the Government broke it's own laws. Whether or not there were meritorious points in the article the INTENT is wrong!
I find it really really interesting that while all of this starts to hit the press, all that CNN, ABC, NBC and Fox can talk about for a week is a bullshit trial in Florida where the same media has created a circus of ethnic hatred. It's now using the bait it put sugar on 2 years ago so that everyone tries to look at something other than the Government Agencies and their heads that broke the law and should be in jail.
Shame on you if you continue to fall for this open propaganda and brainwashing.
1200 people from Bangladesh just whispered "go read a newspaper". People already sacrifice themselves so that someone makes an extra buck, so what's different if they want more time on Earth to make more bucks? Of course we should probably ignore reality so that you can maintain your delusion right?
You give an easy to spot fallacy. If I get a flat tire, can I demand to take your whole car? Quite a bit different, so you should hold your comments about whack jobs until you behave unlike one.
A more comparative analogy would be "Do I object to someone having all of their blood removed in order to save their brother's life?" Yup, to me that crosses the line. How about "Do I object to a prisoner getting both kidneys removed in order to give a rich guy a longer life?" Absolutely, the prisoner needs at least 1 kidney to live.
Relatively speaking, how many people die of gunshots or stabbings to the head that could facilitate a body transplant? Not many, but of course as with other things if we allow something like this to be pursued we'd probably see an increase in those types of deaths. You know, just so someone can make enough money to live for a year while giving someone else a new life. It already happens for organs in some countries, so lets not make believe that this would be any different.
For posterity, I stated "could" and not "would". Go read an English and basic Rhetoric book! The speculation is fair given the following.
How much of the brains natural decay is based on other illnesses in the body? Lower blood flow with age due to artery congestion? Poisons in the system due to liver, kidney, appendix, intestines wearing out? How about decreased oxygen in the blood from unhealthy lungs? Poor break down of nutrients from aging stomach and intestinal tract?
It's fair to assume that it would make a huge difference based on normal human growth patterns.
In addition to young body benefits, you are discounting that medication, vitamins and specific diets can never prolong the life span of the brain.
I assume that we will make progress in those areas, and the brain can be better for wear than the rest of the body in time.
Longevity via healthy diet, exercise, medication, cures to diseases, etc.. is not the same as being able to remove a part or whole of a body from a different person and use it as you see fit.
Do you have more money than Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Rupert Murdoch? David Rockefeller? Probably not. What if you have a physique that they want? It allows abuse at an unknown level. Naively believing that these people don't cause harm is denying facts. Naively believing it can't be you as a recipient is also denying facts.
Morally and ethically, this simply should not happen and should not be pursued. There are boundaries we need to maintain for the safety of humanity.
In essence, this could provide eternal life to someone with enough cash. Typically those are not the most outstanding members of society that hold society's best interests as their own. How many nobles slaughtered their own as well as others for the fountain of youth? Go read a history book!
As a followup to my other response, if this magical backdoor into every Windows system on the planet is so great, then why was there a need for Stuxnet to ever come into existence?
The NSA should have built-in access to every Iranian Windows computer without the need for highly complex malware package!
You fail to understand the difference between a back door and spyware. A back door would allow the installation of such a piece of software, but would not be the spyware itself. This code worked around normal protection in Windows for security and privilege escalation, as well as avoided malicious software detection from AV software. In addition, there has been information leaked that told you that there are back doors in Windows for the US Government (and perhaps other Governments). The part that was not clear is whether NSA has people working at MS to ensure that they have and know about back doors, or MS employees facilitate their whims for creating these back doors.
I use 2-3 monitors side by side, just like the person above. To code, debug, etc.. I have to move those windows all over the place. Having a desktop remove my real estate is foolish, and yes certain apps lock you into a certain mode where I can't have freedom.
Some things have just become hidden, and people have to learn new methods of finding them. Other things, like screen real estate are not excusable. If you sit on Warcraft all day, you won't care. If you actually use the screens actively, Win 8 and 8.1 cause harm.
Since I use my screens, I don't want flashy shit all over. I don't want default neon that I have to tone down just to be able to focus on what I need to do. I want and need clean, effective, easy to control window management. Win 8.x is like some kids toy in appearance, like the Facebook Home app for phones. Why not just let professional's work?
By the way, that is the one thing that is simply not excusable. Other things, sure we can learn new ways. Screen management is obstructive, not constructive. If you defend that and give work around side by side BS, I will believe you are just a shill.
It is a way to turn a quick buck and show the shareholders that MS can make money with something other than XBox. Let us look at the long list of garbage shareholders are dealing with at MS.
Windows Phone is a dud, Windows 8 was simply horrible and I'm not sure if they can make it work. They keep pumping money into advertising, and people keep pulling out the old MAC vs. PC commercial telling them how stupid that tactic was and still is.
Server is still losing market share to Linux and Desktops are losing market share to tablets, phones, and MAC computers. It was never a boom town, but Exchange and Outlook was cheaper than Lotus Notes so people went that route.
IIS never saw huge adoption, but the reduced server footprint means that more webapp servers are moving to something other than MS products. Office and other productivity software has been stagnant for over a decade.
Bing is still a joke, and as with Windows 8 they keep paying people to tell you how good it is when we all see what the search engine market looks like.
So this is a way of them screwing people in order to turn a quick buck. Even if it shoots their own foot off, they don't care. I have two words for people thinking that they do care, which is "Windows 8".
All in all, I believe that this is a good thing! While it has taken a long time for justice to happen, and the failure of the US Justice system to make happen, Capitalism is killing off a monopoly all on it's own. It's going to be a slow and painful death, but a well deserved one. It also shows that a corrupt justice system just makes things worse! If they would have done their job in the first place and chunked them up like AT&T, they might still be thriving as several separate companies. (I emphasize the "might" there because it is a rhetorical fallacy to make a claim.)
^THIS^! Any excuse they can find to make it a "normal" will be given, no matter how many people tell them that it's dangerous. I think people are finally starting to catch on to the game, but they are slow to waken. The more people nudging them the sooner they awake.
What I mentioned is not a private company, this is the US Government shitting on US Citizens. The difference is huge!
The people in power have been outsourcing everything possible to off shore work, against the law in many cases (several pieces of DOD work have been outsourced to South American countries). The only thing they are trying to keep local are the people needed to implement a police state when desired.
You only need to look at what they are doing and compare that to the state of our economy to figure out that they want the country to collapse. They are trying as hard as they can to make it collapse without being obviously criminal.
I did spell out the formal fallacy, learn to read. There is no reason to point out an informal fallacy when the formal was used prior and given. An ad hominem would not be correct for a debate, but we are not debating. You can scream untrue statements all you like, it does not somehow make them true. You can read the Wiki page for fallacy all you like, and still not understand enough rhetoric and logical skills to use the terminology that you find there. Pasting them here won't make you any more correct, when you are starting with provably false statements.
Since you fail to understand that making false statements is a formal fallacy there is no point in discussing anything else. Labeling me as giving a fallacy based on an untruth does not make you correct, it makes you a habitual liar (narcissistic?). Yelling unfair when told you presented an untrue statement does not make your statement true. Continuing to use informal fallacy to justify your first position based in falsehood won't make you correct either.
Those are very basic rules of logical debate, of which you seem to understand absolutely nothing about.
If you have hurt feelings, grow up and admit when you are wrong. If you behave like an ass, expect to be treated like an ass.
If anything, one recent study suggests, the growth of immigrant workers in American companies helps younger American technical workers — more of them are hired and at higher-paying jobs — but has no noticeable consequences, good or bad, on older workers.'"
Those same people seem to think that NAFTA really helps American's as well, but our economy in shambles for well over a decade seems to prove them wrong. And no, I will not bend logic to suit their purposes as they do to suit themselves.
Providing lower paying jobs for non citizens while taking away jobs from US Citizens does not increase pay for US Citizens. The fact is that it reduces US jobs and harms the economy. The Henry Ford model was right and we have Detroit and Flint's economy and collapses to show he was correct. These people are just idiots, and it's too bad that so many suckers actually believe their bullspit.