zapatos

It has not been predetermined that only one of those is true.

Or perhaps reasonable people don't decide ahead of time to accept or reject everything a person has to say, but instead evaluate their statements independently.

Then what was this?

How exactly is your plan "gonna change a lot" in Syria? If you are going to criticize the plans of others because it won't accomplish much, it's kind of important that your plan would accomplish much.

Would you mind walking me through the logic and signs of application?

Based on what scientific principle?

Yes, I got distracted from demreepr's point when I started thinking about what you said. I need to ruminate on it a bit as I didn't quite realize how things worked there.

I don't think that is what StringJunky is saying.

So the state is essentially deciding that a patient should be allowed to die rather than live (or at least try to live)? Even if all the state has to do is say "I am releasing you from my care into the hands of other care givers"? Sorry, but having a hard time registering this. Your system allows the government to decide to allow someone to die under certain circumstances, even if it can simply remove itself from the equation and let individuals decide for themselves what to do? (now I'm repeating myself) If so, I find that to have similarities with the US stance on the death penalty. We can allow inmates to live but instead take actions that result in someone's death. Seems eerily similar to me.

Understood. I was discussing the NHS proposal that dimreepr suggested. In the case of NHS, do you think a patient should always be able to take over payment for his own care, even if NHS refuses to pay any longer due to a determination that the cost is no longer acceptable?

StringJunky agreed my statement applied in a private system, but did not concede it applied in a universal healthcare system. dimreepr similarly has not conceded that my statement applied in a universal healthcare system. I don't know if that is because they disagree with me, or if it is because they are not seeing the distinction I am making.

It is my feeling that in a universal healthcare system, if the patient can take over payments for his care, then the doctor should not be able to sign a DNR against the patient's wishes.

And I'm suggesting it is not up to the doctor to overrule the wishes of the patient if the patient can pay his own way. It should not be up to the doctor to decide that Bob should not spend Bob's money on extending Bob's life because the doctor decided that the cost outweighs the benefit.

You are confusing 'information' and 'evidence'. Information stands alone. Evidence is information (or data) that supports the validity of what you are asserting.

I suspect the answer is 'never'. If the cost is too great to bear by the state, then perhaps a better solution would be to sign an SSMSUC (Stop Supplying Medical Services Unless Compensated). The state should be under no obligation to spend money it doesn't have, but it should not take on the role of making the decision that a person should die at a certain time regardless of their ability to pay for services.

I see. So using your logic, I can conclude this is probably a Double Secret False Flag. That is, since using chemical weapons on your own people would be too stupid, and therefore fingers would be pointed at the rebels/Israel, we can conclude that the rebels/Israel would never do it either because we would see through their ruse. But Assad knew rebels/Israel would be blamed, and therefore he dropped the chemical weapons himself in order to make his enemies look bad. Then again, maybe it's a Double Double Secret False Flag, where...

If we don't have any evidence either way, then why say "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag"? Surely you must have some evidence if you are going to make such a claim. You mean like pushing the idea that "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag."?

Since you seem to be a big proponent of evidence, will you please provide evidence that indicates this gas attack was a 'false flag'?

In my experience, people who use the term 'false flag', also tend to use terms like 'we the people', 'marriage is between a man and a woman', and 'thug'. They also seem anxious to defend conspiracy theories, concepts of race, and the idea that gays are abnormal. Not saying that is you of course. Just sharing an observation.

I agree, with the exception of "religions have no evidence to support what they claim". It would be more accurate to say they have 'no evidence to support much of or some of what they claim'. It is not a requirement of any religion I've heard of to never have evidence for any claims. Regardless though, Lasse didn't ask "is science a religion", Lasse asked "can science be my religion", and that is why I answered in the affirmative.

I imagine you could call science your religion if you chose to do so. There is a history, texts, artifacts, icons, rituals, people to worship, and you can take everything on faith (you can believe it without ever seeing any evidence).

Science provides an excellent method to determine whether or not this will work.

I lose the AM signal on my radio driving my car under an overpass.

...or the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa?

There is a new organization supporting dyslexics. It is called DMA; Mothers Against Dyslexia