ParanoiA

Got a link or something for this one? Seriously, with all the anti Ron Paul spinning out there, we have to be a little more diligent when we see the earmarks of misrepresenatation.

Then why doesn't my auto insurance company pay for my safety inspections? Health insurance is the only insurance I know of that pays for every single little bit of service. Do you not see the paradigm there? The mere thought of shopping for a flu shot, or paying cash for a doctor visit just too freaky?

And yet, a subjective opinion. Call me an idiot. I call you an idiot for giving a good kidney to someone who couldn't keep theirs running under the "best" of maintenance. Another, subjective opinion, that I agree with. You are placing a value judgement on behavior that you believe should even supercede the wishes of the donor, presumably as a matter of law. While I agree with you on a subjective, personal level on much of what you say, it should not be a matter of law to be so obviously subjective. It's murder, to me.

Bang up post Skeptic. Sorry, I have nothing better to add.

How about the donor's right to give their organ to whom they want to? Why would anybody else but me get to decide who gets my organ? What if I don't want healthly people to get my organ? What if I feel sorry for smokers and I want to donate exclusively to them? What gives you the moral authority to deny me of this basic right? And why does anyone have to make an effort? Why is it a "given" that all of us are to be healthy and strive to be so? I don't define my quality of life merely by length, but also by enjoyment, indulging in "sin", drink, smoke - why not? And if I can do these things longer, then that's even more quality. Why must everyone adopt the philosophy of being as healthy as they can be, otherwise no organ transplants? (as if it would stop there...) Because they have the money. How much personal freedom do you have to sell to be sure you'll get medical resources? And how much individuality will really be left in a society that rations medical service per personal behavior after a course of years? And why do otherwise healthy people deserve organ donations? They've been taking great care of themselves, yet here they are, sick and in need of someone's organ. Apparently their bodies are inferior to those who have to smoke and drink to reach that same point. In my mind, they are less deserving of an organ. I understand the sentiment, I really do. It's a smack in the face to see an alcoholic get a new liver while a slighter older guy down the hall, a non-drinker, dies from liver failure. But that's poetry. In real life, it isn't that cut and dry, and it's still wrong to cast judgement like that, anyway. You have to assume the goal of every human is to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible and that's just not the case with modern man. And I'm glad. With a centralized healthcare system, I can see how this is a big issue for you and I can also see how this threatens individual liberty and personal choice. This is partly why I'm against a government run healthcare system in america.

You deserve to kick the bucket if you can't find a donor that will give you their organ as a replacement. You don't, however, deserve to kick the bucket because we have decided you don't treat your organs very nicely, and block you from getting one - that's called murder. I am operating on the presumption you're talking about a law of some kind - that circumvents personal choice, freedom and ultimately individuality - since anyone who "behaves" differently will be denied privileges - like organs. I completely agree with solving the problem as opposed to treating symptoms. And I truly believe my spoiled countrymen are in dire need of reckoning. Discipline is a word associated with a bygone era over here. Our lives revolve around instant gratification. Eating healthy takes more time, interest - and it's not fun the whole time. Can't do anything that isn't fun you know...

Well then every aspect of your lifestyle can be judged. That is so wrong. Denying someone an organ because you don't agree with how they treated their original one? I'll do anything to avoid that kind of "collective" centralized morality rule. Good bye individuality and self determination. See, I appreciate the sentiment. But what is "money" going to do? What kind of education do you think people aren't getting? I believe everyone already knows eating sugar and fat will make you obese and unhealthy. We don't need any more education - we need discipline. Money isn't any good for that either, as I'm not going to pay anyone to be healthy, but discipline is dying concept in america, anyway.

Because as I've stated over and over again in this thread, we do not enjoy a free market solution today. It's a socialist bubble within a regulated market. I don't have any more choice today than I would if we switched to socialized medicine. Government enabled monopolies and systems are not free markets.

Why? Because it's interesting...and is more apparent after you answer it. Also, it's my favorite question to everything and will always eventually leave you stumped It changes because while large portions of the world may not have the electronic culture that we do, they do have access to religion and usually a lot more of it, much of it out of necessity. Yet, in america, we're laced with gadgets. Video games are ridiculously more common among americans. Religion is also done a different way, for different reasons. I think the analysis is completely different.

While it does wind up being a morality statement, it shouldn't be the goal of government to do so. This makes the government the legitimizer. Suddenly, if it's legal, it must be ok. This also causes the government and law to become the playing field for social engineering rather than directing it to the natural free market of persuasion. I'm with mooeypoo on this one, I think it's more about order. In america's case, I believe it is about order in an advanced free society. The best way to govern such a tentative, flexible society is as objectively as reasonably possible - as opposed to majority rule morality codes. Too bad you're right about us...

Certainly nailed this point, considering the entire planet. So, let's make it more interesting and introduce some geo-prejudice and repeat the observational exercise on america alone. It's interesting that you are correct globally and pangloss sums up america nicely. Are we not trading our source of fanaticism from gods to games?

Amazing how the champion for the constitution would be endearingly referred to as an anarchist nutjob. No wonder good people don't run for office anymore.

Mooeypoo - the main problem I have with your position is that the demagoguery seems to only be relevant to you if it's built on a belief that you don't agree with. Global Warming is guilty of the same things - only without thousands of years of history to judge it with yet. GW also spells out a doomsday scenario. And even worse, with GW you have to convert everyone else in order to save yourself. With religion, your salvation is not dependent on everyone else. GW proponents are all over the map, from extremists to simple minded believers. And just like you, I can simply focus on the extremists and create an argument of abuse and scare tactics. But the truth is, humans can take it, and should take it. We're not that fragile. And fear is an excellent motivator. Why is that bad? Shouldn't you be afraid of falling when you're standing on the edge of a 3,000 foot cliff? How about if you're going to be resident in a lake of fire for infinity?

Hmm, well I finally got to see all of this and really enjoyed it. Seems like they didn't pound home the point that I thought was the most appropriate - particularly given the context of the trial - that Creationsim or ID is really a Null Hypothesis. Is it not? The way god is defined, or the lack of definition of an intelligent agent - the nontestablility of the "theory" - puts it with unicorns orbitting the central black hole of the universe. It's simply not testable, so, is null. We're done - next! Exactly. It's not science - it's an alternative TO science. You have to suspend scientific legitimacy in order to accept ID/creationism. You have to ignore the evidence of evolution and in turn, regard evidence, itself, as irrelevant to understanding and proving things. They repeatedly fantasize and play on emotions with bits about being "open minded" and "making way for a brand new theory" - but not based on the scientific method. They're basically complaining that the scientific method is too objective and sterile. Which is exactly the point - science isn't your answer for all of your questions about life and morality, right and wrong. I see it like I see art. It is one thing, among a host of things, that all contribute to one's perspective on things. ID/Creationism is quite obviously asking you to choose faith over the scientific method.

I like that idea. You want your tummy tucked? Gimme a kidney.

Same here, buddy. My favorite candidate is whoever is running against Rudy. I chose Obama and Paul. Obama's ambition doesn't scare me like Hillary's.

Reasonable people can always disagree productively, I say. I do too. I have military in my family and I take it personally. But it's not religion - it's people using religion. Get rid of religion and they use something else. I think it's more about unsubstantiated belief. That includes many other things beside religion. I can appreciate how something can be possible or plausible, but without evidence how do you get from possibility to belief? I'll never get that. And as long as humans continue to do that, my wife will continue to watch Ghost Hunters until I puke.

Well said. You've supported your opinion with some excellent points. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't think it's abuse. I also don't think Hell House is abuse. And is religion not an outlet for people? Doesn't it help people cope with loss and problems in their lives? But consider what you just said. "our violent instinctive nature" is NOT being promoted in Hell House, although it IS in violent video games. For those who want to put an end to ignorant, violent civilization, it isn't very consistent. Stance noted. And half the country thinks you're doing the same thing with Global Warming. Using fear to indoctrinate children. But are you really using fear or are you really just convinced you're right and trying to convince others? And, how is that any different than religion doing the same thing? After all, if you truly believe everyone is going to hell, then wouldn't you do what it takes to help them? Isn't that kinda the idea with GW? (saving yourself notwithstanding...) While your points up above were excellent, they are not enough to justify your lack of concern - in my opinion. It is not consistent with your objections to the tactics used with Hell House. There's an imbalance of concern here that just doesn't jive with me. We're getting year round gratuitous first person violence in video games, and seasonal violent imagery in Hell House - yet you're not "concerned" about video games? I don't see how you can be so vehemently outraged at one while not being concerned about the other. No matter how popular or family supported religion is. It seems quite relevent to measure your own bias. Pangloss saw an inconsistency in what was being said about this and what has been said about violent video games. It was excellent point and made for a great discussion. I'm not the one shouting abuse because they're doing something that seems freaky to me. To others, allowing your child to kill cops and rape hookers in a first person shooter game is abuse. And I think it's a fair response. I think you're taking my comments a bit personal and I was trying to avoid getting any more personal, but....you seemed a little squirmy about Pangloss's video game analogy. And while you've made some interesting points on the matter - some irrefutable ones at that - I'm not seeing the reasoning there to justify your aversion to Hell House and lack of concern over violent video games.

Oh well it's certainly opinion. I don't believe anyone has proof of such things do they? Or the influence of religion? Violent video games is the reference, not video games in general. I'm simply stating that they harness our violent instinctive nature. They glorify it, you get points for it, it's the whole "point" of those kinds of games. I don't know what kind of gray you're looking for here. Were you offering up "gray" when you dumped on evangelicals for being abusive with Hell House practices? And while we're at it...I suppose you're going to back up the absolute nature of that statement right? Right. What did you think I was referring to? Yes, I'm running with that point and trying to get you to admit your obvious bias and avoidance of that point. Instead, you responded with a weak plea about spirituality having a different impact than entertainment - which doesn't nullify the comparison, rather is the heart of the comparison. People accept video game violence because it's "entertainment" (just plop the kids in front of the TV and let X-box take over) whereas Hell House is "spirituality", and therefore should be crushed. Those who won't admit their bias. And on the contrary, it does follow. No, and that's my point. They don't present it "as fact", as if they have proof, rather they present it as "a belief" that might as well be fact, according to them anyway.

Really? Funny how my belief in god, as a teenager, didn't trump my entertainment beliefs - it didn't stop me from having premarital sex, listening to Dio, drinking and taking drugs, swearing...and I'm quite sure society didn't appreciate it either. My entertainment choices were far more influencial - even though I was fighting with spirituality inside. Religion is taught as faith - not fact. They believe it like fact, but it's not presented as fact because that would undermine "faith", particularly the kind of nobility they seem to assign faith. I'm generalizing somewhat, but I've never experienced religion presented as fact, with proof. And violent video games are fiction, but they're far more influencial. They allow our rotten instincts to be exploited and glorified. They don't even attempt to wrap it in a bow and throw in some hope and salvation - just pure exercise of violent human behavior. Don't get me wrong. I'm not for regulating any of this stuff - I'm just saying that you're kidding yourself, no lying to yourself, by rationalizing Hell House as clearly abuse and violent video games as clearly not.

Yeah, I like that better.

Duh...video game violence doesn't promote a fairy tale that preaches exclusivity and promises of heaven, but rather promotes a real life alternative for self indulgent irreverence for human kind and promises murder, rape, self destruction, societal devolution. Obviously Hell House is the clear danger here...

Probably getting out there a bit, but doesn't all of this really come down to in-group out-group psychology? I've always been fascinated with how humans group up, in all of their various levels. Seems to me if we aren't aware of our mental "grouping", then we would be more susceptible to instinctive, rudamentary decision making...Ie Black vs. White, Blonde vs Brunette ( btw whoever said blondes were more fun never had a brunette..) But I'm not a psychology guy, just an observation. Interesting thread. No kidding. If they were members like us, they wouldn't generalize and marginalize whole groups of people...what a bunch of idiots.

Isn't balance better? Isn't that the point we always reach when we go extreme in one direction, then extreme in the other, only to find that the middle compliments both? Why would you advocate overprotection of children to the point they lose their capacity for violence? Wouldn't that make them weaker, unable to combat or reason with aggression from some external threat? We all should hope and try for something better. That doesn't mean losing our heads altogether to be a "civilized" race - ripe and ready for enslavement. I didn't say violence is really cool and we should all dig it - I said violence is still necessary for survival. And it is. Careful you don't evolve faster than your biology.