[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[Magnus Berg]

Platt

As I hope you remember, I've resolved your seemingly right-wing 
arguments within the MoQ before, and this time it's even easier.

This time, I have stacks. I had them in the past as well but now we both 
know what the term means, more or less anyway.

A human is made in one stack, bones, flesh, cells, nerve signals and 
brain. All four levels wrapped in a small package.

Our society however, doesn't have intellect on its own. The society 
stack consists of houses, humans, language and government. It uses the 
intellect of its human inhabitants.

That's why the MoQ *seems* to have the problem you see, but if we dig 
deeper and use the stacks, we see it doesn't.

Mystery solved, next question.

	Magnus




On 2010-09-14 01:44, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Horse,
> Thanks for the further explanation. If you don't want me to use the term "death
> panel" in referring to a government body that decides who lives and who dies,
> I'll comply. I think it's an accurate description, but if you find it contrary
> to fact and unduly "provocative," so be it. There's no doubt in my mind that
> the content of this site is your province to run as you see fit.
>
> I was hoping there could be a discussion based on what two distinguished
> scientists agreed was "the most difficult ethical question facing science
> today." I thought the question was particularly relevant to this group because
> Pirsig said that SOM science has "no provision for morals." But, here are two
> scientists who apparently believe it's a question science has some authority in
> answering, contradicting the thrust of the MOQ.
>
> So far only Ian has offered to debate "how much 'rights' (to health care) an
> MOQ argument would support." That's OK by me, but why not go further and
> explored the MOQ in terms of who decides who lives and who dies under a
> government funded health system? That seems to me to be the crux of the issue
> posed by the two scientists, and an issue an "Inquiry in Morals" should
> address.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Sep 2010 at 23:02, Horse wrote:
>
>>    Platt
>>
>> For your information I am the main person objecting to use of the term
>> death panels for the reasons I gave earlier. Do you have a problem with
>> that?
>> I'm sure others also object to it but that's not altogether relevant.
>> Your use of this term now and in the past has been purely provocative
>> and, as I said earlier, is for propaganda and emotive purposes.
>> Stupidly, I actually expect better from members of this forum than
>> childish attempts to provoke and aggravate other members with comments
>> like this. I'm not singling you out deliberately Platt because there are
>> other members of this forum who continually do exactly the same.
>> This forum is intended for intelligent people who wish to discuss,
>> rationally and reasonably, what many consider to be an important and
>> worthwhile philosophical position but is increasingly becoming like a
>> junior school playground. Cheap shots and snide remarks are more
>> prevalent recently than intelligent comment and debate.
>> I don't like it and will make it known in future if members are not
>> prepared to act and contribute in a reasonable manner.
>> For Christ's sake I'm not expecting you to all kiss each others arse's,
>> just behave like human beings that possess brains!!
>>
>> Remember this:
>> "And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
>> 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!"
>>
>>
>> Horse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13/09/2010 22:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>>> When one judges the validity of argument, particularly regarding a matter of
>>> interpretation, do you not consider the source? I do.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ian<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Platt,
>>>> Who cares "who" was making the objection, so long as the argument remains
>>>> valid ?
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 13 Sep 2010, at 21:50, Platt Holden<plattholden at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks for the reference. I shall do as you suggest to see who was raising
>>>>> objections to the term, "death panel.".
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Platt
>>>>>> I'm saying that your use of the term is both propaganda and emotive
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>> - Frank Zappa
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html