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

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-09-14 20:56, Platt Holden wrote:
> If your stacks show all those things you claim, you might want to explain
> how so. I don't see that the MOQ as contradicting itself or being abused by
> anyone's ideas, so those seem to be straw men.

Yeah right. So you've never before tried to raise the individual's right 
to freedom above society's right to control it? You're not fooling 
anybody. And the term "straw man", what a joke. Every time it is 
uttered, it means the one saying it is striking the ostrich pose.


> But, as pointed out a number
> of times, no one here is obligated to answer anyone's questions. This is not
> a teacher-student arena where failure to respond results in a low grade.

Just connect the dots. When you focus on the individual's right to 
freedom, or life, or whatever, you use the intellectual patterns of each 
human's brain to claim intellectual supremacy over the social patterns 
of the society in which that human is a part. But when you do that, 
you're comparing apples and pear trees. (Note! "apples" vs "pear trees" 
not "apple trees" vs "pear trees") Do you understand the difference?

You can't use the MoQ to assert that one human's intellectual patterns 
are more moral than a society's social patterns, because the society is 
composed of *many* humans' intellectual patterns.

	Magnus




> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Magnus Berg<McMagnus at home.se>  wrote:
>
>> It doesn't solve the ethical problem. It just shows what the problem really
>> is in terms of the MoQ. It shows that the MoQ does not contradict itself,
>> and that it can't be abused by your right-wing individualistic ideas.
>>
>>         Magnus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2010-09-14 16:52, Platt Holden wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus,
>>>
>>> If you say stacks solve the ethical problem described by the two
>>> scientists,
>>> could you tell us what the solution is?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Magnus Berg<McMagnus at home.se>   wrote:
>>>
>>>   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.