Atheist!

[amicus]

Loving philosophy, being interested in philosophy, being a student of philosophy; are all good things and I heartily encourage any and all to pursue it for whatever reason one might choose.

The history of philosophy is also enlightening in view of the preceding ontological discussion.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Talk:Thales

Unification Aspects:

Since Aristotle characterized Thales as the first philosopher in his Metaphysics (983b6), this view became a standard.

Within the framework of ontology of form (Internal Character) and matter (External Form), Aristotle interpreted Thales as a predecessor who inquired into the material cause of being.

Thales seemed to maintain the reality of souls in beings such as cosmos and beings in nature. We can thus find an indication of an incipient form of dual characteristics of internal character (soul) and external form (body), which is fully developed by subsequent thinkers. This idea is only indicative and implicit in a brief explanation by Aristotle (De Anima A5411a7).

Diogenes Laertius reports that Thales was the first person who maintained the immortality of the soul.

Thales’ philosophy seems to be a “philosophy of life” (water, development) rather than a philosophy of dialectical contrast (Heraclites) or identity (Parmenides).

Thales introduced the idea of principles of rational explanation for nature.

The significance of Thales lies not so much on his particular cosmology but his mode of inquiry. He inquired into the unchanging principles that can uniformly explain phenomena against Greek mythology that ascribed phenomena to arbitrary wills of gods.

This mode of inquiry distinguished Thales from predecessors and made him a philosopher.

Subsequent philosophers (pre-Socratics) could emerge by walking the path Thales opened and paved.

~~~

Bottom dollar is...theists must posit the deity has always existed, as must 'big bang' theorists/agnostics, when queried concerning the origin of their bump in the night.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

*cough, cough* Raises hand.

 

[hypnopup]

Hypnopup...welcome to the fray... "...

I am sure you must be aware of the glaring contradiction in what you posted, 'agnosticism is about what you 'KNOW', 'agnostic, (without knowledge).

Except you neglected to highlight where I mentioned GNOSTICISM. So no, I am not aware of any glaring contradiction in what I wrote.

Theism is faith
Agnosticism is doubt
Atheism is knowledge.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. An atheist can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist might be a religious atheist who believes they know there is no god via faith (example - a Raelian or some spiritual atheists). An agnostic atheist would be someone who admits that a god COULD exist, just lacks belief because there is no knowledge or evidence for such.

There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a purple people eater ruling the universe; thus there is no purple people eater. Thas deductive knowledge, we deduce from the lack of evidence that no such critter exists.

Just because there is no evidence of a ruling purple people eater does not mean that one does not exist or that it doesn't rule the universe. Lack of knowledge doesn't automatically mean lack of existence.

I might live in a cave, secluded from society, and not have any evidence that Australia exists. That doesn't mean that Australia doesn't actually exist, merely that I don't have knowledge of it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

E

Atheism is just a lack of belief. An atheist can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist might be a religious atheist who believes they know there is no god via faith (example - a Raelian or some spiritual atheists). An agnostic atheist would be someone who admits that a god COULD exist, just lacks belief because there is no knowledge or evidence for such...

Thank you, hypnopup, this is the most congenial expression Ive seen here in a while!

Waay back there, someone commented that atheists must have a paucity of belief, and that's exactly right. They also seemed to think this was philosophically debilitating-- that's quite wrong...

 

[hypnopup]

Thank you, hypnopup, this is the most congenial expression Ive seen here in a while!

Waay back there, someone commented that atheists must have a paucity of belief, and that's exactly right. They also seemed to think this was philosophically debilitating-- that's quite wrong...

Thanks for the compliment, but I have to disagree with you about atheists have a paucity of belief. I've been friends with a few atheists in the past (I'm a Deist), and some of them have had just as many (if not more) beliefs than your typical christian. I've known atheists who have believed in ghosts, intelligent design, magic, an afterlife (don't ask), souls, etc. They just lacked belief in a god and their other whacky beliefs more than made up for it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks for the compliment, but I have to disagree with you about atheists have a paucity of belief. I've been friends with a few atheists in the past (I'm a Deist), and some of them have had just as many (if not more) beliefs than your typical christian. I've known atheists who have believed in ghosts, intelligent design, magic, an afterlife (don't ask), souls, etc. They just lacked belief in a god and their other whacky beliefs more than made up for it.

intelligent design/afterlife/soul belief, without a god to design/relife/ensoul.

That's a very odd flavor of atheism. Did these friends of your have a substitute for the guiding principle, or had they thought that far?

 

[amicus]

Except you neglected to highlight where I mentioned GNOSTICISM. So no, I am not aware of any glaring contradiction in what I wrote.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. An atheist can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist might be a religious atheist who believes they know there is no god via faith (example - a Raelian or some spiritual atheists). An agnostic atheist would be someone who admits that a god COULD exist, just lacks belief because there is no knowledge or evidence for such.

Just because there is no evidence of a ruling purple people eater does not mean that one does not exist or that it doesn't rule the universe. Lack of knowledge doesn't automatically mean lack of existence.

I might live in a cave, secluded from society, and not have any evidence that Australia exists. That doesn't mean that Australia doesn't actually exist, merely that I don't have knowledge of it.[/QUOTE]

~~~

"...Religious and philosophical movement popular in the Roman world in the 2nd – 3rd century AD. The term, based on the Greek gnosis ("secret knowledge"), was coined in the 17th century, when it was applied liberally to ancient Christian heretical sects, especially those described by their orthodox contemporaries as radically dualistic and world-denying, and those who sought salvation through esoteric revelation and mystical spirituality..."

From the online Britannica...

As a self admitted 'deist', you are simply muddying the waters in attempting to semantically deny that atheism is a well founded, supportable philosphy that contains not a whisper of your beloved, 'belief'.

As long as it satisfies you, thas fine with me, but this is an open forum and your claim is ludicrous.

Also is your imagined life in a cave, so innane an argument and so seldom used I have forgotten the name, but it has one, a pejorative.

It was not the content of your isolated self in a cave to which I was and any rational person would, refer; it is of course, the state of knowledge of all mankind to the degree that any one mind can encompass it.

Try stepping outside your egocentric concept just once and realize it is not even the content of a human mind; rather the non contradictiory existence of reality that is a foundation for a rejection of all faith and belief and your nice little, "now I lay me down to sleep", cloistered world.

You just keep on getting callouses on your knees, bribing that bearded fellow up there to let you into a life after death; whatever sours your pickle.

Amicus...(I still like my purple people eater theory, he's one neat dude!)

 

[xssve]

^

They just lacked belief in a god and their other whacky beliefs more than made up for it.

That is an interesting observation.

 

[hypnopup]

intelligent design/afterlife/soul belief, without a god to design/relife/ensoul.

That's a very odd flavor of atheism. Did these friends of your have a substitute for the guiding principle, or had they thought that far?

Can you elaborate what you mean by "the guiding principle"? Not all of 'em believed in afterlife or intelligent design... I was lumping a variety of beliefs that I have known some atheists to carry.

As a self admitted 'deist', you are simply muddying the waters in attempting to semantically deny that atheism is a well founded, supportable philosphy that contains not a whisper of your beloved, 'belief'.

amicus,
All athiesm is, is a lack of belief in a god. That's it. There's no inherent dogma or philosophy there. Nada. Zero.

Now, a bunch of atheists can form or group around a sound philosophy or a dogma... but that is not inherently part of atheism. Likewise, a bunch of atheists can also group around some insane beliefs, like the Raelians.

As long as it satisfies you, thas fine with me, but this is an open forum and your claim is ludicrous.

Un hunh. Yeah. You seem to have a very strange concept of "ludicrous". From my standpoint, you are the one not thinking very clearly. So far, all you've done is try and pull trollish stunts.

Also is your imagined life in a cave, so innane an argument and so seldom used I have forgotten the name, but it has one, a pejorative.

Yeah, the title of the argument you are looking for is, "amicus is wrong, example #1"

It was not the content of your isolated self in a cave to which I was and any rational person would, refer; it is of course, the state of knowledge of all mankind to the degree that any one mind can encompass it.

Not a fan of solipsism are you?

Try stepping outside your egocentric concept just once and realize it is not even the content of a human mind; rather the non contradictiory existence of reality that is a foundation for a rejection of all faith and belief and your nice little, "now I lay me down to sleep", cloistered world.

You just keep on getting callouses on your knees, bribing that bearded fellow up there to let you into a life after death; whatever sours your pickle.

Oh, I see where your problem lies. You immediately lump everyone into the same set. I'm not a christian. I'm a Deist. I don't believe in heaven, hell, or a "bearded fellow up there".

 

[Stella_Omega]

Can you elaborate what you mean by "the guiding principle"? Not all of 'em believed in afterlife or intelligent design... I was lumping a variety of beliefs that I have known some atheists to carry.

You mean one or two atheists that you've known have believed in an afterlife... and maybe another atheist you've known has talked about intelligent design...

Thank you for clearing that up-- it sounded like the whole hamburger!

I'm dying to know what intelligence your friend attributed design to.

 

[wmrs2]

See, now there you go - the word "law" has a certain common and objective meaning and yet you are using to infer something else entirely - the lal in this country means the statues, common law and case law in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America - I have no idea what "law" you are referring to, it has an arbitrary meaning known only to you - that is relativism.

I still don't know what it is - how do you know I'm not a true Christian, and you the apostate?

It's an error of logic to talk about it at all if you think it will resolve anything - the only thing you've established is that you believe it, it seems self evident to you - doesn't seem at all self evident to me, and unlikely to in the future, ever - it seems much more self evident to me that you're spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles. It's an error of logic to talk about it at all if you think it will resolve anything - the only thing you've established is that you believe it, it seems self evident to you - doesn't seem at all self evident to me, and unlikely to in the future, ever - it seems much more self evident to me that you're spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles.

How do you propose resolving this dilemma, "legally"? Deuteronomy 13:6-9? Is this the law you are referring to?

We've worked past that, most of us.

See, now there you go - the word "law" has a certain common and objective meaning and yet you are using to infer something else entirely - the lal in this country means the statues, common law and case law in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America - I have no idea what "law" you are referring to, it has an arbitrary meaning known only to you - that is relativism.

The law which I refer to is like the law of gravity, the law of logic, the law of science, the law of math. These laws do not change and are therefore dependable. Moral laws are in the same category. Thou shalt not kill (murder) is always the same but "what is murder?" is the same as is science. The application of math laws depend on the objects of math but the laws of math are always the same. Only the objects of universal law is subject to relativism. This is the only explanation of relativism that I find and is the only one with which I am familiar. Humanism is relativity without an established law, which is because humanism does not recognize the ontological premise of universal laws.

I still don't know what it is - how do you know I'm not a true Christian, and you the apostate?

I do not know about you; I only know that I am not an apostate. Whether you be a Christian or not depends on your generational definition of Christian.

It's an error of logic to talk about it at all if you think it will resolve anything - the only thing you've established is that you believe it, it seems self evident to you - doesn't seem at all self evident to me, and unlikely to in the future, ever - it seems much more self evident to me that you're spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles.

It is common agreement that every world system ends up in a circular position when pressed to the limit. Atheism is no exception. The difference between the ontological argument and atheism that at the end of the circle, the theist arrives at a premise that ends the circle such as God. With atheism, the circle never ends and the premise is always changing and is therefore faulty in terms of logic. To assume that atheist do not seem be spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles is philosophically naive.

One last point, Deuteronomy 13:6-9 does not make an good example for you but it does make a good example for the ontological argument. The many laws of Moses were the deductions of universal laws. The first being "thou shalt have no other Gods" and the second, "thou salt not murder." The interpretation of having other Gods and when are you permitted to kill will vary from generation to generation but the basic laws will not change. The miss representation of eternal law does not mean that we do not need eternal law. I ask you this, where on earth has the law of thou shall not murder been better interpenetrated than in the Jewish and Christian societies?

6: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7: Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8: Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

 

[cantdog]

Can you elaborate what you mean by "the guiding principle"? Not all of 'em believed in afterlife or intelligent design... I was lumping a variety of beliefs that I have known some atheists to carry.


amicus,
All athiesm is, is a lack of belief in a god. That's it. There's no inherent dogma or philosophy there. Nada. Zero.

Now, a bunch of atheists can form or group around a sound philosophy or a dogma... but that is not inherently part of atheism. Likewise, a bunch of atheists can also group around some insane beliefs, like the Raelians.


Un hunh. Yeah. You seem to have a very strange concept of "ludicrous". From my standpoint, you are the one not thinking very clearly. So far, all you've done is try and pull trollish stunts.

Yeah, the title of the argument you are looking for is, "amicus is wrong, example #1"


Not a fan of solipsism are you?



Oh, I see where your problem lies. You immediately lump everyone into the same set. I'm not a christian. I'm a Deist. I don't believe in heaven, hell, or a "bearded fellow up there".

Amicus quit thinking or growing thirty-two years ago. He is, in some ways, the least of the trolls around here, because he is so easily sounded. You caught him out in only a few posts.

He puts everything and everyone into a few simple slots, and then regales us with his opinions about those classifications in his head. None of this has changed a whit for decades. A case of ossification of the cortex.

A good many of us have learned to just ignore him. It's entirely safe to do it, since he never says a new thing. Just saying.

 

[hypnopup]

I'm dying to know what intelligence your friend attributed design to.

Well, it was more than one. They believed in that "Chariots of the Gods" stuff. You know, that highly advanced aliens came down and designed life on earth.

I know you're going to say that isn't quite intelligent design because where did the aliens came from.... well, I asked me friends that and they said they didn't know where the aliens came from, they just knew that life on earth had been intelligently designed.

 

[cantdog]

You mean one or two atheists that you've known have believed in an afterlife... and maybe another atheist you've known has talked about intelligent design...

Thank you for clearing that up-- it sounded like the whole hamburger!

I'm dying to know what intelligence your friend attributed design to.

It is a bit mystifying.

 

[amicus]

Hypnopup...

"...amicus,
All athiesm is, is a lack of belief in a god. That's it. There's no inherent dogma or philosophy there. Nada. Zero..."

~~~

Again, like many, you attempt to justify their faith by claiming there is no alternative. At least the liberal fascists confess they have no ethical foundation and that their every moral pronouncement is relative and variable.

Who was it, Liar? Sounding off again concerning my rock solid and unchanging ethical and moral concepts? Poor baby is so jealous and so unhappy with his philosophy he lashes out against Christian and Atheist alike.

But back to you about there being no inherent philosophy in atheism.

For some, perhaps, no doubt a few, or many, or even most, just disbelieve because they got beat up in Sunday school or sumpin, but not this ole dude.

When a normative, rational mind observes the state of 'faith' regardless of the source and finds it intellectually lacking in substance, that mind turns to reality and fact and existence.

One soon discovers an 'objective' reality that exists independent of his inquiry and remains unmoved by his pleas or dreams or shadows on a cave wall.

One even discovers that one, 'exists', in reality, quite dismissive of 'thought' or dreams, thus that great big word that theists and humanist cower before, "I", comes into play and even forms a foundation for rational,
Independent thought.

It is a glorious journey, I might add, that of self discovery in a rational world, well worth the effort to embark upon.

To make it simple for you to understand, a man either turns to faith, becomes a 'deist', as you are; claims ignorance and becomes a wimpy agnostic, or becomes a man with a mind who perceives existence and reality as it is, independent of his thoughts and acts to understand the laws and rules of that objective universe, and that is to say, the morals and ethics that spontaneously erupt the instant one denies the supernatural as a source of good and evil.

There, ya git that pookie?

Amicus the adorable...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, it was more than one. They believed in that "Chariots of the Gods" stuff. You know, that highly advanced aliens came down and designed life on earth.

I know you're going to say that isn't quite intelligent design because where did the aliens came from.... well, I asked me friends that and they said they didn't know where the aliens came from, they just knew that life on earth had been intelligently designed.

They traded one credulity for another.

 

[hypnopup]

Hypnopup...

~~~

Again, like many, you attempt to justify their faith by claiming there is no alternative. At least the liberal fascists confess they have no ethical foundation and that their every moral pronouncement is relative and variable.

Amicus,
Nowhere did I say that there wasn't a viable alternative to Deism. You are putting words in my mouth you dishonest fuckwad.

Who was it, Liar? Sounding off again concerning my rock solid and unchanging ethical and moral concepts? Poor baby is so jealous and so unhappy with his philosophy he lashes out against Christian and Atheist alike.

Where was I lying? Point it out where I am lying.

Before you go there, I am calling you a "dishonest fuckwad" because you are claiming that I made certain statements when I have not. That is dishonest. The fact that you keep using that tactic makes you the dishonest fuckwad.

But back to you about there being no inherent philosophy in atheism.

For some, perhaps, no doubt a few, or many, or even most, just disbelieve because they got beat up in Sunday school or sumpin, but not this ole dude.

Thank you. The important thing here is that you are at least now admitting that not all atheists share your beliefs.

One even discovers that one, 'exists', in reality, quite dismissive of 'thought' or dreams, thus that great big word that theists and humanist cower before, "I", comes into play and even forms a foundation for rational,
Independent thought.

and here I thought you were against solipsism. Go figure.

It is a glorious journey, I might add, that of self discovery in a rational world, well worth the effort to embark upon.

Well, it's been blatantly obvious that your ship has sailed long ago.

To make it simple for you to understand, a man either turns to faith, becomes a 'deist', as you are; claims ignorance and becomes a wimpy agnostic, or becomes a man with a mind who perceives existence and reality as it is, independent of his thoughts and acts to understand the laws and rules of that objective universe, and that is to say, the morals and ethics that spontaneously erupt the instant one denies the supernatural as a source of good and evil.

There, ya git that pookie?

Amicus the adorable...

Where is faith required for Deism? Do you even know what Deism is? Einstein, Jefferson, Stephen Hawking, etc... were Deists.

Instead of just spouting off your beliefs like some corner preacher shouting damnation... why don't you actually look around and read what people are actually saying?

 

[xssve]

Are you by any chance related to ami here?

The law which I refer to is like the law of gravity, the law of logic, the law of science, the law of math. These laws do not change and are therefore dependable. Moral laws are in the same category. Thou shalt not kill (murder) is always the same but "what is murder?" is the same as is science. The application of math laws depend on the objects of math but the laws of math are always the same. Only the objects of universal law is subject to relativism. This is the only explanation of relativism that I find and is the only one with which I am familiar. Humanism is relativity without an established law, which is because humanism does not recognize the ontological premise of universal laws.

Hmmm... well, it seems to have escaped your notice somehow, but we do have established laws, including ways to distinguish murder from say, self defense, it's called the Anglo-Saxon legal system and it works pretty good with the basic stuff really, albeit enforced by human institutions subject to the usual human frailties - the same frailties religion is subject to, except that religion lacks the concepts of judicial review and appeal, rights of the accused, habeus corpus, rules of evidence, right to a fair and speedy trial, etc. Many of these things were in fact inspired by the excesses of ecclesiastical persecution that resulted in the gruesome and needless torture and death of millions.

You are asking me to have faith that the "false" Christians will somehow suddenly see the light and start acting like real Christians if they can manage to get their greasy paws on some real power - I say we have laws about that too - we don't have to worry about whether you're "real" Christians or not, worship anything you like, you'll have to obey the same established laws as everybody else, nothing relative there.

I do not know about you; I only know that I am not an apostate. Whether you be a Christian or not depends on your generational definition of Christian.

It is common agreement that every world system ends up in a circular position when pressed to the limit. Atheism is no exception. The difference between the ontological argument and atheism that at the end of the circle, the theist arrives at a premise that ends the circle such as God. With atheism, the circle never ends and the premise is always changing and is therefore faulty in terms of logic. To assume that atheist do not seem be spinning in aimless pseudo-logical circles is philosophically naive.

You violate the rules of debate everytime you try to put words in my mouth, I have not explained my position on this clearly enough apparently - the ethicality of a given act can be assessed by a cost benefit analysis - I can provide an example if you like, any scenario you care to present, it has the charm of providing a robust assessment regardless of changing conditions, in what is, after all, a constantly changing universe.

It presumes that justice is universal and unchanging but does not presume that it is always easy to discern, especially when armed with nothing but a random pastiche of fragmented logic, archaic superstitions, and flip platitudes.

One last point, Deuteronomy 13:6-9 does not make an good example for you but it does make a good example for the ontological argument. The many laws of Moses were the deductions of universal laws. The first being "thou shalt have no other Gods" and the second, "thou salt not murder." The interpretation of having other Gods and when are you permitted to kill will vary from generation to generation but the basic laws will not change. The miss representation of eternal law does not mean that we do not need eternal law. I ask you this, where on earth has the law of thou shall not murder been better interpenetrated than in the Jewish and Christian societies?

6: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7: Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8: Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

I would say it makes a very bad example for you, if this is what you're trying to promulgate as "law" - "(T)he interpretation of having other Gods and when are you permitted to kill will vary from generation to generation but the basic laws will not change" - you see, this is the part which concerns me: the "basic" law does me no good if I'm dead, it's no comfort to me to know that it was just a whoopsie and that you'll try to get it right the next time.

By what methodology are you proposing to determine what is "unchanging and universal" from what is merely currently fashionable slaughter?

Am I getting across to you here?

 

[amicus]

Xssve...I question your, 'cost/benefit', ethical/moral system again from the perspective of whether you have any idea what you are saying or whether you know and really mean it.

"...I have not explained my position on this clearly enough apparently - the ethicality of a given act can be assessed by a cost benefit analysis - I can provide an example if you like, any scenario you care to present, it has the charm of providing a robust assessment regardless of changing conditions, in what is, after all, a constantly changing universe...."

Would the current British National Health Service refusing to medicate women with advanced breast cancer qualify in your, 'robust assessment' of cost versus benefit?

If you do not understand the consequences of your stated ethical system, I can accept that and perhaps forgive you. If you do understand and with full intent, would if you could, impliment such a system; then I would like you to say that, without all the excess verbiage.

Thank you.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Hypnopup, you went from newbie to obscene rather quickly, an ALT are you? Or just riding on the coat-tails of the long time adversaries here?

You might also check the definition of solipcism as I clearly stated that reality is the arbiter of existence and not my own existence.

I can understand your distress, for if you allow my objectivity to cause you doubt in your faith, what the hell ever it is, then you are lost. So, you respond in like fashion to the liberal fascists who will never, ever admit they are wrong.

As with the cost/benefit ethics of xssve, if there is too great a cost to attempt to save a preemie, then you let it die. Yup, I get that. Izzat ur belief also?

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Xssve...I question your, 'cost/benefit', ethical/moral system again from the perspective of whether you have any idea what you are saying or whether you know and really mean it.



Would the current British National Health Service refusing to medicate women with advanced breast cancer qualify in your, 'robust assessment' of cost versus benefit?

If you do not understand the consequences of your stated ethical system, I can accept that and perhaps forgive you. If you do understand and with full intent, would if you could, impliment such a system; then I would like you to say that, without all the excess verbiage.

Thank you.

Amicus...

So, have you reviewed this thread yet to substantiate your claim on another thread that I've bludgeoned wmrs2 on the forum--with any of my posts, of course, needing to include the accompanying mwrs2 postings.?

No, I don't think so. Just going to ignore your intellectual dishonesty, aren't you?

Have you noticed everyone calling you out on lumping all people you would rather not hear from in the same basket?

 

[xssve]

Xssve...I question your, 'cost/benefit', ethical/moral system again from the perspective of whether you have any idea what you are saying or whether you know and really mean it.

Would the current British National Health Service refusing to medicate women with advanced breast cancer qualify in your, 'robust assessment' of cost versus benefit?

If you do not understand the consequences of your stated ethical system, I can accept that and perhaps forgive you. If you do understand and with full intent, would if you could, impliment such a system; then I would like you to say that, without all the excess verbiage.

Thank you.

Amicus...

First of all cost does not necessarily imply monetary cost - I really know whit about the British National Health care system, or breast cancer for that matter - if it is a matter of triage, i.e., if the cancer is inoperable then it may be that resources are better spent elsewhere, it's the same debate with any terminal illness. If it's operable, then they should operate, that's what they pay for isn't it?

If the woman is bearing the costs and somebody else is getting the benefit, then it's unethical.

A more beneficial result would be obtained all around if they caught the cancer sooner, and I suspect that is what a motivated ethical investigation would focus on.

Inefficiencies plague any bureaucracy, and the longer it's around, the less efficient it becomes, have you ever read a Russian novel? The Soviet bureaucracy was essentially the same bureaucracy that existed under the Tsars.

You idiots make the same argument about taxation, you just neglect to mention that you get exponential benefits in return for relatively low costs, whole supporting an economic system that extracts benefits from others to their loss.

 

[Stella_Omega]

First of all cost does not necessarily imply monetary cost - I really know whit about the British National Health care system, or breast cancer for that matter - if it is a matter of triage, i.e., if the cancer is inoperable then it may be that resources are better spent elsewhere, it's the same debate with any terminal illness. If it's operable, then they should operate, that's what they pay for isn't it?

If the woman is bearing the costs and somebody else is getting the benefit, then it's unethical.

A more beneficial result would be obtained all around if they caught the cancer sooner, and I suspect that is what a motivated ethical investigation would focus on.

Inefficiencies plague any bureaucracy, and the longer it's around, the less efficient it becomes, have you ever read a Russian novel? The Soviet bureaucracy was essentially the same bureaucracy that existed under the Tsars.

You idiots make the same argument about taxation, you just neglect to mention that you get exponential benefits in return for relatively low costs, whole supporting an economic system that extracts benefits from others to their loss.

Thank you for this.

 

[amicus]

First of all cost does not necessarily imply monetary cost - I really know whit about the British National Health care system, or breast cancer for that matter - if it is a matter of triage, i.e., if the cancer is inoperable then it may be that resources are better spent elsewhere, it's the same debate with any terminal illness. If it's operable, then they should operate, that's what they pay for isn't it?

If the woman is bearing the costs and somebody else is getting the benefit, then it's unethical.

A more beneficial result would be obtained all around if they caught the cancer sooner, and I suspect that is what a motivated ethical investigation would focus on.

Inefficiencies plague any bureaucracy, and the longer it's around, the less efficient it becomes, have you ever read a Russian novel? The Soviet bureaucracy was essentially the same bureaucracy that existed under the Tsars.

You idiots make the same argument about taxation, you just neglect to mention that you get exponential benefits in return for relatively low costs, whole supporting an economic system that extracts benefits from others to their loss.

~~~

I quoted that for easier reference in responding and I congratulate you for sidestepping the question I posed; it would have been embarrassing to answer.

I understand the evasion that cost isn't really cost in monetary terms and if you plead ignorance on the British system and breast cancer, then I am forced to take you at your word.

And, essentially, it is a matter of 'triage', in that there are too few British doctors and bureaucrats determine who gets treatment and who does not, based on political, rather than ethical reasons.

Adequate 'preventive care' or 'early diagnosis', is also an inadequate answer as the British have had National Care for 60 years.

We, 'idiots', make the same argument about the bureaocracy of socialism every time, yes, and this one will continue to do so.

I suggest your 'cost/benefit' ethical system is obvious to all, and the inhumane results of it are also evident.

"...you get exponential benefits in return for relatively low costs, whole supporting an economic system that extracts benefits from others to their loss..."

A sly innuendo concerning Capitalism, the free market, which has enriched the world and provided more care and humanity in the world than any command system in existence.

The British National Health Services employs more people than the entire Communist Chinese Military Forces. Even so, they are forced to adopt your inhumane cost/benefit triage to dole out treatment.

You should be ashamed.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

I evaded nothing, you asked a complex question, I gave you a simple answer which was the best I can do given minimal information. People die in this country all the time for lack of health care, and you complain that their bodies clutter up the streets.

Gay rights cost you nothing, benefits are denied so you can beat your scrawny chest about "morality" - there are no tangible benefits to you other than ego gratification, but there are tangible costs to those whose civil rights you deny - and money isn't everything, if so, your "morality" ain't worth a cup of warm piss.