Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Killers should call themselves volunteers. It seems to work
Published on January 21, 2010 By taltamir In Politics

 

People have discovered that people are naive, trusting fools... you just need to frame something the right way to gain instant support.

This is why the american "creationist" movement have renamed themselves "intelligence design" and later "scientific critique"... (see the book "of people and pandas", the book on which the movement is based and the 3 crazy leaders of the movement. the book has had several editions where the term creationism was simply replaced with intelligent design).

Who in their right mind could ever oppose "scientific critique". after all, isn't that what science is all about?

Likewise, the tyrannical communist party calls itself the liberal (like liberty) democrat (like democracy) party. And calls their bills of pure unadulterated evil "(something) reform".

Similar things happen in the tech industry where they try to pass off "big brother" technology by constantly renaming it into more benign names (ex: trusted computing -> digital manners), and renaming the congressional bills they have bribed politicians to introduce to force the inclusion of said big brother chips in every machine.

Something I am all for is "healthcare reform", but the current bills in congress under that name are about health INSURANCE nationalization, not health CARE reform. The reforms we need include undoing a great deal of damage done by the tyrannical communist party of america of the past few decades... most of the problems with healthcare and health insurance stem from stupid government laws.

It is odd how people are so keen on latching on to a name with full unadulterated trust. Criminals should start calling themselves "volunteers"... who could possibly convict someone of the crime of "volunteering at the homeless shelter" (aka murdering homeless people).

EDIT: Actually, criminals do call themselves nicer things. Typically names like "freedom fighter" and "peace activist"

For many specific examples of dishonest language see leauki's "american liberal dictionary": https://forums.joeuser.com/81628

 


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 30, 2010

I have no doubt that doctors are highly compassionate. I just think that doctors who believe that they don't have an obligation to help are not.

Maybe you think I am incapable of arguing a hypothetical situation.

I completely agree with you that a person who refuse to lend aid, doctor or not, isn't compassionate. I have never argued that such a person is compassionate. I argued that doctors in general tend to compassionate. I argued that laws should not require giving aid. But those are separate and completely unlinked points. I am not insinuating that the same doctor is compassionate, doesn't want to give aid, and shouldn't have to give aid. They are completely separate issues.

I'd rather have a doctor who feels obligated to help me than a doctor who thinks that it is good business to help me.

And until you have mind reading devices you cannot tell the difference.

Oh, another issue with the "free in emergency", is that "free" just means someone else is paying for it. For a doctor to give aid he needs more than just his own personal skills. He needs equipment, a clean room, support staff, drugs, etc...

on Feb 01, 2010

I completely agree with you that a person who refuse to lend aid, doctor or not, isn't compassionate. I have never argued that such a person is compassionate. I argued that doctors in general tend to compassionate. I argued that laws should not require giving aid. But those are separate and completely unlinked points. I am not insinuating that the same doctor is compassionate, doesn't want to give aid, and shouldn't have to give aid. They are completely separate issues.

I agree if you mean that the duty to give aid goes beyond a law that says so (i.e. we would have such a duty even if the law would prohibit us from helping).

 

Oh, another issue with the "free in emergency", is that "free" just means someone else is paying for it. For a doctor to give aid he needs more than just his own personal skills. He needs equipment, a clean room, support staff, drugs, etc...

The same is true for our military. They protect me (and everybody else) but somebody else (and me) is paying for it. If I am poor and don't pay taxes, only somebody else pays for it.

Emergency aid has to be free because we cannot even determine if the patient/customer has the money to pay before he is stable enough to think and speak.

And at that point charging him for the emergency aid just because he happens to have spend his life working rather than being a slob doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

on Feb 01, 2010

this brings to question what counts as an "emergency". Obviously if a person is brought to the hospital with a gunshot wound they should treat him rather then attempt to identify him and determine if he is insured since he would die in the interim. (And that should be paid for via taxes so that everyone benefits from it equally... that is, you don't double pay by paying for it once via taxes for other people, and once again for yourself because you make too much to "qualify").

My problem is that currently this is up to government bureaucrats to decide what is an isn't an emergency and they are doing a very poor job of it. ER rooms are full of non emergency cases. Or emergencies that unlike a gunshot wound, do not warrant taxpayer funded treatment (due to scarcity and cost).

3 Pages1 2 3