Originally Posted by Steve61

Who get's to make the determination as to the quality of someone elses life?

you do, homedawg. if you decide you want to check out, and it can't be proven that you're merely depressed, i don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Steve61

It seems ironic to me that those of you who agree with the sentiment "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" are in essence agreeing with Ebenezer Scrooge - the quintessential example of capitalistic, corporatist greed!

it seems that way to me, too, if by "ironic" you mean "purely coincidental".


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Steve61

Who get's to make the determination as to the quality of someone elses life?

you do, homedawg. if you decide you want to check out, and it can't be proven that you're merely depressed, i don't see a damn thing wrong with it.

Ahh... so does that means only the unborn child can decide to "check" itself out, so long as it can't be proven that they are merely depressed?

Originally Posted by Steve61

It seems ironic to me that those of you who agree with the sentiment "...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" are in essence agreeing with Ebenezer Scrooge - the quintessential example of capitalistic, corporatist greed!

it seems that way to me, too, if by "ironic" you mean "purely coincidental".


TK[/quote]


No, it was not a coincidence that Ebenezer Scrooge was depicted as an greedy, evil, miserly, capitalistic corporatist... especially in a Victorian age England. He was depicted like that particularly to be the embodiment of a specific type person - a character that everyone of the day would know as an example of the worst type. And it was no coincidence that Dickens used the line"...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." That line is in there to show the depths of Scrooge's hard-heartedness - his lack of the virtues of compassion and charity. I used it for a similar reason - to show the hippocracy of people who want to think of themselves as compassionate and charitable but who are, in fact, espousing the same cold, hard-hearted pragmatism that Scrooge did.

I believe that no person can judge the worth of a life - a life that is never allowed to be, or a life that is ended prematurely. My mother, while dying of cancer, was in horrible pain - and that was hurting me to watch. I thought about just upping her dose of morphine to end her suffering - and mine! I just couldn't bring myself to do it - so I asked the greatest teacher I ever had what I should do. She told me, in one of her few remaining "good" moments, that she had spent her entire life trying to teach me good life lessons... and how to handle death was the last lesson she would teach me. And the lesson I learned? Suffering and pain are as much a part of life as joy and happiness... and death. Her lesson was that a life that knows no pain, knows no joy... and those that lack the courage to live life to it's fullest are the one's that lack the courage to see it to the end.

Originally Posted by Steve61

Ahh... so does that means only the unborn child can decide to "check" itself out, so long as it can't be proven that they are merely depressed?

i wasn't talking about abortion. i won't touch that issue.

i was speaking specifically of physician-assisted suicide. i doubt that, whether life begins at conception or birth or at some point between, one could ever seriously argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus is choosing their own demise.

Originally Posted by Steve61

No, it was not a coincidence that Ebenezer Scrooge was depicted as an greedy, evil, miserly, capitalistic corporatist... especially in a Victorian age England. He was depicted like that particularly to be the embodiment of a specific type person - a character that everyone of the day would know as an example of the worst type. And it was no coincidence that Dickens used the line"...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." That line is in there to show the depths of Scrooge's hard-heartedness - his lack of the virtues of compassion and charity.

you did not say that it was ironic that scrooge was depicted this way-- you said it was ironic that those of us who agreed with the (out of context) statement "if they would rather die, they had better do it...." were "in essence agreeing with "the quintessential example of capitalistic, corporate greed". while this is true (again, out of context), there is nothing ironic about this, since "capitalistic, corporate greed" is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. it's simply a coincidence.

i'm sure that if i cared to bother, i could find myriad statements that, when taken out of context, you would agree with. then i, too, could point out the "irony" of it.

Originally Posted by Steve61

I used it for a similar reason - to show the hippocracy of people who want to think of themselves as compassionate and charitable but who are, in fact, espousing the same cold, hard-hearted pragmatism that Scrooge did.

actually, i don't particularly care to think of myself as compassionate and charitable. or at least, no more than anyone should be, just by nature of being a fellow human being.

Originally Posted by Steve61

My mother, while dying of cancer, was in horrible pain - and that was hurting me to watch. I thought about just upping her dose of morphine to end her suffering - and mine!....Suffering and pain are as much a part of life as joy and happiness... and death. Her lesson was that a life that knows no pain, knows no joy... and those that lack the courage to live life to it's fullest are the one's that lack the courage to see it to the end.

steve, while i disagree with both you and your mother on whether a desire to avoid unnecessary suffering does or does not constitute a lack of courage, i'm sorry that your mother, and you, had to go through that.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

i wasn't talking about abortion. i won't touch that issue.

i was speaking specifically of physician-assisted suicide. i doubt that, whether life begins at conception or birth or at some point between, one could ever seriously argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus is choosing their own demise.

Well, we agree on something. You're right, whether life begins at conception or birth or at some point between, a zygote/embryo/fetus, or as I prefer "unborn child", cannot choose their own demise... and it is my belief that no one has the right to make that choice for them!

Originally Posted by TrollKing

you did not say that it was ironic that scrooge was depicted this way-- you said it was ironic that those of us who agreed with the (out of context) statement "if they would rather die, they had better do it...." were "in essence agreeing with "the quintessential example of capitalistic, corporate greed". while this is true (again, out of context), there is nothing ironic about this, since "capitalistic, corporate greed" is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. it's simply a coincidence.

i'm sure that if i cared to bother, i could find myriad statements that, when taken out of context, you would agree with. then i, too, could point out the "irony" of it..

No - the quote is not out of context. The context in the book is specifically to illustrate that Scrooge is a greedy, cold hearted individual for espousing that view... and that is the context I wished to convey as well.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

actually, i don't particularly care to think of myself as compassionate and charitable. or at least, no more than anyone should be, just by nature of being a fellow human being.

Perhaps you don't, but many of those who share your perspective do. They believe that they are morally superior with regard to the homeless, the poor, minorities, womens equality, and the environment. I would argue that just saying that you care is not real compassion, and that electing politicians to throw money at the war on poverty and affirmative action equates to being charitable.

Steve:

Who get's to make the determination as to the quality of someone elses life?

Where mental competence exists, the individual himself/herself, assisted by his/her physician.

In the case of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy, the mother.

In the case of a fetus in more advanced stages, or a person without mental competency, the family and its physician(s), with guidelines and restrictions imposed by society as a whole through law.

Two principles apply here. One: death is less significant when it occurs very early, before suffering is possible. Thus, contraception is an absolute right, and so is abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, but more restrictions may apply later in gestation, and certainly after birth. Two: an individual has the right, where feasible, to determine for himself/herself the time of his/her death and whether or not to endure suffering. Thus, physician-assisted suicide should be considered a basic right for those capable of making the decision competently.

It's complicated, but not the impossible bind you seem to be suggesting.

As for Scrooge, one cannot isolate his statement from the behavior of his class and the government it dominated at the time Dickens was writing. Through various policies, the British government did its best to ensure a large working-class population, which in turn ensured low wages through normal operation of supply and demand. To then call the unemployable portion of that population "surplus" and suggest it ought to die off is to deny the responsibility Scrooge and his ilk possessed for its existence in the first place.

Brian, pleeeease keep posting stuff like this! You help reinforce my points when you do! :lol:

(Yes, Chris, Marc, Hopefull, et al, I know that I'm taking a considerable but calculated risk here)

Originally Posted by Steve61

.... a zygote/embryo/fetus, or as I prefer "unborn child", cannot choose their own demise... and it is my belief that no one has the right to make that choice for them!

again, i'm not going there.

Originally Posted by Steve61

No - the quote is not out of context. The context in the book is specifically to illustrate that Scrooge is a greedy, cold hearted individual for espousing that view... and that is the context I wished to convey as well.

don't make me go all dictionary on your a**....

oops, too late:

Main Entry: con?text
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

it's out of context because you extracted/separated it from its context, as defined above.

Originally Posted by Steve61

Perhaps you don't, but many of those who share your perspective do. They believe that they are morally superior with regard to the homeless, the poor, minorities, womens equality, and the environment. I would argue that just saying that you care is not real compassion, and that electing politicians to throw money at the war on poverty and affirmative action equates to being charitable.

i'm not sure what you're getting at here. first, i can't speak for others. second, correct me if i'm wrong, but don't you mean to assert that "electing politicians to throw money at the war on poverty and affirmative action" does not equate to being charitable? because that seems to better fit your general theme, here.


TK

That's what he meant TK. You've got to forgive Steve for leaving out a "not", but he's never talked to anyone with such a depressed opinion of Life before. Lucky for you, your own definition now disqualifies you from being able to "off yourself".

Originally Posted by Chris'68

You've got to forgive Steve for leaving out a "not", but he's never talked to anyone with such a depressed opinion of Life before.

hmmm.... "depressed opinion of life" you say, eh?

let's see....

nope.... i don't see it.


TK

Rather than ask some people to further defend their bed in the asylum, let's look at some new "Evidence":

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002755

George argues that this "is a problem unique to Trent Lott," noting that other Southern conservatives, including Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, have not "left a trail of offhanded racially charged comments." Lott's record is particularly shocking, George says, given that he "is an adult baby boomer. . . . The leaders of this generation supposedly went through the '60s and supposedly learned a few things about race."

Actually, this isn't quite true--and the Lott problem may indeed be generational. Lott was born in 1941, making him too old by several years to be a baby boomer. This puts him on the civil-rights cusp: As we pointed out yesterday, he is old enough that he came of age under segregation, and in what was the nation's most racially backward state to boot. But segregation was dead by the time he arrived in Congress in 1973, which means that unlike old-line Dixiecrats, he never had to go through a public process of personal reconstruction, living down a segregationist legislative record.

The good news is that the next generation of Republican leaders (as well as some of Lott's peers, like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky) have no such racial baggage. Lott's gaffe of last week handed the Democrats a political opportunity--but it also handed the Republicans an opportunity to consider whether this is really the kind of leadership they want.

Did someone mail a copy of T4T to Mr. Taranto?

Originally Posted by Steve61

Perhaps you don't, but many of those who share your perspective do. They believe that they are morally superior with regard to the homeless, the poor, minorities, womens equality, and the environment. I would argue that just saying that you care is not real compassion, and that electing politicians to throw money at the war on poverty and affirmative action equates to being charitable.

I would tend to agree. The world is full of well-meaning people whose hearts "bleed" for the poor and supposedly-oppressed, and throw money at problems via solutions that are only marginally successful at best, abject failures at worst, simply to alleviate the guilt that they feel for not being born poor or feeling oppressed. These are people who are so liberal that they are, in fact, conservatives seeking to conserve their own misplaced liberalism. Such people are not truly compassionate, for their "concern" for others is intrinsically self-serving.

Case in point. When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. C., whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C., or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (my family and I) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own-- for a day, a week, and (ultimately) forever.

Mrs. C. was a nice lady, but deluded, and as such I had very little respect for her. It is difficult to respect someone who confuses compassion with pity, and then cluelessly proceeds to pity the wrong folks.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Steve61

Perhaps you don't, but many of those who share your perspective do. They believe that they are morally superior with regard to the homeless, the poor, minorities, womens equality, and the environment. I would argue that just saying that you care is not real compassion, and that electing politicians to throw money at the war on poverty and affirmative action equates to being charitable.

I would tend to agree. The world is full of well-meaning people whose hearts "bleed" for the poor and supposedly-oppressed, and throw money at problems via solutions that are only marginally successful at best, abject failures at worst, simply to alleviate the guilt that they feel for not being born poor or feeling oppressed. These are people who are so liberal that they are, in facts conservatives seeking to conserve their own misplaced liberalism. Such people are not truly compassionate, for their "concern" for others is intrinsically self-serving.

Case in point. When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. Cherlin, whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C, or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (i.e. us) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own.

Mrs. C. was a nice lady, but deluded, and as such I had very little respect for her. It is difficult to respect someone who confuses compassion with pity, and then cluelessly proceeds to pity the wrong folks.

Thank you! You wouldn't believe the things I have been called just because I believe (and have stated on many occasions) that affirmative action (as it has become, not as it was intended) actually propogates racism by not allowing a person to make it - or not - on their own. How does it go... give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish... :wink:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. C., whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C., or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (my family and I) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own-- for a day, a week, and (ultimately) forever.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was her offer to take you and your siblings for the day an act of racial condescension or was she just being nice? If she was taking her nephews to the same place, maybe her invitation was about as racist as my inviting my daughter's friend to join us on an outing. Or maybe she just liked your company. Maybe she missed having kids. And what did her offers have to do with your family Cape Cod vacations? :-? :-?

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, sweetheart, when I invite you to join my daughter Linda and me on an outing. :wink:

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. C., whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C., or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (my family and I) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own-- for a day, a week, and (ultimately) forever.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was her offer to take you and your siblings for the day an act of racial condescension or was she just being nice? If she was taking her nephews to the same place, maybe her invitation was about as racist as my inviting my daughter's friend to join us on an outing. Or maybe she just liked your company. Maybe she missed having kids. And what did her offers have to do with your family Cape Cod vacations? :-? :-?

The racial condescension wasn't in the offer - which was, I'm sure, made in an effort to be nice - no, the racial condescension was her problem with the fact that he and his siblings did not feel the obligation to accept her largess.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, sweetheart, when I invite you to join my daughter Linda and me on an outing. :wink:

Depends on the reason you're inviting your daughter's friend - or is that your daughter's minority friend? :wink:

Steve:

Brian, pleeeease keep posting stuff like this!

OK.

You help reinforce my points when you do!

What point would that be?

:wink:

Originally Posted by Steve61

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, sweetheart, when I invite you to join my daughter Linda and me on an outing. :wink:

Depends on the reason you're inviting your daughter's friend - or is that your daughter's minority friend? :wink:

My daughter, Linda, her friend Vera, and I are all Caucasian Anglos (i.e. non-Hispanic whites). As such, Linda and Vera are minorities in their majority-Hispanic public school. Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant by "minority", though.

My joke was that I'm inviting my friend of color (Kevin Parker '59) to join Linda and me (and sometimes Vera) on outings, not because of the color of his skin (which is a gorgeous shade of bronze) but because he's my honey. :wink:

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. C., whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C., or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (my family and I) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own-- for a day, a week, and (ultimately) forever.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was her offer to take you and your siblings for the day an act of racial condescension or was she just being nice? If she was taking her nephews to the same place, maybe her invitation was about as racist as my inviting my daughter's friend to join us on an outing. Or maybe she just liked your company. Maybe she missed having kids. And what did her offers have to do with your family Cape Cod vacations? :-? :-?

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, sweetheart, when I invite you to join my daughter Linda and me on an outing. :wink:

Yes dear, you missed the phrase "...it stuck in her craw". She actually became angry and derisive with 13-year-old me when I politely told her that we couldn't go to the Zoo because we were off to the Cape for the third week in July, 1973. That particular offer of hers (others of which I accepted) had nothing to do with our trip, it was simply a coincidence that both events were planned for the same week. It was her reaction to my decline, not the offer itself, that I found annoying-- and that reaction was part of a pattern. I guess you had to have been there, and known her (sigh).

At any rate, you needn't worry hon -- a Silent do-gooder's misplaced compassion really isn't the same thing as when my Boomer girlfriend asks me out on a date

Putin creating a strategic triangle of Russia, China, and India to oppose the Bush administration's imperialist expansion.



13:36 2002-12-09

Vladimir Putin Creating Anti-USA Axis?

Russia, China, and India ? the anti-supremacy triangle?


http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/12/09/40548.html

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

This is a very strange but interesting thread.

Kevin, I disagree with you completely about not being able to have as strong a bond if you've had multiple partners. To me, the strength of an emotional bond depends on the person you're with, and has little to do with sex itself.

XoE

I've been tossing this over in my head for a few days now, unsure of how to respond. I suppose how one feels about multiple partners (how many is "multiple" anyway? 2? 10? 100?) -- either one's own or those of one's significant other (or lack thereof) -- depends on whether one views sex as primarily spiritual, or primarily recreational. To put it in a different light, does one feel that sex is more akin to prayer/meditation, or to bungee jumping? My observation is that people who see sex as a spiritual communion with someone they love refer to the act as "making love". Those who view it as a romp with someone they merely like call it "having sex". A semantic difference, but an important distinction I believe.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Kevin, maybe the lady was just a controlling bitch, not a racist.


XoE

That could very well be. My anecdote was merely reflective of how things appeared to me at the time-- it was the Awakening, after all :-). I'm beginning to regret having shared it with you guys. Now my girlfriend is probably mad at me! Geezh!

Or 4T keeping the Homefront from bad news;

Or another bit of mis-info from our Rooskie pals: for your consideration as
an educational purpose only:

GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
U.S. soldiers executed
in Afghanistan?
Russian intelligence says 18 MIA
following capture by Taliban
Posted: December 11, 2002
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily brings readers exclusive, up-to-the-minute global intelligence news and analysis from Geostrategy-Direct, a new online newsletter edited by veteran journalist Robert Morton and featuring the "Backgrounder" column compiled by Bill Gertz. Geostrategy-Direct is a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com, a free news service frequently linked by the editors of WorldNetDaily.

??2002?WorldNetDaily.com

While the Pentagon and White House have maintained a tight lid on any strategic information coming out of Afghanistan, Russian military intelligence has been closely monitoring U.S. activities in the country, claiming that 18 U.S. soldiers were captured and then executed by the Taliban, reports Geostrategy, the global intelligence news agency.


All of the soldiers are believed to have been executed on April 10 after the United States ignored a Taliban and al-Qaida deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.


No bodies have been recovered.


The Russians also assert, in details confirmed in part by U.S. officials, that U.S. forces have been mired in a guerrilla war against determined al-Qaida and Taliban forces.


From Oct. 7, 2001, until September 2002, 152 Americans were killed in Afghanistan with another 215 wounded, according to the intelligence data.


The bloodiest battle took place in March 2002 during Operation Anaconda in the Pactia province in southeastern Afghanistan.


At least 60 U.S. soldiers, say the Russians, were killed or wounded in the battle, most of them by mines, light-weapons and mortar fire.


Russian intelligence claims that after initial gains, U.S. forces have failed to find or dislodge al-Qaida or Taliban troops from numerous areas, particularly along the Afghan-Pakistani border.


The result has been a demoralized U.S. military and the withdrawal of many troops from combat in an effort to reduce casualties, the report concluded.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29954

And now, i read this morning, North Korea has decided to resume construction on its nuclear power plant and weapons program. Of course, the Bush Administration will bomb it to smithereens before it is operational. They'll have to, or risk the President's words/threats being seen as empty (recalling Mr. Bush's "Axis Of Evil" speech earlier this year, and declaration last week of our preemptive strike option).

Still think we're in 3T, anyone?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

That could very well be. My anecdote was merely reflective of how things appeared to me at the time-- it was the Awakening, after all :-). I'm beginning to regret having shared it with you guys. Now my girlfriend is probably mad at me! Geezh!

No, she's not, sweetheart.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002759

Zero-Tolerance Watch

Signs of sanity in Florida? The Polk County School Board has reinstated five students--a kindergartner, a first-grader, a second-grader and two high-school sophomores--who were tossed out for bring knives to school, and this "may signal a change of heart on the idea of zero tolerance," the Lakeland Ledger reports.