Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 2637 2638 [2639] 2640 2641 ... 3511

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3532559 times)

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39570 on: September 23, 2020, 09:21:36 am »

Since you didn't answer my question, and instead deflected into definitions and claims of misrepresentation like you always do, this discussion is concluded.

You may feel free to skip claiming misrepresentation whenever I critique your position in future discussions. I know you are thinking it, so there is no need to elaborate.

Enjoy the eternity of slavery, I guess. Not fake slavery as a doctor or anything, I'm talking about real slavery once the ecocide kicks off and society collapses.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39571 on: September 23, 2020, 09:22:48 am »

There's some twisted logic to the notion Hector.

Specifically, if I own a gun, my ownership naturally grants me the discretion in how that gun is used; Vis-a-vis, I am ultimately the one who decides such a thing.
Conversely, a doctor is the one who owns the expertise and skill to perform quality medical care. His ownership of those things naturally grants him the discretion in how that knowledge gets used; Vis-a-vis, he is ultimately the one who decides who gets treated and who does not.

Mandating that everyone has a right to healthcare, intrinsically implies that the doctor does not have such a right or such discretion; It is a form of legal compulsion to service. Last I checked, slavery is not legal in the US. As such, attempting to recognize such a right is onerous, and violates the principles of natural rights, no matter how well meaning you might be in attempting to suggest it.

Eliminating all plausible rationales for a doctor to choose to refuse care over, is not the same thing as mandating that the doctor must always provide care.  Subsidized federal healthcare is the former, "Right to medical care" is the latter.  The former assures the doctor is always reimbursed for his labor and expertise, but says nothing about his/her right to not perform surgery, or practice their art on a case-by-case basis.  The latter however, DOES dictate that the doctor cannot refuse.

It does not. It dictates that the government must aim to provide healthcare to her citizens.
Logged
Love, scriver~

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39572 on: September 23, 2020, 09:23:09 am »

Working in the ER is a special condition. And, even then, there are conditions where the doctor can refuse to treat.  See for instance, the very concept of medical triage in an emergency.

Your question is fundamentally invalid, because it presupposes a truth that does not exist.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39573 on: September 23, 2020, 09:25:33 am »

Triage is not an individual refusal to treatment, it's a systematic approach to mass casualty and resource limitation, independent of personage. You can't triage out a lawyer for being a lawyer.

So, is this special condition slavery or not?
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39574 on: September 23, 2020, 09:26:10 am »

There's some twisted logic to the notion Hector.

Specifically, if I own a gun, my ownership naturally grants me the discretion in how that gun is used; Vis-a-vis, I am ultimately the one who decides such a thing.
Conversely, a doctor is the one who owns the expertise and skill to perform quality medical care. His ownership of those things naturally grants him the discretion in how that knowledge gets used; Vis-a-vis, he is ultimately the one who decides who gets treated and who does not.

Mandating that everyone has a right to healthcare, intrinsically implies that the doctor does not have such a right or such discretion; It is a form of legal compulsion to service. Last I checked, slavery is not legal in the US. As such, attempting to recognize such a right is onerous, and violates the principles of natural rights, no matter how well meaning you might be in attempting to suggest it.

Eliminating all plausible rationales for a doctor to choose to refuse care over, is not the same thing as mandating that the doctor must always provide care.  Subsidized federal healthcare is the former, "Right to medical care" is the latter.  The former assures the doctor is always reimbursed for his labor and expertise, but says nothing about his/her right to not perform surgery, or practice their art on a case-by-case basis.  The latter however, DOES dictate that the doctor cannot refuse.

It does not. It dictates that the government must aim to provide healthcare to her citizens.

That would be a right to AFFORDABLE health care-- which is what is always promised.

In this case, the service provided, is provided directly from the government, as it agrees to its obligational duties to the society.  It is then the one providing the service-- Making the healthcare AFFORDABLE, (though government provided supply chains, employment arrangements with willing physicians at a lower price premium, and effective maximum pricing within that system--)-- which is not the same thing at all as "Right to healthcare."
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39575 on: September 23, 2020, 09:30:19 am »

Triage is not an individual refusal to treatment, it's a systematic approach to mass casualty and resource limitation, independent of personage. You can't triage out a lawyer for being a lawyer.

So, is this special condition slavery or not?

Triage was given as an example.

Another is "I will not operate on this tumor, because I feel I cannot safely perform the surgery."  This happens very frequently.  The condition you are specifying is a nonsequitor in most cases anyway.  US physicians agree to professional oaths as part of their becoming certified physicians. This is both a philosophical statement, as well as a condition to practice medicine in the US.   The objection most physicians will have to refuse service, ultimately boils down to "Treating you will either cause you more harm, or will cause harm to others."  Otherwise, they do not, as a profession, tend to engage in the kind of sophistry you are trying to inject. 

Again, your line of attack attempts to beg the question.  It is a logical fallacy.  Either argue in good faith, or go away.
Logged

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39576 on: September 23, 2020, 09:32:14 am »

There's some twisted logic to the notion Hector.

Specifically, if I own a gun, my ownership naturally grants me the discretion in how that gun is used; Vis-a-vis, I am ultimately the one who decides such a thing.
Conversely, a doctor is the one who owns the expertise and skill to perform quality medical care. His ownership of those things naturally grants him the discretion in how that knowledge gets used; Vis-a-vis, he is ultimately the one who decides who gets treated and who does not.

Mandating that everyone has a right to healthcare, intrinsically implies that the doctor does not have such a right or such discretion; It is a form of legal compulsion to service. Last I checked, slavery is not legal in the US. As such, attempting to recognize such a right is onerous, and violates the principles of natural rights, no matter how well meaning you might be in attempting to suggest it.

Eliminating all plausible rationales for a doctor to choose to refuse care over, is not the same thing as mandating that the doctor must always provide care.  Subsidized federal healthcare is the former, "Right to medical care" is the latter.  The former assures the doctor is always reimbursed for his labor and expertise, but says nothing about his/her right to not perform surgery, or practice their art on a case-by-case basis.  The latter however, DOES dictate that the doctor cannot refuse.

It does not. It dictates that the government must aim to provide healthcare to her citizens.

That would be a right to AFFORDABLE health care-- which is what is always promised.

In this case, the service provided, is provided directly from the government, as it agrees to its obligational duties to the society.  It is then the one providing the service-- Making the healthcare AFFORDABLE, (though government provided supply chains, employment arrangements with willing physicians at a lower price premium, and effective maximum pricing within that system--)-- which is not the same thing at all as "Right to healthcare."

This argument is entirely petitessary.
Logged
Love, scriver~

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39577 on: September 23, 2020, 09:33:38 am »

Sophistry? You're the one who claimed philosophical and literal slavery was the result of a right to healthcare.

Of all the people on this forum, I am sure as fuck not one with a good faith problem. My good faith is so strong everyone in this thread hates it. I was compared to Newt Gingrich.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39578 on: September 23, 2020, 09:34:39 am »

Says the man, holding up a Begging the Question logical fallacy...
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39579 on: September 23, 2020, 09:36:43 am »

There's some twisted logic to the notion Hector.

Specifically, if I own a gun, my ownership naturally grants me the discretion in how that gun is used; Vis-a-vis, I am ultimately the one who decides such a thing.
Conversely, a doctor is the one who owns the expertise and skill to perform quality medical care. His ownership of those things naturally grants him the discretion in how that knowledge gets used; Vis-a-vis, he is ultimately the one who decides who gets treated and who does not.

Mandating that everyone has a right to healthcare, intrinsically implies that the doctor does not have such a right or such discretion; It is a form of legal compulsion to service. Last I checked, slavery is not legal in the US. As such, attempting to recognize such a right is onerous, and violates the principles of natural rights, no matter how well meaning you might be in attempting to suggest it.

Eliminating all plausible rationales for a doctor to choose to refuse care over, is not the same thing as mandating that the doctor must always provide care.  Subsidized federal healthcare is the former, "Right to medical care" is the latter.  The former assures the doctor is always reimbursed for his labor and expertise, but says nothing about his/her right to not perform surgery, or practice their art on a case-by-case basis.  The latter however, DOES dictate that the doctor cannot refuse.

It does not. It dictates that the government must aim to provide healthcare to her citizens.

That would be a right to AFFORDABLE health care-- which is what is always promised.

In this case, the service provided, is provided directly from the government, as it agrees to its obligational duties to the society.  It is then the one providing the service-- Making the healthcare AFFORDABLE, (though government provided supply chains, employment arrangements with willing physicians at a lower price premium, and effective maximum pricing within that system--)-- which is not the same thing at all as "Right to healthcare."

This argument is entirely petitessary.

The devil is in the details.  When deciding matters that affect millions of lives, being a stickler is necessary.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39580 on: September 23, 2020, 09:39:04 am »

Asking you to answer for the suggested results of the position that you advocated using your own terms is not begging the question.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Maximum Spin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE] [GOES_TO_ELEVEN]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39581 on: September 23, 2020, 09:42:03 am »

My good faith is so strong everyone in this thread hates it. I was compared to Newt Gingrich.
This is a fascinating revelation about both your worldview and the level of discourse in this thread.

Just quoting this for preservation.  It's a good bit of honesty that deserves to be read multiple times by those who may not have understood the conservative mindset before now.

"Everyone do what you can get away with.  I will.  That's just the nature of the world.  Do it to someone else, and I'll congratulate you.  Do it to me and I'll kill you.  It's all a deathmatch to get as much as you can."

Now imagine trying to apply good faith and compromise to this.
This is funny because I'm not even conservative in any meaningful sense (I voted for Obama because I hoped he would be a reformer, even), but this is not in fact my mindset. My actual mindset is, "I would prefer that we all respect each other and abide by the principles of the Constitution, but, if you don't, it doesn't actually bother me as long as you do it the hell away from me". For example, I think you and MSH should be perfectly free to have your own, separate country with borders that can be closed off from mine.
(ETA: And to be clear, I'm saying "congratulations, you win" in a tongue-in-cheek way. I don't actually congratulate you, unless maybe you do it to someone I really dislike. I mean "it's none of my business, so you get away with it".)


Now, about this other thing: Working in an emergency room under emergency room rules is "approximately" slavery. It turns out there are degrees of slavery and that is a little bit more slavery than other things. Paying taxes is also a little bit slavery.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 09:52:43 am by Maximum Spin »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39582 on: September 23, 2020, 09:43:36 am »

The question you specifically asked, and then grandstanded over--

Which, for clarity, was this question, and was the only question in your entire rant.

Quote
So you'll agree then, that working in the ER makes you a slave?

Is begging the question.  It is so, because the condition of working in an ER does not necessiate "cannot refuse".  There *ARE* conditions where the physician can indeed refuse.  I listed at least two.  Since the precondition that the doctor CANNOT refuse, is necessary for the conclusion you are seeking, it begs the question.

What you have just done, is called Moving the Goal Post, and is another tactic of argument in bad faith.

Care to go for a third round, or will you accede?
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39583 on: September 23, 2020, 09:55:09 am »

My good faith is so strong everyone in this thread hates it. I was compared to Newt Gingrich.
This is a fascinating revelation about both your worldview and the level of discourse in this thread.
It's really unrelated to my worldview even in procedural terms, save that I would rapidly make myself the most hated member of Congress on purpose.

Quote
This is funny because I'm not even conservative in any meaningful sense (I voted for Obama because I hoped he would be a reformer, even), but this is not in fact my mindset. My actual mindset is, "I would prefer that we all respect each other and abide by the principles of the Constitution, but, if you don't, it doesn't actually bother me as long as you do it the hell away from me".
You can hardly claim the kind of power philosophy you do and not be a conservative. It's arguably the most important part of being a conservative, the rest is window dressing and cultural chauvinism.

Quote
For example, I think you and MSH should be perfectly free to have your own, separate country with borders that can be closed off from mine.
Sorry sweaty, but borders aren't real. Kappa, and such.

Quote
Now, about this other thing: Working in an emergency room under emergency room rules is "approximately" slavery. It turns out there are degrees of slavery and that is a little bit more slavery than other things. Paying taxes is also a little bit slavery.
Taxes aren't real either.

The question you specifically asked, and then grandstanded over--

Which, for clarity, was this question, and was the only question in your entire rant.

Quote
So you'll agree then, that working in the ER makes you a slave?

Is begging the question.  It is so, because the condition of working in an ER does not necessiate "cannot refuse".  There *ARE* conditions where the physician can indeed refuse.  I listed at least two.  Since the precondition that the doctor CANNOT refuse, is necessary for the conclusion you are seeking, it begs the question.

What you have just done, is called Moving the Goal Post, and is another tactic of argument in bad faith.

Care to go for a third round, or will you accede?

You continuously refuse to answer the question, because the only logical answer contradicts your position. It is no sin to point out your answer is a non-answer.

We started this out talking about a doctor's personal ability to refuse to offer care. I even diverged this right at the start from fiscal reasons for refusing care, because that is just a system issue which could be abolished.

As such, "triage" and "lack of skill" are also not answers. They are unrelated to the doctor's person, only their resources and their professional qualifications. Because I am such a good faith participant, I did not think I needed to nail you to the wall on this after you initially acknowledged the distinction, but here we are.

Furthermore, unless you are saying that any reason in any category is enough to escape this category of doctoral """"slavery"""", it is a question you ought to answer. Because if you are saying that any reason is enough, then I will be happy to include a clause that the right to healthcare should only apply to doctors with the skill to treat whatever condition you have, and then by that standard it is not "slavery" since there is a possible reason to refuse care.

Happy?
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #39584 on: September 23, 2020, 10:09:31 am »

Happy?

No.

You are triple dipping on the begging the question sauce.

Your question is practically a textbook example of one.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question

Quote
Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”.  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

I am not dodging your question. I am pointing out that your question has no merit, as it attempts to make a conclusion as one of its premises.  Specifically, the statement that doctors cannot refuse to provide care in an ER setting.  You have attempted to move the goal post, by attempting to invalidate the challenging conditions to your pre-conclusion.  This tactic has no real merit, the issue is with the structure of your question innately-- No matter what you attempt here, the question still begs the question, because it presupposes a conclusion.

The argument you are making, is only inescapable, when that pre-conclusion is axiomatically true; That is exactly the fallacy of the question.  It does not ask if that is true, it asserts it is true. 

That assertion is however, false.

https://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/treatment-denial.html

Quote
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), was signed into law in 1986.

Originally written as an “anti-dumping” act, the law required private hospitals with dedicated emergency departments to treat women in active labor and people with emergency medical conditions, regardless of the person’s ability to pay.

EMTALA defines an emergency medical condition as one that occurred suddenly, with symptoms such as severe pain, psychiatric disturbance, or symptoms of substance abuse, where lack of emergency care could result in:

    placing the health of the individual (or unborn child) in serious jeopardy
    the serious impairment of a bodily function
    the serious dysfunction of any bodily function or part
    not enough time to safely transfer a pregnant woman to another hospital before delivery, or transfer could be risky for the woman or unborn child

Under EMTALA, the patient can’t be released or transferred to another hospital until their condition has been stabilized.

Once stabilized, the hospital can legally release the patient or refuse further care, so long as the refusal is not discriminatory, for example, because of a person’s race or religion.
42 CFR §§ 413, 482, 489

EMTALA doesn’t cover every type of medical facility.  Private doctor’s offices,  stand-alone medical labs, and specialty hospitals that don’t have an emergency room, won’t be subject to EMTALA rules.

In recent years, updates to the regulations and federal court decisions have begun to include hospital-sponsored urgent care centers under the EMTALA.

With the truly pertinent section bolded and enlarged.  As stated, the doctor is indeed able to refuse to provide treatment under certain narrow conditions, which *ARE* up to their discretion---  Feelings of incompetency are a discretionary matter.  The doctor may well be physically able to, have had the appropriate training to perform, have the surgical apparatus and facility available to perform, and still not FEEL competent enough to assure a quality outcome for the patient, and thus refuse through deferral.

You are attempting to claim that this is not a refusal.  You need to back that up.  Doubling down on your position, and asserting you are not engaging in poor faith, despite textbook examples to the contrary, notwithstanding.  I needed only supply ONE example to disprove the precondition. I provided 2.

How many must I provide?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 10:11:54 am by wierd »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 2637 2638 [2639] 2640 2641 ... 3511