Want an abortion in Oklahoma?Then pay for it yourself.

[Felicity]

Which "dear Pope"?
Surely not Ratzi.

You're probably referring to dear old John Paul.
And you're undoubtedly correct; he condemns no one.
At least not anymore.

Expressing the "intrinsic moral evil" of (I assume joey is talking about) homosexual behavior, is not at all condemning those with same sex attraction.

"Ratzi" and "Wojtyla" would agree on that point.

 

[Felicity]

I love Pope JP...I went and saw him one Youth Day.

Sooo jealous, I am.

 

[talloulou]

It's more than an "invisible" target; it's a nonexistent one.
That sort of takes the "chance" out of it.
Only the choice remains.

You have the choice to shoot for the nonexistent target, or not.
If you choose to do so, you may accidently shoot innocent passersby, and end up wounding or killing others for your efforts.

But regardless of whether or not you choose to shoot for the nonexistent target, you have no chance of hitting it, seeing as how it's nonexistent.

No one kills another if they have empathy for that person. Killing always comes out of apathy. Even if I were to kill a man in defense of my family that killing happened because at the point where the man threatened my family I became completely apathetic towards him, his feelings, his desires.

Having empathy for all is damn near impossible. I imagine if you were certain of heaven and an afterlife you might be more willing to lay down your life or the lives of your family in order to not be apathetic towards another yourself. You would give up your life and even at the moment of death you would claim that you held no ill will towards those who killed you.

It's hard to imagine humans could ever reach that level of empathy for all but as long as you are constantly striving to move towards empathy for all and apathy for none then empathy becomes your moral compass. Empathy is universally good. You do not have to agree with someone to have empathy for them.

You can be against the death penalty because you have empathy for those on death row despite what they've done. That doesn't mean you agree with or support what they've done but it does mean that you still recognize that you yourself would not want to be killed and thus killing the human before you regardless of what he has done is somehow wrong.

 

[1069]

No one kills another if they have empathy for that person. Killing always comes out of apathy.

I'm speaking here of collateral damage.
Perhaps you ought to reread my post.
True, it involved a somewhat unwieldy metaphor ("shooting for a target" as a metaphor for striving for Absolute Truth; you can lay that blame on Joey's doorstep, not mine), but I do not think it was so cryptic as to be incomprehensible.

 

[jallman]

No one kills another if they have empathy

Would those who advocate for euthanasia rights agree with your statement?

 

[1069]

I love Pope JP...I went and saw him one Youth Day.

Yeah, my dad saw him too. He visits Rome every few years, and Vatican City is always on the itinerary.
I've got a whole houseful of miniature Swiss Guards, St. Peter's Basilica snowglobes, and other kitschy vatican souvenirs and memorabilia.

 

[talloulou]

Would those who advocate for euthanasia rights agree with your statement?

Damn you jallman!! :2wave: But yeah they would agree with me. What I should have said is that no one would treat another in a manner that they themselves wouldn't want to be treated out of empathy. So saying "killing" was wrong.

It's the golden rule. Treat others as you would treat yourself. If you genuinely believed someone to be suffering to such an extent that you yourself in that same state would want someone to end your life than that killing may indeed be an act of empathetic mercy. But you have to be careful there because the self lies. Many people will say well I'd rather be dead than such and such....but put in that state, condition, circumstance, whatever they really wouldn't want to be dead themselves. They're just lying.

You couldn't just say I'd rather be dead than homeless and then view killing the homeless as mercy. That would be a lie. People tell tons of them.

 

[1069]

It's the golden rule. Treat others as you would treat yourself.

The ethic of reciprocity is universal, and has nothing to do with religion per se, having no doubt predated religion by several hundred millenia.
It's the cornerstone of civilization.

 

[jallman]

Damn you jallman!! :2wave: But yeah they would agree with me. What I should have said is that no one would treat another in a manner that they themselves wouldn't want to be treated out of empathy. So saying "killing" was wrong.

It's the golden rule. Treat others as you would treat yourself.

See that "as". "As" can add a very subjective side to any argument.

 

[talloulou]

The ethic of reciprocity is universal, and has nothing to do with religion per se, having no doubt predated religion by several hundred millenia.
It's the cornerstone of civilization.

I agree. It's found in tons of religions and even in the animal kingdom with the apes. Just because the whole "Do unto others..." has a religious ring to it doesn't mean it isn't true or that religion owns that bit of philosophy.

It's a universal truth and it's grounded in empathy. Empathy is the how and the why we aim to treat others as we would want to be treated. To treat another in a way that you wouldn't like to be treated yourself you have to adopt an apathetic attitude towards that person.

It's not only the cornerstone of civilization it is the universal moral compass.

 

[Jerry]

It's the golden rule. Treat others as you would treat yourself.

So if I'm suicidal.....

 

[talloulou]

So if I'm suicidal.....

How could you treat another to suicide? But I catch your drift and I do think people who have low self esteem or self hate are often the ones who are most likely to treat others badly.

 

[1069]

I agree. It's found in tons of religions and even in the animal kingdom with the apes. Just because the whole "Do unto others..." has a religious ring to it doesn't mean it isn't true or that religion owns that bit of philosophy.

It's a universal truth and it's grounded in empathy. Empathy is the how and the why we aim to treat others as we would want to be treated. To treat another in a way that you wouldn't like to be treated yourself you have to adopt an apathetic attitude towards that person.

It's not only the cornerstone of civilization it is the universal moral compass.

But how does this translate to such things as wanting to build a big wall so that starving and destitute mexican families can't cross the border to work, when we live in a nation of such endless and inexhaustible plenitude?
How does it extend to advocating the denial of health care to those who can't afford to pay for it, and their children?

Even if "as I would wish to be treated" is a morally murky and subjective area, surely there's not that much discrepency in how we would "wish to be treated" if we got laid off and lost our health insurance, and two weeks later our six-year-old began vomiting blood and was subsequently diagnosed with leukemia.

 

[talloulou]

But how does this translate to such things as wanting to build a big wall so that starving and destitute mexican families can't cross the border to work, when we live in a nation of such endless and inexhaustible plenitude?
How does it extend to advocating the denial of health care to those who can't afford to pay for it, and their children?

Even if "as I would wish to be treated" is a morally murky and subjective area, surely there's not that much discrepency in how we would "wish to be treated" if we got laid off and lost our health insurance, and two weeks later our six-year-old began vomiting blood and was subsequently diagnosed with leukemia.

Hell if I know! That's my honest answer. You gotta look at a situation and think, "am I acting in an empathetic manner or an apathetic one?"

Do I really think doing such and such is best for everyone or is it really only best for me and mine? Is there enough resources to go around? If there is then why should any be suffering? If there isn't then how can we possibly operate in a manner that isn't self serving and still survive? What if there is no such thing as God and Heaven, ect. Then being "good" and treating others "nicely" is really just a form of getting along with no real purpose and thus it can be tossed out the window the moment it fails to serve our agenda.

What I do know is that most humans have trouble remaining apathetic to that which is staring them in the face. However we don't generally go too far out of our way to become informed about situations that aren't directly "in our face." Sort of an uninformed apathy that is nice and comfy.

When it comes to situations like illegal immigrants I think the answer is figuring out a way to make the place where they come from better. But honestly who is trying to do that? But if we really cared that is what we would do. If their place was nice some would still come here and others would leave to go there. It would be more balanced vs. this widespread fleeing.

So in my mind there are obvious issues with just letting them come here and there are obvious issues with refusing to let them in. Neither solution solves the real problem which is that many places south of the border aren't currently great places to live.

As far as healthcare goes the very very poor and the very very ill get treatment in our country. A child with leukemia isn't ignored. Can you find me one instance of a child with leukemia being denied treatment in our country? I don't believe it happens.

 

[1069]

As far as healthcare goes the very very poor and the very very ill get treatment in our country.

I didn't say they were.
However, there are many (even here on this very forum) who would have it so.
Many who advocate "every person for him/herself" (do a search for the term "personal responsibility" if you don't believe me).

The problem is that for the uninsured, acute care is provided (anyone can walk into an emergency room and be seen, with or without money or insurance), but actual treatment is hard to come by (chemo and radiation and surgery, for instance).
Yeah, if you walk into the emergency room with end-stage colon cancer, hemmoraging wildly from your hind end, they'll do something to stop the bleeding. They'll shove a wad of cotton up your butt and tell you to consult with your physician first thing in the morning.
What they won't do is admit you to the hospital, perform a colostomy, administer radiation, and start you on an intensive chemotherapy regime.
For all that, you need a referral to an oncologist- or a team of them.
You will not get that without insurance.
You will get acute emergency care. You will get bandaids, and directives to "see your primary care physician for a referral".
Of course, if you're poor and uninsured, you don't have a primary care physician.

The further point is, poor and uninsured people don't widely receive the screenings (PAPs, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) that can detect cancer (or even precancerous changes) at an early stage, before it becomes catastrophic.

 

[Jerry]

How could you treat another to suicide? But I catch your drift and I do think people who have low self esteem or self hate are often the ones who are most likely to treat others badly.

If I'd be willing to kill my self then I am entitled to treat others the same by killing them, according to your golden rule, because I would be treating them just as I would treat myself.

 

[talloulou]

I didn't say they were.
However, there are many (even here on this very forum) who would have it so.
Many who advocate "every person for him/herself" (do a search for the term "personal responsibility" if you don't believe me).

The problem is that for the uninsured, acute care is provided (anyone can walk into an emergency room and be seen, with or without money or insurance), but actual treatment is hard to come by (chemo and radiation and surgery, for instance).
Yeah, if you walk into the emergency room with end-stage colon cancer, hemmoraging wildly from your hind end, they'll do something to stop the bleeding. They'll shove a wad of cotton up your butt and tell you to consult with your physician first thing in the morning.
What they won't do is admit you to the hospital, perform a colostomy, administer radiation, and start you on an intensive chemotherapy regime.
For all that, you need a referral to an oncologist- or a team of them.
You will not get that without insurance.
You will get acute emergency care. You will get bandaids, and directives to "see your primary care physician for a referral".
Of course, if you're poor and uninsured, you don't have a primary care physician.

The further point is, poor and uninsured people don't widely receive the screenings (PAPs, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) that can detect cancer (or even precancerous changes) at an early stage, before it becomes catastrophic.

I think for many it boils down to we can't just make health insurance free or give health insurance freely to those who don't have it because were we to do that no one would buy it. Why buy it if you can just get it for free? If everyone was given a "right" to health insurance without having to work for it then no one would work for it. Why would they? They will get it whether they earn it or not. If no one works for things then how are those things going to be paid for? Why would the dr. be motivated to work if he isn't getting paid, blah blah blah. Lets say the government gives everyone insurance but the drs. get paid less now under the new system. Are the brightest going to be motivated to be drs. when being a dr. no longer pays highly? These are the things people think about when they talk about personal responsibility.

A village can't run itself. Some of the inhabitants are going to have to work and if you reward those who didn't work then how are others going to be motivated to work?

So what do we do? We talk about personal responsibility and push everyone to work and earn everything. Those that absolutely refuse to work will still be treated at the end of the day. No one is turned away from the ER if they are having a true emergency. Most with cancer who can't afford to pay will eventually be pointed down a path where they will receive treatment anyway despite not having earned health insurance.

It was a pretty good system in my opinion except now the insurance companies and the managed care fiasco have gummed up the works. Now affordable health insurance is genuinely inaccessible for some and failure to "earn" it isn't really the issue. The issue is that people are being treated unfairly and your ability to purchase insurance at a fair and reasonable price is limited depending on who you work for and if you work for yourself as a small family business then you're really screwed. You can't really blame people for not earning something when it wasn't that they refused to earn it but instead that the system became impossibly unfair.

The very very poor or disadvantaged will be fine if they get cancer. The person who will get screwed beyond belief is the one who wasn't quite poor enough to get all the sympathy and forgiveness that the very very poor get. This person will get their needed medical treatment as well but their finances will be completely fVcked for the rest of their life. But there is always the bankruptcy get out of debt free card though playing that has consequences too.

All in all it would be very hard to argue that we were a society that didn't take care of our children, our poor, our weak, and disadvantaged because we actually do most of the time. Many slip through the cracks, like the mentally ill, but most can find mercy somewhere. Overall we are a kind people.

 

[Cold Highway]

Im pro-choice but I agree if you must get an abortion, please pay for it yourself.

 

[talloulou]

If I'd be willing to kill my self then I am entitled to treat others the same by killing them, according to your golden rule, because I would be treating them just as I would treat myself.

Saying you're willing to kill yourself is not the same as saying you'd agree to have someone else come along and kill you.

 

[1069]

The very very poor or disadvantaged will be fine if they get cancer.

The problem is that there's this troublesome little thing called reality.
Statistics do not bear out your blithe assessment of the situation.
The poor- the very, very poor and "disadvantaged"- suffer and die disproportionately from every disease known to humankind.
Duh. That's why they're called 'disadvantaged".
Or, to put it more succinctly, "underprivileged".
We, meanwhile, are the advantaged and privileged.
We're literate; we have electricity, internet access, and the leisure time to piddle around on internet forums.
That right there puts us ahead of 80-90% of the global population.
It's important to recognize that.

 

[Jerry]

Saying you're willing to kill yourself is not the same as saying you'd agree to have someone else come along and kill you.

I know that, but your golden rule doesn't.

 

[talloulou]

The problem is that there's this troublesome little thing called reality.
Statistics do not bear out your blithe assessment of the situation.
The poor- the very, very poor and "disadvantaged"- suffer and die disproportionately from every disease known to humankind.
Duh. That's why they're called 'disadvantaged".
Or, to put it more succinctly, "underprivileged".
We, meanwhile, are the advantaged and privileged.
We're literate; we have electricity, internet access, and the leisure time to piddle around on internet forums.
That right there puts us ahead of 80-90% of the global population.
It's important to recognize that.

I agree with you. I just mean the poor in our country don't seem as poor when compared to the rest of the worlds poor. We have many programs in place to assist with them with everything from free vaccines for their kids in many states to breakfast served in schools. If you are going to be poor this isn't a bad place to live because we take care of our poor in most instances.
The least cared for in our country are the mentally ill and the drug addicted.

As for the global problems the US can't take care of all the world's poor single handedly but many nations could be doing far more than what they currently do. I agree with that 100% and I'd definitely include the US in that statement. We could do more but as a country we do lots. But the fact that we do lots doesn't help much when you have a full fridge and you know people are starving elsewhere in the world.

But as far as the whole working towards empathy thing goes I don't know how much a single individual can do without eventually sacrificing their own life. I personally am not empathetic enough to do that and I don't think many are though there are those rare people that devote their entire lives towards helping others at a great cost to themselves. Working towards empathy for all and actually achieving it are two wildly different things. But I think we need to be careful not to lean on that logical assumption as if it were some kind of excuse. Empathy is our one true moral compass that flows through humanity.

I always ask myself what more I could do and I try to pay attention to my own apathy of which I have tons. At a certain point I feel helpless about much that goes on and I just stop caring. That doesn't fit well with my moral compass and thus I eventually get around to trying to do more again.

One thing we can do is spread democracy which I believe we are trying to do. Now tons of people are against this idea that we should have the audacity to even try to spread democracy but much of the $hit that goes on elsewhere in the world wouldn't fly here and we have democracy to thank for that. I can keep sending money all over the place to feed the poor but it's like tossing a needle in a haystick. Individually the gesture is so small it becomes almost meaningless, though I do it anyway. But I believe it's better to modernize the entire global world vs. trying to have the modernized take care of those who are living in a world that has all but passed them by.

Obviously these types of things are where different people, most of them very good people, willl disagree. These are also the type of things where ignorance and stupidity can cause an otherwise good person to support ridiculous things that do more harm than good. Believe me I realize that.

 

[jallman]

Yeah, my dad saw him too. He visits Rome every few years, and Vatican City is always on the itinerary.
I've got a whole houseful of miniature Swiss Guards, St. Peter's Basilica snowglobes, and other kitschy vatican souvenirs and memorabilia.

Please do not talk of the icons and souvenirs of faith as if they are cheap baubles. Don't deny it, I know that is how you see them. Just appreciate that these items are symbolic of a man's journey toward spiritual revolution and freedom...for that is what the sum of all these cheap things symbolizes.

 

[1069]

Please do not talk of the icons and souvenirs of faith as if they are cheap baubles. Don't deny it, I know that is how you see them. Just appreciate that these items are symbolic of a man's journey toward spiritual revolution and freedom...for that is what the sum of all these cheap things symbolizes.

No, they are cheap baubles... really.
They're just kitschy trinkets from some Vatican City souvenir shop.
Nothing overtly religious; he respects the fact that I am not.
I still have my crystal and silver rosary that I got for my confirmation, and other items; these objects I treat with respect.

But trust me, there is nothing sacred about little plastic Swiss Guard replicas and snow globes filled with glitter.
These things are just for fun.
They symbolize nothing.
They are about as sacred as a teeshirt that says "My Parents Went To Vatican City, and All I Got Was This Lousy Teeshirt".

 

[Felicity]

my confirmation,

hee-hee....there's hope yet!:mrgreen: