Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

I honestly am swamped right now, but this just makes me wanna vomit. The idea that it is becoming more and more mentally acceptable to cut people up and sell pieces of them just further dehumanizes them. You're a commodity, literally. Fuck that.

http://abcnews.go.com/News/york-mom-fired-donating-kidney-boss/story?id=16195691

We already look at people as throw away. The "everything is for sale" attitude seems to include dignity, honor, decency, and several other lost, now meaningless words.

For relatively harmless things like blood, fine. Much more than that is pushing it in my book.

[GlyphGryph]

And unlike blood, you can't just go in and sell it. You put yourself on a list and then wait. And you might never get the chance to do so, because there's a good chance no one will need it, so if you DO, I don't think there's an problem with letting you benefit from it just like everyone else in the chain.

It's not something you can sell out of desperation to make a quick buck.

[Leafsnail]

The worst I could see would be people selling their bodies out of desperation to feed their family or whatever. 1) that can be made illegal so it wouldn't be any worse than it is now (would have to be done through black market), and 2) that's indicative of other economic problems if people can get that desperate at all.

Consider the words "liquidating assets" and how they might relate to this issue.

[kaijyuu]

Heh, we're not in enough of a corporate dystopia for "human resources" to be "liquidated" in that manner yet. Nor do I think debt collection agencies will have the power to demand such a thing anytime soon.

Voluntarily donating bone marrow for some side income every once in a while is a LONG ways away from the evil dystopias where human life is valued at the cost of their organs. I wouldn't even really mind if people were compensated for organ donation upon death; it might lead to some life insurance esque fraud, but that's the worst of it (and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).

[Leafsnail]

Heh, we're not in enough of a corporate dystopia for "human resources" to be "liquidated" in that manner yet. Nor do I think debt collection agencies will have the power to demand such a thing anytime soon.

Voluntarily donating bone marrow for some side income every once in a while is a LONG ways away from the evil dystopias where human life is valued at the cost of their organs.

We're not in that position yet because we ban the sale of organs.  I don't think people are ever likely to be killed for liquidation, but it also doesn't seem implausible that debt collection companies could demand non-essential organs considering they're allowed to take almost anything else from you.

(and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).

So instead of taking this practical measure we should magically solve every other social problem at once.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. Even in ideal conditions human organs don't last long if not connected to a human, and there isn't much of a profitable market for them in the first place because of how scarce spare organs are. Furthermore, it wouldn't hold up in the vast majority of courts the world over.

[kaijyuu]

(and should be solved by not allowing people to get that desperate at all).

So instead of taking this practical measure we should magically solve every other social problem at once.

Yep!

No really we're a lot closer to solving desperation for essentials than most think. We could feed everyone in every first world country 30 times over. Healthcare is moving, if slowly, toward free. Solving homelessness might be a bit further off than those two, but still possible. We can reach a point where those things are given and not earned sooner rather than later.


There are other causes of desperation, of course, and those won't be solved anytime soon I realize. Let's say you're endebted to the mafia or something. So yes, I can still see there being "organ donation fraud" or somesuch by committing suicide to sell your organs and pay off debts. However, I don't see that being any bigger a problem than life insurance fraud, and DEFINITELY won't be coerced anytime soon.

[Leafsnail]

Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. Even in ideal conditions human organs don't last long if not connected to a human, and there isn't much of a profitable market for them in the first place because of how scarce spare organs are. Furthermore, it wouldn't hold up in the vast majority of courts the world over.

Because we ban the sale of organs, like I just said?  Scarcity of a product makes the market for that one far better so I'm not sure where you're coming from there, and in any case there are plenty of places (most places?) where demand for organs outstrips supply.  Even if it "wouldn't hold up in court" it's not hard to imagine ways a debt collector could coerce you into it by giving you horrible terms if you refuse.

I guess I should make it clear that I feel the case of bone marrow is quite different to other donations and this particular law could end up working well.  I was just challenging the idea that allowing people to sell any organ would have no potential problems.

No really we're a lot closer to solving desperation for essentials than most think. We could feed everyone in every first world country 30 times over. Healthcare is moving, if slowly, toward free. Solving homelessness might be a bit further off than those two, but still possible. We can reach a point where those things are given and not earned sooner rather than later.

Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.

There are other causes of desperation, of course, and those won't be solved anytime soon I realize. Let's say you're endebted to the mafia or something. So yes, I can still see there being "organ donation fraud" or somesuch by committing suicide to sell your organs and pay off debts. However, I don't see that being any bigger a problem than life insurance fraud, and DEFINITELY won't be coerced anytime soon.

Huh?  There are a wide a variety of organ donations you can go through that don't require you to die.  Those are the problematic ones and the ones people would be paid for or coerced into.

[Truean]

Then why don't debt collection companies demand non-essential organs now? The answer is that it is impractical as well as unethical. illegal.

ftfy.

The student loan companies will garnish the social security payments of older people who went back to school for "retraining," if they fall behind. Doesn't matter if that leaves them with nothing. I've seen it. Student loan collectors have powers that would make the mob jealous, because that was just a "way to make college affordable."

You know the problem with all these good intentions, they make excellent paving material for a road to hell. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions). Same thing with student loans, employment contracts with non compete provisions, foreign aid, homeowner's associations, etc. They all start out as fairly innocent sounding well intentioned ideas. Before you know it, you've got a generation of debt slaves, who can't leave their employers to go work for the competition, paying for governments in other countries, being told by their neighbors that they can't paint their house any color but white. The minute you monetize something, is the minute everybody suddenly has all sorts of interest in it.

Hey, foreclosure.... That house is a luxury.... You can live without it. Where else you gonna live? Don't give a damn, and it isn't my problem. O look at that, you've got 2 kidneys.... Not for long.

[scriver]

(The road to hell is paved with good intentions)

Yes, Truean, you just said so the sentence before, thanks for having such high confidence in our ability to understand simple turn of phrase

[Truean]

(The road to hell is paved with good intentions)

Yes, Truean, you just said so the sentence before, thanks for having such high confidence in our ability to understand simple turn of phrase

Sorry about that. We all know my snark is a presence all its own. I seem to apologize for it regularly.

Honestly though, does everybody here understand the immense power of two seemingly innocent words: "Why not?"

Those damn things are destructive and immensely so. They shift the blame and the burden of thinking to the other person, and imply that the position not being allowed is legitimate until there is a reason stated as to why it is illegitimate. You've just shifted the burden of proof onto the other party and forced them to think while you may be expected to just sit back and listen. This gives the other side the burden of proof and may finally frustirate them into saying something that they might hang themselves with, while you look innocent because you were "just asking." It's monumentally huge.

Other examples include:
"Why should I have to pay for that?"

(Cause you're an adult and that's part of the deal already you cheap skate. If nobody paid for anything because everyone said that then NOTHING would be paid for and nothing would ever get done. Plus it benefits you, directly or indirectly.)

"Tell me why I can't?"

(Tell me why you can? Why is it my job to explain every single restriction? Why not justify yourself rather than forcing other people to stop you, Mr. I have no self control and will eat the entire bag of potato chips and then wonder why I'm gaining weight).

This is also the three year old who has discovered the trick of asking "why?" to everything until the parent explodes or gives up. This is Glen Beck saying Obama should explain why he hasn't presented his birth certificate. This is so many things. The list is infinite.... The unfortunate thing is that you have to balance this with legitimate curiousity or times when the burden SHOULD be shifted to the other side. Good luck developing a system to fairly define that, cause the legal system has been trying for years.

So when somebody says, "Why shouldn't we pay people for organs donated?" It just opens up a pandora's box that is so huge it just... wow.

Note: This is the exact opposite of the Null Hypothesis in science. Some hypothesis isn't true in science until you disprove the null hypothesis. You don't look for reasons it isn't. You look for reasons to prove that it is.... See also: "Proving a negative."

[kaijyuu]

Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.

Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed). And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I've never really understood that phrase. The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.


I guess you're arguing B? If you see pitfalls to be fallen into, please point them out. No one's arguing that debt collection agencies should be allowed to demand your organs, and frankly it's a slippery slope fallacy to argue that they will be able to in the future.

[Truean]

Get back to me when this stuff actually happens (I'd suggest it's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, considering that even the countries with the best standards of living aren't remotely close to "solving desparation").  I will accept "In a magical utopia land this would be fine!" arguments once we're living in that magical utopia and not a moment before.

Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed). And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I've never really understood that phrase. The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.


I guess you're arguing B? If you see pitfalls to be fallen into, please point them out. No one's arguing that debt collection agencies should be allowed to demand your organs, and frankly it's a slippery slope fallacy to argue that they will be able to in the future.

I am arguing B kinda. More of, it started out innocent enough but then shit hit the fan because everyone thought "that'll never happen, shit doesn't hit fans. That's just being overly cautious." It's more akin to recklessness, which is more serious.

As for negligence? Dude, people get sued for that/punished for it all the time. If we'd only been a little bit careful, then (horrible thing) wouldn't have happened. Nobody says the person who caused the horrible car accident MEANT to do it. I'm pretty much positive that they didn't wanna total their car and possibly injure themselves painfully along with the other people involved by accidentally/negligently running the red light, but that happened.... The dude who negligently ran the red light is the one we go after.

[Leafsnail]

Hey, I'm not saying it's gonna happen anytime soon. But the roadblocks are 90% cultural, not practical. We have the capacity or quite nearly it (for the first world countries, anyway -- second and third world ones are still screwed).  And if we're concerned about problems, why not fix the root of them? Breaking down those cultural barriers would solve the problems with this, and innumerable other things we face in society.

This is true but completely irrelevant.  We should try and solve the root of the problem.  That doesn't mean we should act like the problem is already solved and recklessly remove laws which we think we wouldn't need in a perfect world (but which are clearly necessary in the world we actually live in).  Again, if the world does become perfect then we can start making arguments along these lines, but until then we can focus on the world as it actually is.

The two meanings I've heard are A) "Could'a would'a should'a," IE thought about doing something good but never got around to it. To which I'd reply they never really had the good intent in the first place. And B) Tried to do the right thing but it blew up in your face. To that I reply, are we really damning people for ignorance and honest mistakes? Negligence is the only thing I can possibly think of people being guilty of, there.

You've missed the point of the expression quite dramatically with both A and B.  It's not about people being "guilty of" anything.  It's saying that someone can be a perfectly nice person who is acting in what they believe is completely the right way and still cause horrible, horrible damage.  We don't need to assign blame to people like that but we need to stop their laws from being put into place so they can't harm people (remember, if you've just had your kidney forcefully removed it won't matter to you much whether the person who passed the law did it with good or bad intentions).

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/arizona-implements-immigration-law-feds-push-back-154346200.html

Once again proving the law's futility, even the portion that somehow got upheld by SCOTUS.... Basically it works out like this:

Arizona Police Officer, "Hello Federal Government, I've found somebody who is possibly an illegal alien."
Federal Government, "Unless he or she committed a serious crime or is a repeat border crosser, we don't give a damn." [hangs up phone]

This phone calls is estimated to happen 50,000 times in the next year for one Arizona Community.... Somebody is going to have to pay for all those calls unless the police wise up and stop making them or something.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

When an Arizona police officer calls to verify a suspect's immigration status, the federal government will decide to hold someone only if the person has committed serious crimes or is a recent or repeat border crosser. An Arizona officer will be forced to let that person go if the federal government doesn't want him or her and if the officer doesn't have a crime to charge the person with.

So to review, several million dollars for trial, appeal, and US Supreme Court case for a law that was between 75 to 95% unconstitutional and does... not a whole lot of anything but costs millions if not billions over the long term to be enforced.... So they can now ask for your papers based upon .... I mean really it's gonna be skin color and you know it.... This brought to you by people who want to balance the budget while giving rich people a massive tax break.... Less money coming in = balanced budget? Let's give the nation a pay cut, "patriotically." We now live in a country where they can effectively ask you for your papers if you're not white.... At least Scalia is the type of crazy that's interesting.