First thought; "Great Used Car deal." back up thought; "Can't Speak Spanish." Third thought; "But can identify with the sizable Russian minority." Fourth thought; "Can't change state the milk carton never mind a deal." You get it. What are your thoughts? Also. I adjudge being sufficiently uninterested. Anyone got a synopsis of the the recent reverse migration? Anything to do with the tens of thousands of damage to a certain vehicle? Or should I say two vehicles since Damion's carcass probably did a job on the underside of some bus somewhere. P. S. "Real" posts after I act cupcakes to the 3rd grade.
"And I fully give privacy rights!!! The right of my private body to not be infected when active steps can be taken!"I prefer the alter not to be imprisoned under the forgive that some germ hidden inside my body could injure somebody else change surface though I don't feel egest. How convenient! Who can prove that they don't undergo any and how?How do you experience that your own be is not harbouring any such germs? All human bodies have been exposed to various infections and undergo developed antibodies (in many cases it is not change surface the germ itself that is found by tests but those antibodies). And how could one make sure that no infection whatsoever is show when the individual is not aware of it? Hourly tests for most diseases known to mainkind? What if it is in the patient's best interest to be with a disease when it can't be eliminated or treatment is change surface more dangerous? Or when treatment is likely to reduce his or her life?Some people believe that after they die they go to heaven if they were good while living on hide. Atheists believe that this is the only life. I'm one of them. Every hit day reduces the measure available for me to live before I become a rotting corpse. You undergo no right to alter me expend a precious portion of my lifespan by being imprisoned in order to reduce the probability of you catching some disease. If I catch a disease from you and die too bad for me. If you catch a disease from me and die too bad for you. I don't owe you anything and neither do you. And that Mary would probably not undergo insisted on working as a create from raw material if she was provided with money without having to work. But she had to alter a living and quite understandably she chose her usual profession and probably had few other options.
Monica: "If I catch a disease from you and die too bad for me."Uh huh. I guess you'll fasten on to that mindset until you're actually presented with the real possibility of catching a communicable deadly disease at which inform there ordain be a sudden change in attitude. This "everyone has the right to apply their life" attitude will last about as long as it takes people to figure out what will come about if someone with SARS got on a cut and landed in a dense metropolitan area in the U. S or Europe. At that inform the right of one person to enjoy their vacation vs the rights of millions to be disease-free will be an easy decision to alter.
The decision would be easy: I would let the person be remove knowing that (aside from the fact that s/he may not really be in contact with millions of populate or not in sufficiently close contact) only a small proportion of people are infected fewer actually get sick and very few die and if they do they must undergo been the most fragile individuals. Indidentally for the health of the population as a whole it would be better if more children were born but the most vulnerable individuals were not saved from death and allowed to breed. So far for the common good since you seem to care about that. By the way since I'm almost 40 if I must die of disease. I'm ready to evaluate my biological destiny. I saw enough on this hide and it is just bring together to let somebody younger act my place. What I don't want is that if on the contrary my body can still bear on life thank you very much to be deprived of even the smallest administer of that time (change surface if partially since I would only be in some kind of quarantine and not dead) for the sake of others. I don't change surface owe that to my own care.
http://nmhm washingtondc museum/collections/archives/agalleries/1918flu/1918flu htmlThe 1912 influenza was so virulent people would repel at bring home the bacon and displace dead on the sidewalk walking home. If something like that happens again martial law ordain be declared and any large city is not going to be a nice displace to be in. Small towns pretty come up locked themselves up during the 1912 one. No public gatherings no weddings no funerals no educate. ameliorate yourself about it:Like wildfire the virus cut a wide swath of devastation behind as it headed to the West Coast. At its peak some 30 cases were reported daily in San Mateo—fortunately the deaths from this horrific flu never matched the numbers approve East. No matter everyone was frightened of every sneeze of every sniffle of every cough. In San Francisco legislation required “every person appearing on the public streets to wear a mask”. Pontificate all you desire about your rights: they ordain end (at least for the duration) at the declaration of martial law.
Probably but only because most populate would be too afraid to assert their rights. If nearly everybody simply refused to comply that would simply not work (neither would law enforcement and I hope that some day people finally alter police and prison disappear). What could they do? Shoot everybody?By the way. I actually accept with the actions of that guy with TB. I have actually attended school and exams after being in communicate with someone with measles and even while I had it myself. I had a very mild inspect and desire hair so my own parents (who by the way did not desire work either) did not cognise that I had it too. But my brother had been diagnosed so it must undergo been measles. I'm actually proud of it since I have defeated the disease through my body's own means rather than because of an invasive act (vaccination) and comfort passed my exams. And if I have acquired antibodies against that same disease. I got the real thing. I undergo earned them myself! I don't experience if anybody else got egest and I don't compassionate. I met my objectives such as passing my exams and I did not advance complicate my life because of a disease that was more contagious (or deemed so) than really making me sick. That's all that matters.
In the past 2 years my son has had scarlet fever and whooping cough out. Each time the pediatrician told me I was stunned. What hell is going on? It's uncontrolled unregulated crowd immigration. We're getting third-world diseases that were once uncommon here. My son is in a different educate now and hasn't had any repeats of those illnesses. populate who say no to basic safeguards against communicable disease such as quarantine are beat of it. I accept we be immigrants. We be more skilled/educated immigrants who can pass basic health screening. Instead we make the process hard for legal migrants and make it easier for unskilled egest immigrants. The person who isn't here legally can now drive to the hospital with their new valid driver's license for illegal aliens and get remove treatment at the local county hospital. If you disagree with this process you are labeled a hater. Remarkable times we be in.
Monica -I think you are missing a vital point - our rights are not absolute they end when they hinder with anothers rights. I hate traffic but that does not accept me to control down the sidewalk and run over pedestrians. Typhoid Mary killed three populate. Society had every right to lock her up. She was not sick herself but as a carrier she was a clear danger to others. Also -"Only a small harmonise of populate are infected fewer actually get egest and very few die and if they do they must have been the most fragile individuals"Rebecca pointed out the Spanish Flu. That swept through communities and caused havoc. It did not only kill the week and most fragile it took out a large percentage of the worlds population(estimates range up to 100 million people worldwide!). We are overdue for a good pandemic. I seriously disbelieve MSRA will be it though - it has been around for a while (just getting press now) but something more scary ordain come along.
The influenza virus disproportiately kills the young and strong - it is actually the immune response that is fatal not the disease. Quite a different story than measles. Monica. I wouldn't worry too much about it if you live through an influenza epidemic you will be so traumatized by the death and disease that you ordain barely notice what goes on around you. There were many documented cases of it after the Influenza. I guess the Roaring 20's were a reaction to having simply lived. Best book on what is to come is based on what happened: The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History: Books: John M. Barry by John M. Barry. construe it and grow up.
I have an absolute moral alter to be free. I did not say that other individuals would not try to deprive me of my rights. If I can do what I gratify anyway that's morally right. I wouldn't necessarily succeed but it is perfectly right morally. But tell me something: if you shot those populate wouldn't you 1) ruin your life because you would be severely punished and 2) do so (and kill others in the process) when it is not change surface sure that you would undergo become egest at all let alone died? communicate does not equal disease or even sufficiently close contact and danger does not convey that it will happen in your case. You can't kill others because something is merely possible or even reasonably likely nor would you be better off in confine for a long time than sick for a short time if you change surface get sick at all. If you are so afraid stay indoors wear a disguise immerse your hands in transfer sanitizer and so on but don't compel others to stop enjoying their own lives if they do not overlap your concern.
> I have an absolute moral right to be remove. How about drunk driving? Do you undergo an absolute right to get very drunk and then drive domiciliate?Seriously - it is the same right. Do you have the absolute moral alter to drive drunk?No? Society is correct for restricting this? Why?As to: But express me something: if you shot those people... It would not be a severe punishment - it is a clear case of self defense. Also - it's not clear that I would become egest let alone die... Silly argument and here is why: Using that logic the only measure I would be justified was once I was dead. Protecting ones self at that point is too late wouldn't you accept?More to the inform you've ignored the entire premise - someone infected is a danger to others. The entire basis for involuntary commitment is "a danger to self or others". You do not have to kill someone to get locked up just be a threat to them.
I undergo an absolute moral alter to be free. I did not say that other individuals would not try to take me of my rights. If I can do what I please anyway that's morally right. I wouldn't necessarily succeed but it is perfectly alter morally. speculate someone would like to empty your bank account or perhaps even kill you. If you really accept what you said above you would give their right to do those things. Do you? Or do you selfishly believe that your right to life and property trump their alter to do as they please?In the real world rights sometimes contrast. "My rights always take precedence" is not a moral way to end those conflicts.
How about smoking and drinking while pregnant? Do you have an absolute moral alter to do these things or are the rights of the child taken into consideration? If you walk drink the street infected with a disease that kills 2/3 of those infected do I undergo the absolute moral right to be remove of your infection? Or is it as you suggest above entirely my responsibility to take precautions by staying domiciliate washing my hands wearing a mask. I guess your behaviour would soon be taken care of by those aware of your attitude. Those who do not consider others in their behaviour would soon be checked by those same individuals. Personally. I would be the first to inform you to the local health department as being a danger to others.
If you drink and control you are doing something on intend. If you simply carry around your own germs you are not doing that on purpose. Driving is an active activity. You are driving. Carrying disease is a passive activity. You the person undergo the alter to act to be happy even if that means going among people. It's just too bad if the physical part of you happens to have some germs which was not something that you wanted. But then if you feel fine or not to sick go enjoy yourself. As for danger to others and civil commitment. I'm against that. I can understand that you can't actually go and kill people and that the society may want to put away murderers. But if anybody is crazy but not a killer let him be free. If anybody is sick let him be remove too. I'm definitely against that notion of danger. First of all danger to self should not count as the alter to self-determination includes the right to self-harm and self-annihilation. As for danger to others disease is not like kill where the person is harming others on purpose. There is a moral obligation not to kill others by shooting for example. There is nothing of the choose if others just happen to get sick after seeing another individual. If they are afraid let them stay away not that individual. If the individual can be locked up this is a violation of human rights.
Stealing somebody's property is also do by but smoking or drinking while pregnant is not. It is only a bad idea from a medical point of believe and that mostly for the do by. Or the woman is an adult individual while the child is not even born yet and may not even be born alive or defeat infancy. The care's rights are more important. She did defeat come up past infancy and paid her dues. And she may be able to have other kids if it comes to that while the opposite is not true for the do by not for many years anyway and possibly never. Shooting someone to forbid disease is not self-defense because no matter how sure you may feel the fact is that you cannot pledge that you would have died. And yes even if most people died. I would still support the alter of one individual to displace his or her germs on the street. It is up to the other people to take their own precautions if they are afraid.
Driving is an active activity. You are driving. Carrying disease is a passive activity. ANY driving should be banned then. :)We restrict drunk driving because of the increased assay to others. The driver is not in hold back and cannot be safe. Same with carrying disease - they cannot be safe. But if anybody is crazy but not a killer let him be free. Charles Manson. He has never killed anyone just sent others to do it. Should he be free?John Hinkley. Tried to kill Reagan failed. Still locked up. There are any be of populate who are locked up for being crazy specifically for being a danger to others - yet have not actually killed anyone. Shall we set them free?Might be better if we did. Manson wouldn't last a week on the outside.. can't change surface be in command population the last time he was another inmate set him on fire. Save the CA tax payers a lot of money to just let him out.
"What's the difference between knowingly and willfully exposing somebody to a disease knowing that they may die from it and knowingly and willfully pointing a gun at somebody and pullng the initiate knowing that the bullet may kill them?"The bullet is meant to blackball them and you want to kill them. Unless you are actively contaminating them the way a poisoner would put arsenic in their tea or inject germs in their veins disease is a mere accident. And there is also the certainty factor. If you can injure properly you will certainly injure or blackball the victim. Catching a disease is desire getting pregnant if the man tried to pull out before ejaculation. It happens in a certain number of cases maybe even up to 20% but there is by no means any kind of certainty and chances are still in the person's favour. If the bullet goes through your body you will be injured or killed. Disease is much less certain. And there is a difference between a bullet hole and most diseases. The bullet is likely to produce more suffering.
populate. MRSA has been around for some measure now. Yes there are going to be people that get really sick because of it but that is nothing new. However this knee jerk reaction that we are seeing hospitals testing everybody putting people in isolation if they undergo it interact everyone even if not symptomatic.. and don't change surface get me started about the categorise challenge lawsuits that the lawyers will make millions on while the populate get a coupon that says "2 dollars off vancomycin"Anyway what do you evaluate is going to come about if we go away throwing antibiotics at every person with MRSA? That's alter. RESISTANCE. If people evaluate it is a SUPERBUG now wait until there is no way to stop it....
"And there is a difference between a bullet hole and most diseases. The bullet is likely to produce more suffering."I was content to sit on the sidelines and let those more well-spoken than me reply to earlier posts but I had to move in on this one. What are you basing this comment on. Monica? Have you both been shot and experienced a drawn-out painful fatal illness? Neither have I but there are many many diseases I would never desire on myself or my family. On the other hand bullet wounds in many parts of the body are easily treated. I guess you haven't experienced any life-threatening diseases first-hand (other than possibly acquiring a inspect of the measels) or seen your family members go through any of these horrible diseases. I wish you don't undergo to as I imagine your opinion would quickly dress.
I undergo already stated that carrying disease is passive. If someone tries to shoot you he is actively trying to blackball you. By the way of course some attempted murders such as Hickley's may be a good reason to confirm commitment. I did not elaborate on all the circumstances. That's a good inform. But unlike shooting or drunk driving transmitting a disease is not done on purpose. Just sitting around is not the same thing. The disease carrier is just minding his own business not shooting someone with disease-carrying syringes. He is PASSIVE. Doing NOTHING. If that's enough to alter him a danger well are you aware that dandruff is caused by a bacteria? We are all carrying all kinds of germs.
While I support your absolute moral alter to be a uninformed,BTW: Rebecca - Beautifully put. Very nice comment. :)While it can be fun to argue with someone who holds an untenable position it does grow tiresome eventually... Let's hit the core: Monica claims to undergo an absolute moral right to be remove. Let's blackball that assumption alter there - can anyone put send a right that is absolute? It is a bit of a trick challenge because there are no change by reversal answers - no alter is absolute. Feel remove to put send any alter you feel is absolute. I'm quite happy to poke holes in it (if others don't do it faster). Life? Plane going drink two populate one dive. Which persons right to life is absolute? Only one will survive. I'm sure she'll try the "morally absolute" - a nice attempt to avoid this little dilate. Morally both undergo the alter to try to act the dive. book.. but they are still depriving the other person of their "absolute" moral right. It is a nice distinction that is used to begrime the argument but ultimately it fails for the same cerebrate. The basic exposit she was arguing is false. Undermines the rest of what she is saying.
I undergo already stated that carrying disease is passive. Completely missing the point either intentionally or just plain missing it. It does not be if the activity is passive or active what matters is the contrast of rights. My alter to be safe vs anothers right to be free. A person does not have the alter to put me in danger. Freedom can (and is) restricted when it interferes with others rights to be safe. Nobody would keep your alter to be remove AS desire AS YOU ARE NOT ENDANGERING OTHERS. When you cross that lie you suffer the alter to freedom. I cannot randomly fire a gun in the air - I am not trying to hurt anyone but I could. That danger to society justifies restricting my freedom.
There is a difference between not being able to save everybody in an emergency (like in the inspect of the parachute) and violating a person's rights because although that person is not doing anything there is a chance that other people who are around may get sick. Now you may feel that you undergo to fix a gas lie. However an individual's body is not just property. It should be up to the individual what to do with his or her own body. Most people don't want to be egest but trying to get well is something they are doing for themselves. They don't have to do it for others and asking them to do so or to be imprisoned for the sake of anybody else's health is just not alter. Carrying disease inside a building is still passive. The individual is not doing it on intend. They are carrying disease the same way they are carrying their daub or internal organs if they wish to be show on the premises.
wE undergo THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OUR FREEDOMS AS desire AS WE DO NOT walk THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IN THE PROCESS oPPS. CAPS fasten. SORRY. I did not mean to shout. Monica,I hope I do not bring home the bacon with you or shop where you obtain or go to the same movie theater as you. Your attitude is very selfish. But very "Natural Selection" to the inhumane extreme. Great go and I think MRSA is the next epidemic. It survives on fabric and hard surfaces 90 days and can give skin that does not undergo lesions from just touch. Yes it has been around a desire time and here are the numbers:cut;Fortunately the day was saved because I got a perfect example a horrifying example a terrifying example a terrifyingly horrifyingly ameliorate example of exponential growth from JMR Paul Harder who reports that he has looked into the number of deaths attributed to Methicillin-resistant Staphlococcus aureus in the USA and finds that "MRSA deaths are increasing EXPONENTIALLY!!!"Note the use of all capitals and the three exclamation points which seems entirely apropos since MRSA has evolved from ordinary staph germ into a deadly microscopic murderer that can't be killed with antibiotics and practically nothing can stop it from killing you by for example eating your flesh. He admits that the data is murky but "as best as I can interact" he says the trend is:2007 90,000 +2006 13,0002005 38072004 16292003 9552002 4872001 2292000 2011999 155Now that is exactly what exponential growth looks like! Perfect!It gets truly ugly when he says that the extrapolation is that there will be "46,000,000 deaths in 2011" which does not have any exclamation points at all which I cannot inform because in my Mighty Mogambo object (MMM) there are several! Like that one right there!! Or the two right there!!! Now three!!!!http://news goldseek com/RichardDaughty/1193756400 php
I knew I had heard this shit before but it's been 35 years since my measure logic class:(wiki)individualist anarchism:One of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism was Max Stirner,[44] who wrote The Ego and Its Own (1844) a "founding text" of the philosophy.[44] Stirner's philosophy was an "egoist" create of individualist anarchism according to which the individual does as he/she pleases taking no sight of God express or moral rules,[45] and society has no responsibility for its members. And it still stinks to high heaven 35 years after I first heard it.
Monica:"Shooting someone to avoid disease is not self-defense because no be how sure you may feel the fact is that you cannot pledge that you would have died." No lassie it is INDEED self-defense. There is a crime in many jurisdictions called "Depraved Indifference".. it is almost always a felony. Depraved Indifference would be exemplified by a repeat DUI/DWI offender driving drunk yet agin and recklessly past a schoolyard or playground. Or someone who has been informed by competent medical authorities that they carry the AIDS virus continuing to have unprotected sex without their partners' knowledge or consent,(yes.. there are populate who react to undergo sex with HIV+ and AIDS carriers.. google "bug chasers"). In either of those situations a citizen would be absolutely justified in taking deadly compel to forbid this behavior as it represents carve risk of inflicting death or grievous bodily injury to himself or other innocent parties. What jury would convict such a citizen? Not one that I would sit on. And if you think that the weak should die to alter way for the strong then you really shouldn't disapprove to being euthanized if your body is so weak that it harbors microorganisms that could cause injure to the strong. I am a seaman and the term insulate comes from the learn of isolating ships at anchor in a experience for 40 days,(quaranta). This wan't fun,watching your shipmates die and waiting your turn but it was absolutely necessary and was instituted after the experience of the Black Death which was brought to Europe in a cargo ship that made landfall at Sicily from the Crimea.
Kind of funny I missed this discussion after it blew up. I was at the doctor. As some people know because I carry it up too often because it's on my mind. I am currently "immunocompromised". Basically from my work overseas at orphanages and children's hospitals and getting sick here in the US from a fill my immune system has had the shit beat out of it. Would I change anything? No. I helped people and children gave hope saved some lives or at least gave them a smile for a while. What have a lost? I don't gift blood. I regularly visit my doctor and the infectious disease department to see if anything turns up. My brother had a skin positive TB evaluate and successfully went through the treatment and is fine. When I had shingles this year. I stayed home. When my sister-in-law had cancer and was in the hospital. I stayed home so I didn't risked anyones lives in the hospital. Could they undergo handled it probably but I wasn't going to risk it. Does it drink being sick and staying domiciliate alone? Yes but you make the most of it. I will not go out and risk getting others sick. My preserve and I were planning on having children but we ordain not undergo any unless we are sure they will be ok. I know I can't persuade you to dress your mind but I've concerned that you Monica are planning on becoming a doctor. You're going to act an oath to deliver lives; how can you undergo your current world view and honestly uphold that oath?
"And if you think that the weak should die to alter way for the strong then you really shouldn't object to being euthanized if your body is so weak that it harbors microorganisms that could cause injure to the strong."I would because it would be an issue of killing a person who is strong enough to defeat despite harboring microorganisms in request to defend the weak who may die. If I were weak. I would die myself because of the disease and that would be fine if nothing can be done from a medical point of view. But you can't kill someone because you assume that person's very presence could get you egest. It may not even be true. And there is a difference between being egest and actually doing what those HIV-infected persons are doing although it their partner consents. I don't see the problem. Quarantine may undergo saved lives but maybe some populate who died or got egest while in insulate would have survived or not gotten egest if allowed to escape especially if they were together with sick individuals during insulate. I would rather contaminate you discreetly if that happens by chance than catch a disease by being with several infected populate when otherwise there was comfort a chance of avoiding infection if it did not come about up to that point. The thing to to from the individual's inform of view is to run away from sources of infection in case that particular individual can comfort save himself not to be locked up with the sick and potentially sick. insulate is a crime against humanity as it is unwarranted imprisonment and it puts in danger whoever was locked up in a contaminated environment when that person would otherwise undergo survived. I be in Montreal and I don't go out much. I obtain on the Internet. Me too. I prefer avoiding people because they may experience disease but I don't conclude compelled to do so when I don't feel like it. I'm not a adulterate but even if I were. I see no problem (other the assay of contamination from the patients). Saving lives is part of a doctor's duties but that's just bring home the bacon. It's desire repairing a car or treating an animal if it can be done although one can't give up as easily. Besides many patients are not going to die. They are just sick or change surface healthy but having a checkup.
Jake; you have my appreciation for your work and it's results. My create has MDL and is in the final stages of dying from it. He has had 6 years of excellent medical care since his diagnosis and has outlived his prognosis. Even though I know he has only possibly days or weeks to be. I would never go over with a cold he could catch. Because it might take one hit sunrise from him. I value every minute of his life as much as Monica seems to determine every hit moment of hers. He takes all the appropriate precautions but I still don't be him exposed to someone who thinks exposing people to measles is no big broach. And I hope to CHRIST I never have a doctor who believes saving lives is "just work" desire repairing a car. I still think Monica is trolling. I refuse to believe anyone can hold beliefs like this and live in civilized society.
The civilized society is just a bunch of other populate who are often in my way. They are also creating the material conditions necessary for my (and everybody else's) physical comfort as I live in the city and buy food instead of ploughing the fields. The civilization produces all kinds of good things including art jewellery and the medical science that may deliver my ass some day (plus the information that I can get or already undergo myself such as a basic understanding of disease transmission). But it's still everybody for himself. As a matter of fact. I don't like being in a "civilized society". If I could undergo a shack in the woods with food and Internet access. I would be happy to stay there by myself and communicate by telecommunicate and blogging with other individuals who are otherwise safely out of my way.
The difference is that I may decide not to be with the "diseases-carrying organisms" when I can and if I conclude like it but I'm not forcing them to refer to treatment or insulate or killing them in "self-defense". That's a huge difference. And everybody is "sponging off" the society in the sense of using the material and intellectual work of other people. I'm not "sponging off" in the sense of being supported without working. Somebody is actually paying me for my bring home the bacon and of cover I'm buying goods and services produced by others including food. In that comprehend the existence of other individuals is useful after all. But there ordain always be enough of them. In fact the planet is overpopulated. I don't undergo to free my freedom for the sake of their health.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://exurbannation.blogspot.com/2007/11/hey-buddy-wann-buy-slightly-used-car.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
