United We Stand - uwsboard.com

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:IP makes a great argument for exterminating invalids and pensioners, guys. I'll give him that.

You should apologize.

Why? It's your plan. They are all drains on society whose existence affects others. What are you thinking....load them into boxcars?

Note: this isn't a "slippery slope", it's direct application of your argument. If the government gets to kill your baby because he's cost the government $X without any opportunity for recoupment, the same should be true for your grandpa.

As I've stated before in this thread, which you've ignored then and will probably ignore now, I haven't formed an opinion about receiving outside care under a single payer system.

Your statements about recoupment costs being a factor in medical care are yours and yours alone.

"One person's actions affect others in the system"

That was your argument for killing a baby.

That's incorrect.

Right, you've been arguing for the last 4pages with everyone opposed to this, but you have no opinion.

Your rationale for single payer has always been that the actions of the uninsured affect those who are (driving up cost). Now you want to pretend that there is no affect?
Don't say you haven't argued that here.

Just admit your argument is an irrational, immoral mess.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Like abortion, it's only not a life when they want to kill it.

Life is so easy when you're a liberal, that's why the dumb and lazy are drawn to it.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

You should apologize.[/quote]

Why? It's your plan. They are all drains on society whose existence affects others. What are you thinking....load them into boxcars?

Note: this isn't a "slippery slope", it's direct application of your argument. If the government gets to kill your baby because he's cost the government $X without any opportunity for recoupment, the same should be true for your grandpa.[/quote]

As I've stated before in this thread, which you've ignored then and will probably ignore now, I haven't formed an opinion about receiving outside care under a single payer system.

Your statements about recoupment costs being a factor in medical care are yours and yours alone.[/quote]

"One person's actions affect others in the system"

That was your argument for killing a baby.[/quote]

That's incorrect.[/quote]

Right, you've been arguing for the last 4pages with everyone opposed to this, but you have no opinion.

Your rationale for single payer has always been that the actions of the uninsured affect those who are (driving up cost). Now you want to pretend that there is no affect?
Don't say you haven't argued that here.

Just admit your argument is an irrational, immoral mess.[/quote]

OK.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

I see. So, if you call yourself a doctor, it's OK to stab the invalid to death because they aren't really alive? I assume you're a doctor since you've already assessed the viability of the child in the circumstance?

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: I haven't read the link, but I don't see how this situation amounts to "killing people off." A brain dead person is already dead.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

I see. So, if you call yourself a doctor, it's OK to stab the invalid to death because they aren't really alive? I assume you're a doctor since you've already assessed the viability of the child in the circumstance?

That’s silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:[

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

You make a great argument for banning abortion.

Citing the law isn't an argument. After all, owning people was once the law as well. Was slavery moral when it was legal?

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

You make a great argument for banning abortion.

Citing the law isn't an argument. After all, owning people was once the law as well.

I’m OK with what you consider to be the inconsistency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:[It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

You make a great argument for banning abortion.

Citing the law isn't an argument. After all, owning people was once the law as well.

I’m OK with what you consider to be the inconsistency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So slavery was moral when it was the law?

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

You make a great argument for banning abortion.

Citing the law isn't an argument. After all, owning people was once the law as well.

I’m OK with what you consider to be the inconsistency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So slavery was moral when it was the law?

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The great thing about having a clear moral foundation based on simple principles is that inconsistencies like IP's don't come up.

I've never had to equivocate in defense of murder to justify my ethos to anyone.

USN_Hokie wrote:The great thing about having a clear moral foundation based on simple principles is that inconsistencies like IP's don't come up.

OK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:The great thing about having a clear moral foundation based on simple principles is that inconsistencies like IP's don't come up.

OK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atta boy

HokieHam wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:The great thing about having a clear moral foundation based on simple principles is that inconsistencies like IP's don't come up.

OK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atta boy

I’m lucky to be in the presence of such righteousness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder?

Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Irrelevant.

It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.

I’m OK with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.

I’m OK with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it, doesn't make it moral.

If you walked into a hospital room and stabbed a brain dead patient to death, would you be charged with murder? [/quote]

Irrelevant.[/quote]It highlights the error in your thinking.[/quote]

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.[/quote]Nope, can't have it both ways.[/quote]

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.[/quote]

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.[/quote]

I’m OK with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]Got it, doesn't make it moral.[/quote]

you guys have blown so FAR off the topic, in this case taking the kid to Italy will not save him, per the article (all the info any of us has) the kid will not live long no matter what they do to him. Should they have kept Barbara Bush's body alive? forced her to have care? The kid IN THIS EXACT CASE is not going to be cured of anything and his brain (per the article) is already badly damaged to the point he cannot and will never function as a normal kid. There is a difference between mental issues and the brain is not functioning at all in some parts of it. Humans need a brain to function to live

cwtcr hokie wrote: you guys have blown so FAR off the topic, in this case taking the kid to Italy will not save him, per the article (all the info any of us has) the kid will not live long no matter what they do to him. Should they have kept Barbara Bush's body alive? forced her to have care? The kid IN THIS EXACT CASE is not going to be cured of anything and his brain (per the article) is already badly damaged to the point he cannot and will never function as a normal kid. There is a difference between mental issues and the brain is not functioning at all in some parts of it. Humans need a brain to function to live

Nothing will save any of us. We're all terminal. WTH is your point and why do you think Barbara Bush has anything to do with this?

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:It highlights the error in your thinking.

Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.

I’m OK with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and cwctr are riding together in the HOV lane on the highway to crazy.

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Nah. It recognizes that a malfeasor need not be treated the same way as a healthcare system trying to do the best it can with limited resources. You guys always get wrapped up in this red herring.

Nope, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. It's currently murder to kill a fetus in a mother, but that mother could choose to abort the fetus. World still spins.

That's incredibly inconsistent and not really moral.

I’m OK with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and cwctr are riding together in the HOV lane on the highway to crazy.

cwctr is towing IP's Prius, that is loaded with alpacas, like a livestock trailer. Yeah, neat to see a different team alignment.

awesome guy wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: You and cwctr are riding together in the HOV lane on the highway to crazy.

cwctr is towing IP's Prius, that is loaded with alpacas, like a livestock trailer. Yeah, neat to see a different team alignment.

They make a good team.