Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
    #14137036 - 03/17/11 02:22 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave.  Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.

If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.





I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards, never took the
antibiotics, seems that my own body builds antibodies that fight off the
bacteria that cause things like pneumonia just as I provide my own
protection while the police are nothing more than a sanitation department

Quote:


It seems like you're thinking that either the police prevent all crime or no crime. I can't help but think your just looking to argue





no, I'm simply stating that the police dont provide protection and are
under no obligation to do so, private security forces are more willing
as are armed civilians, why would we need yet another trillion dollar
dysfunction of government

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
    #14137071 - 03/17/11 02:29 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?




The situations are not analogous.  The former involves at least 2 people with agency and an aggressor, while the latter involves only one person (myself).  Presumably, I should be able to walk into that dark alleyway and the police are there to ensure that all public spaces are, in fact, accessible to the public.  Obviously it doesn't really work like that, but in principle that's the idea.  I have every right to injure myself, however the public is in no way obligated to fix me when I do, nor do they really benefit from it in any way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
    #14137195 - 03/17/11 02:55 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?




Who has objected to doctors coming to your aid?

This kind of construction seems a dishonest question: it excludes the objectionable content from discussion.

I've noticed and commented frequently upon the tendancy of people to speak of the services provided exclusively when speaking of a government program.  Generally this seems to betray support for the program or the power.  It seems a dishonest tactic to employ this style of question: as if someone has a problem with state having doctors come to your aid.  When has that ever been objected to?  If it isn't then why would you even address it as if it was controversial?




I'm not sure where you are coming from. Plenty of people object to publicly funded health care.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
    #14137605 - 03/17/11 04:22 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
Ok, sticking with my analogy, why would you support the state having police come to your aid after you do something stupid (walk into that dark alley way, hang out with the wrong people, etc..) but not have the state have doctors come to your aid after you do something stupid?




Who has objected to doctors coming to your aid?

This kind of construction seems a dishonest question: it excludes the objectionable content from discussion.

I've noticed and commented frequently upon the tendancy of people to speak of the services provided exclusively when speaking of a government program.  Generally this seems to betray support for the program or the power.  It seems a dishonest tactic to employ this style of question: as if someone has a problem with state having doctors come to your aid.  When has that ever been objected to?  If it isn't then why would you even address it as if it was controversial?




I'm not sure where you are coming from. Plenty of people object to publicly funded health care.






Well let's see if we can resolve this confusion:

Previously you implied that the state sending doctors to assist people was controversial.  I replied that this is not a controversial practice and that to speak of the pros and cons of the state sending doctors to assist people is to ignore the controversy surrounding public healthcare alltogether- dishonestly framing it as some objection to people recieving medical treatment, or the state providing dispatching services, when that isn't it at all.

Now you express confusion as to my position and state in apparent rebuttal that plenty of people oppose publically funded healthcare  No connection between this fact and the putative controversy over the state sending doctors to assist people has been drawn by you, and it is therefore unclear why you make this declaration as if its relevance was self evident.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
    #14141274 - 03/18/11 02:04 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is it not clear from the context that I am talking about doctors whose salary is paid by the state? It seems you think that when I say 'state sending doctors' that I am  talking about the states motivation to send the doctor, rather than the state paying the doctors salary. But that is not the case.

I thought it would be clear from the context, interesting that rather than give the benefit of doubt you assume I am using sinnister tactics to win some argument.


In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation. If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care. Its sad that you are so quick to assume that I am trying to prove some point when I am trying to use analogy to create contrast to highlight differences in thought. My goal is to explore with you this unknown.


When I ask a question its not to set you up, its because I want to know what you think because I respect other people's thoughts and I wish to ponder them in an attempt to understand the world. I understand this point of view is rare in the discussion of politics; I highly recommend it.

Edited by Freedom (03/18/11 02:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
    #14141277 - 03/18/11 02:05 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation.


:thumbup:











--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHippieChick8
seeker of justice
Female


Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14142018 - 03/18/11 08:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
In fact this whole forum and politics in general seems terribly maligned by ego based argumentation.


:thumbup:

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:













Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom] * 2
    #14144027 - 03/18/11 04:13 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.





and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if
not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14144848 - 03/18/11 06:53 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave.  Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.

If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.





I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards...


Then how did you know you had pneumonia? Don't you need to have your lungs x-rayed in order to be diagnosed with it?

Pneumonia - Wikipedia
Quote:

Diagnostic tools include x-rays and examination of the sputum.




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 7 hours, 43 minutes
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14145029 - 03/18/11 07:26 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

He diagnosed and cured it with his brain, bro.


--------------------
This space for rent

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14145115 - 03/18/11 07:43 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
the virus example is not analogous to the police example you just gave.  Antibiotics help protect you from death and further injury even after you have acquired pneumonia.

If you want complete 100% protection you're never going to get it, the world doesn't work that way. But vaccines provide a very high level of protection.





I've had pneumonia twice, never went to the doctards...


Then how did you know you had pneumonia? Don't you need to have your lungs x-rayed in order to be diagnosed with it?

Pneumonia - Wikipedia
Quote:

Diagnostic tools include x-rays and examination of the sputum.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputum

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14145127 - 03/18/11 07:44 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Oh. :blush:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14145172 - 03/18/11 07:51 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

and there's 2 ways in which to get a sample, one is to cough up a bunch of
phlegm, the other is to stab your lung with a 16ga 3 inch spinal needle and
suck the crap out with a syringe

treatment includes bed rest, OJ and a puppy dog for company

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14145199 - 03/18/11 07:56 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
...the other is to stab your lung with a 16ga 3 inch spinal needle and
suck the crap out with a syringe


I'm assuming this is the route you took?


Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
treatment includes bed rest, OJ and a puppy dog for company


:smilingpuppy:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14147472 - 03/19/11 08:47 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.





and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if
not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative




If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
    #14147706 - 03/19/11 10:02 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I did not cure myself of pneumonia, my body healed it's self in a couple of
weeks, interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in
the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication,
I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a
week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a
week, I see no advantage to medications for myself and apparently most
americans dont either since it's a small percentage that have those regular
doctard visits

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #14147721 - 03/19/11 10:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
...interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in
the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication,
I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a
week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a
week...


Can you provide any articles which suggest that treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as not treating it at all?



PS--strep throat sucks ass. :sad:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineangel18
Stranger
Female

Registered: 03/19/11
Posts: 17
Loc: canada
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14149088 - 03/19/11 03:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Originally posted by Poid
Can you Provide any articles the which suggest That Treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as Treating it note at all?



PS - strep throat sucks ass




it could have been interpreted not to cure but rather to reduce pain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 7 hours, 43 minutes
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14149185 - 03/19/11 03:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I had a sore throat that lasted longer than it should have if it wasn't Mono (several weeks), but I tested negative for mono. The doctors kept giving me different antibiotics, and all they did was cause an allergic reaction and made me break out.

Finally, I decided to just stop taking my antibiotics and started taking Loratadine.. I started getting better almost immediately. I don't really know if it was the Loratadine that did it, but that's my "I are doing medisenz bettar than doctardzzzz" story.

Footnote: later I discovered that I had an abscessed tooth, which may have been related, maybe.


--------------------
This space for rent

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Poid]
    #14149529 - 03/19/11 05:18 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.





and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if
not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative




If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.





Please back up your premise that "medicine preventing death in some cases" is relevant to the health care debate in the US or that debate and the question of state police protection.

You seem to make the implicit argument that police save lives and that medicine does as well, and that unless implemented, the US healthcare system will let people die due to not having medicine: a consequence alleged to be due to the lack of implementing public health care reform proposals.

This seems like a straw man argument to me, as I don't recall anyone arguing to let people die, and you've so far not established this to be the conequence of not implementing the healthcare proposals.  Untill you establish this connection, your argument seems entirely rested on suppositions.


Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
...interestingly enough my ex wife got pneumonia and spent three weeks in
the hospital, 2 of it in the ICU unit under constant care and medication,
I've had strep throat as a kid and was given antibiotics, it took about a
week to clear up, when I've had it and not taken them it still took about a
week...


Can you provide any articles which suggest that treating strep throat with anti-biotics is equally as effective as not treating it at all?



PS--strep throat sucks ass. :sad:





Kind of the wrong question: those complaining about strep-throat-mimicking symptoms have marginal improvements in a relatively small proportion of cases upon recieving first line antibiotics as compared to treatment as if it were a virus (hydration and rest).  If you actually know strep is the causitive organism, then you have information that the primary care doctor doesn't neccesarily have, and thus the disposition of this case is dissimilar to that most commonly encountered.

The argument is that big brother should not use antibiotics as it may lead to resistance and the benefits in the typical case of strep-like symptoms are too infrequent and marginal for the normal individual to be worth the risk to the larger population.

I have a big problem with paternalism in medicine (preventing people from buying drugs without government-agent permission, recieving their preferred treatment, decisions made without their input or awareness/preference being obtained).  The argument regarding antibiotic resistance (as well as compulsory vaccination by law) seems to have some problems along these lines that are morally troubling.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American army free to commit crimes of war.
( 1 2 all )
MAIA 4,829 24 09/09/02 12:58 AM
by Mitchnast
* Bush: war criminal
( 1 2 all )
Adamist 1,563 25 09/08/04 09:55 PM
by Phred
* The Government
( 1 2 all )
DailyPot 4,018 33 01/18/14 11:44 AM
by Echro
* Home Protection
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Xlea321 3,610 74 12/20/02 11:24 AM
by shroomophile
* Local Peace Group Infiltrated by Government Agent SquattingMarmot 945 7 10/06/03 01:17 PM
by Azmodeus
* Government's 911 Coverup Falling Apart MAIA 1,590 15 12/23/03 01:22 PM
by Adden
* Series on Protecting Your Privacy Online Lana 3,437 2 12/09/02 09:01 AM
by isam
* While 'protecting' us in Iraq, Bush lets 3 million invade...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 2,901 60 09/16/04 03:06 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,662 topic views. 4 members, 4 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.