|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


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
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



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.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



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.
|
johnm214


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.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



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)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
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.

-------------------- 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.
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



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.



|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
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.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
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
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
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.
-------------------- 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.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
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
-------------------- 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.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



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.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


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
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
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.
-------------------- 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.
|
angel18
Stranger


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.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
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
|
johnm214


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. 
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.
|
|