WAKE UP WOKE PEOPLE!

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

That’s amazing, we can fin 1d in 1000 climate scientists who poo poo the overwhelming consensus on climate change. I wonder, if when one has critical kidney failure, they should seek out the 1 in 1000 doctors who recommend Papua New Guinea herbs instead of dialysis.

I would want the one Doctor of any number who could do a kidney transplant, operating with an ample supply of kidneys provided by a free marketplace where donors would have a right to sell a kidney. (The Doctors and Nurses make money from the operation, so why not the donor who makes it possible?)

And this would just be a stop-gap until we could vat-grow kidneys in indefinite supply and/or get nanobots to do kidney repair.

Aren’t you glad that not everything in life is a binary?

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[DavisModerator]

Interesting Enco, I want to live in a society where nobody is so neglected by society that they are so desperate that they are exploited into selling one of their kidneys, but instead people are encouraged to donate them or do so by default after death. Wait a minute…that sounds like most of Northern Europe. I would much prefer that to say, Mississippi where the government neglects the downtrodden so that the poor can go fuck themselves and some readily sell blood plasma so they can feed their children.

[UnseenParticipant]

This Lomborg lecture begins with a concrete example of how following common sense when it comes to responding to crises can lead to bad decisions.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

Interesting Enco, I want to live in a society where nobody is so neglected by society that they are so desperate that they are exploited into selling one of their kidneys, but instead people are encouraged to donate them or do so by default after death. Wait a minute…that sounds like most of Northern Europe. I would much prefer that to say, Mississippi where the government neglects the downtrodden so that the poor can go fuck themselves and some readily sell blood plasma so they can feed their children.

Davis, we Americans have the right and privilege to die in so many stupid, unnecessary and painful ways so we can go to see Jesus. From our glorious highways of death to the honor of being shot in your third-grade classroom to the right of using the emergency room as a doctor’s office. You are just jealous because you communists are not allowed to fire a weapons-grade mortar on top your head on the 4th of July.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

I see now what Galileo was up against. LOL

No, you don’t. You see the deniers and their “we are overreacting” suck ups are “The Church”, the old money, the ones who want to keep the status quo. The other 95% of true scientists from dozens of disciplines are collecting data, improving global models and trying to get people to understand this is real, the planet is small, the tipping points are exponential, and the mass extinction is underway.

This is why I’m providing the contribution of Bjorn Lomborg who is no climate denier. He heads a think tank which includes Nobel laureate economists to propose rational and effective (not knee jerk, “common sense”) responses to climate change. How about disputing him?

[_Robert_Participant]

Yeah, I know this joker well, he was the guy was found to be “not guilty” due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question. What do you do, just watch a few salesman videos and think to yourself ” well this is science, it all makes sense”, LOL.

Formal accusations of scientific dishonesty After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was formally accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought a total of three complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI). Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a “debate” publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question. That February, Lomborg filed a complaint against the decision with the MSTI, which had oversight over the DCSD. In December, 2003, the Ministry annulled the DCSD decision, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentation of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case. In March 2004, the DCSD formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.[8][20]

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[21] signed by 287 Danish academics, primarily social scientists, who criticised the DCSD for evaluating the book as a work of science, whereas the petitioners considered it clearly an opinion piece by a non-scientist.[22][23] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency (DRA) to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[24] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures, primarily from the medical and natural sciences community, to support the continued existence of the DCSD and presented their petition to the DRA.[22]

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

Davis, don’t make fun of US laissez faire. The government has in fact taken the initiative with a great many forced sterilizations of the poor and unfortunate. Oh and experiments with syphilis. Oh and then there was a feeble effort to stop post civil war slavery. So we are right there with progressive action.

[_Robert_Participant]

The shooting fireworks from the head was not a joke, BTW. The lift-off of a shell can be understood using the Tsiolkovsky Rocket equation that was actually discovered by William Moore in 1810, which states that the change in velocity of the shell is equal to the exhaust velocity of the burning fuel multiplied by the natural logarithm of the initial mass of the rocket divided by the final mass of the rocket after the fuel is spent.

This is enough force to squash a numbskull like a melon.

Maine

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/06/maine-man-dies-after-launching-fireworks-from-his-head/

Texas

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-man-dies-after-lighting-firework-on-his-head/

Georgia (fired upside down, holding overhead)

https://www.wjcl.com/article/officials-23-year-old-georgia-man-killed-in-july-4th-weekend-fireworks-mishap/36952846

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Lombord talking about responding to climate change in ways that make sense vs. making us feel good. He starts off with an example from Haiti:

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

Interesting Enco, I want to live in a society where nobody is so neglected by society that they are so desperate that they are exploited into selling one of their kidneys, but instead people are encouraged to donate them or do so by default after death. Wait a minute…that sounds like most of Northern Europe. I would much prefer that to say, Mississippi where the government neglects the downtrodden so that the poor can go fuck themselves and some readily sell blood plasma so they can feed their children.

The U.S. Federal Government has prohibited organ and tissue sales since 1984 (suitably enough,) and the result is that people desperately needing organs and tissues have to wait years to get them and many die doing so. This is real “neglect” going on!

Allowing a voluntary sale of organs and tissues from one consenting adult to another would assure that there would be no shortage of organs and tissues and would save countless lives while also enriching donors and assuring that transplants are above-board, safe, and affordable.

And if consenting adults selling their organs and tissues is “exploitation,” then isn’t any consenting exchange of money for labor time and skills–which are equally a part of a person’s life–a form of “exploitation”? I’ve went round and round with Unseen about Marx’ “Labor Theory of Value” and the answer is the same: There is no “exploitation” in a trade between adults who have capacity to give consent.

If anything is “exploitation,” it is the U.S. Government declaring eminent domain over every U.S. Citizen’s life. Individual adults owning their own lives should not be a controversial question in 2023 C.E., 158 years after 600,000+ lives were lost answering the question.

Here is a most thought-provoking video on the subject detailing the sense of organ and tissue sales and the deadly consequences of the prohibition.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Jake,

Davis, don’t make fun of US laissez faire. The government has in fact taken the initiative with a great many forced sterilizations of the poor and unfortunate. Oh and experiments with syphilis. Oh and then there was a feeble effort to stop post civil war slavery. So we are right there with progressive action.

So your response to Government doing coercive medical operations on people without their informed consent is to forbid people from exercising their sovereignty over their minds and bodies even more? Again, Bullwinkle?

[jakelafortParticipant]

Enco, do not attempt to think. You will hurt yourself.

Is that you, the Thinker? Or are you more akin to the statue as a form frozen as an ideologue and incapable of reason.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

If people can sell their organs then to whom do they sell them? To medical committees who then decide rationally how to distribute them to extend life the longest or to the wealthiest bidder like the lawyer in your video, who has lived a full life and is in the sunset of his years without many years to be saved? This is the real ethical question, I think.

Who should get that kidney, a 17 year old boy headed for a career in engineering or a 30 year old widowed mother of three? Or an elderly lawyer? You choose.

I suppose in your utopian laissez-faire world, organs should just be a commodity available to whomever can best afford them.

That’s a nightmare world.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

@Enco

If people can sell their organs then to whom do they sell them? To medical committees who then decide rationally how to distribute them to extend life the longest or to the wealthiest bidder like the lawyer in your video, who has lived a full life and is in the sunset of his years without many years to be saved? This is the real ethical question, I think.

Who should get that kidney, a 17 year old boy headed for a career in engineering or a 30 year old widowed mother of three? Or an elderly lawyer? You choose.

I suppose in your utopian laissez-faire world, organs should just be a commodity available to whomever can best afford them.

That’s a nightmare world.

Would anybody ask such questions about who gets apartments or plumbing or McDonald’s Hamburgers? Do any such commodities or services have a board to make decisions on who gets what and when?

Even as imperfect as our health care system is, when I got my colonoscopy, no board asked such questions about me or any other patient.

All the practice asked of me was my Driver’s License or ID–by the bye, walking-around IDs are free in NC, so they are no barrier to voting–my health insurance company card, and my paperwork, which only asked contact information and medically-related questions.

And my Doctor is a friendly gentleman who is an alumni of Duke who got his Residency at Vanderbilt and his Fellowship from Brown, so it was top-notch care.

In short, when a commodity or service is plentiful enough, who gets it is determined by “first-come-first-served,” and the 17-year-old future engineer has as much a shot as the elderly elite lawyer.

So it would be with free-market organs and tissues. It would especially be the case if free-market organs and tissues could be vat-grown cheaply, with enough organs and tissues for a cryonic “body shop” for every person on the Planet.

That would be a dream come true for every person who needs an organ or tissue.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Jake,

Enco, do not attempt to think. You will hurt yourself.

Is that you, the Thinker? Or are you more akin to the statue as a form frozen as an ideologue and incapable of reason.

So not thinking like you is not thinking at all? That’s a non sequitur for ya! 😁

[Author]

Posts