Yiuel
-
Posts
2.149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yiuel
-
-
I especially liked akya's argument here. Internet is a media as well, and why should we trust Internet over the other medias?
And I'm still waitng fort the suits in her case : this would stop any speculatives. Nothing came yet.
-
If any doctor had noticed that much amount of activity while viewing Mrs. Schiavo, than there is no way that he or she should recommend removing the feeding tube without facing massive amounts of malpractice reperation suits from Mrs. Schiavo's relatives.
Those reperations haven't been asked.
-
It may sound cruel
I was afraid of speaking of "shell", but it is an issue as well.
-
The geometrical marvel pictured in goldenratiophi's avatar.
-
A fractal based on the golden ratio would have been cool
-
Is cool as to have an avatar representing the best maths ever. FRACTAL!
-
It is indeed an issue. At least, in a political and social sense, I do understand the issue around utilitarism.
The question here is if that was useful to society? We could say that it was a living memory for her family... Yet it "wasted" a whole lot of ressources that could have been spent on people that could have survived (less than 100 000$ is enough to cure hundreds of children in Africa). Yet, where should we draw a line between what is practical healing and what is humanitarism? I drew the line no where : everything is practical healing and humanitary, yet, I'll do the best there. In the limits of what I have said earlier (Aim for life when death is not the only path, aim for death when life is no more a possible path.).
A lot of civilisations drew the line otherwise. Sparta is reknowed in some circles (I don't know if it is actually true), that they got rid of any medical problem that couldn't heal itself. A slow step towards eugenism. (notice that I have nothing against that, though) Some will heal, but when the healing is too much problems, they will go. I let go when there is no way I can cure, reverse the path of death. It seems that some people are even willing to stop time as much as they can. Inuit (Eskimos, for Europeans) are known to have done some terrible things from our own standard. When a child was born at the wrong time, and the mother recuperating too much, they could let the two in the wild at let them die. Eldery let themselves die when they were to old to follow the group. Survival of the majority (and hence, of the society) was the prime directive over any cure. They cured only if they had the time to do so.
Though I do not support the ideas of the Eskimo (yet, for Eldery, I partly agree), I am not for "what can be sustained alive shall be by all means". Life is precious, life is marvellous, but as everything within the Universe, it has a beginning and an ending, and you must let go the ending when it comes. Immortality is yet to be known in the Universe.
-
My arguments do not revolve around utilitarism. This is especially true when I say that existence and life is "purposeless" : since to me life has no purpose, do we have a use for it? My first answer would be no. I don't highly think of utilitarism anymore (but I did cross a time where usefulness was indeed a great part in my philosophy).
(Notice that even if my core moral philosophy kicked out utilitarism as a part of it, I still have a use of it in politics (when social activity is involved), with the (first and not ultimate) aim of productivity and usefulness, some kind of utilitarism. A society that doesn't have enough to feed all its part is problematic to me.)
A lot of my view here distinctly comes from what is "life" for me. There are a lot of possible definitions, and mine is more than "phisiologically enduring". Life is experience and events, especially for us, sentinent beings. What is the difference between someone in vegetative state and someone dead? Mere physiological enduring (and only enduring because of artificialness, not because the body itself still works).
What is life if there is no possible interaction, no possible experience? You might call vegetative state an experience : death as well is one. But, she couldn't do more (Titus Ultor exposed the medical issues I was waiting for.) Hence my second question to Uppy : What are you living? Was she still living, in a more "experienceful" sense? The question here is on a more personal level than mere social usefulness.
I could say that she was "a living memory", something very close to someone dead as well.
Also, here it is very Tolkienish : when one's time has come (when the only forward path is death : Shiavo's case, as it seems from doctors), one should let it come with serenity. Live your life and then accept what shall come after it. Aim for life when death is not the only path, aim for death when life is no more a possible path.
-
Fratals are MARVELLOUS!
-
Wow, you haven't even met your own boss???
When there's an ocean between you and your boss, and that it costs to muh to get to the other side, I guess its quite normal not seeing your boss
-
Uppy : Again. I answered to Clodhopper that she was indeed living. So, then, I have a second question :
Then, if you are living, what are you living (experiencing)?
-
Terri's mother, brother, and sister said that Terri was conscious and alert.
We can say that they couldn't justify their point of her being counscious and alert.
Where were the doctors? What did they say?
Dead bodies are also prompt to move, you know. Spasms unrelated to counsciousness are also possible. Notice here a desire of her family to see her counscious : you may so wishfully wish it that it happens in a mind process. And you never notice it was "only in your head". That doesn't mean they are mentally sick, only that they could have been fooled by their wishes.
When were dealing with medical issues, the doctor is the one who can better answer to those medical issues. As far as I have been told, doctors were agreeing on vegetative state.
In Canada, any artificial sustaining (including breathing and feeding) is a treatment that can be stopped if the doctor says it will stay so for the rest of her life (or worsen) and that the closest relative, defined by law, agree to stop it, if the treated one cannort answer in the sustained state.
It can be that the husband wasn't the perfect guy as well, but I don't especially have regrets for Terry's family. And, from the points I gave earlier, I don't think I'll trust only her family : never trust someone who wants something to tell you that that something actually IS. Will is a strong power.
But, even if she was in PVS, does that cease to make her human?The point is not if she was human or not at that time.
We, I speak for those who have the same thinking as me as well, don't say that she wasn't human anymore, but that she wasn't living anything more. In such a state, where even the most basic external senses aren't functional (you cannot feel the outside), do you experience something? The body is still working, yet as a machine, unaware of what is around, and especially not aware of itself. Was she still living something? She was still living, in a very physiological level (some cells were still functional), but nothing else.
She had life, did she have a life?
Why was she starved? Do know how painful it is to starve?Nature is not always easy. When you don't want to help it, you get what you get from it. You didn't want her to starve? Yet, it was the only way to let her go away. And I'm sure starvation is a painful way to die. Your description is eloquent. Yet, again, was there another way?
Klaas will answer you YES, he lives in Belgium. They have the so dreadfully called euthanasia (Good Death). To help nature to be less painful, you provoke celullar death (cells aren't functional anymore) before physiological death (missing of air, water or food). This way, there is no pain. You can add to it sleeping mode, as when you sleep (as on an surgery table) you feel ASOLUTELY nothing. No pain.
You can answer YES as well, as you could say "let her alive". Then, what was there for her (back to my second quote). I almost feel that her family wanted that time stops and that she would be always alive.
This leads me to a final idea. Life must move on. They have been stucked for at least a few years. Again, there, is it life? Is stopping time and the Universe, life? Or is it only a wish to have eternity?
No, eternity is useless when it means that nothing passes, as if you never live...
-
Which was true about almost all young Germans at that time.
He is noticed to have rebelled against the Nazi Regime before its fall and hence got some problems, quickly solved when Nazi regime fell in front of the Soviets. Since he was Bavarian, he was on the West side though.
-
Uppy : I have a question.
Imagine that you are in her state (which, as far as I've been told was irreversible and just a corpse working still to be able to eat with a tube and let go defecation and urination with tubes as well) what would you do?.. Are you living?
-
An individual, whether casting a vote or blowing up a building, has little power; a party has much more. To dispose of the party system is to deny human nature. I defy you to name one instance where people did not naturally form a party with like-minded individuals.
I do not deny the right to organize and to group. I just don't trust the so-called party's lines, when you MUST agree with your party. Such absurdity is (too) common in Canada (yet, is unheard of in the three territories, yay!) You can group for some ideas, but you mustn't limit yourself to the party's line.
-
Rohirwine :
I do agree with you on this. (Reminder to akya : humilité) Yet, planning and organizing is part of the "doings" of someone. What is thought must stay in the head as thoughts. What is engaged is part of the actions. Those who organize are as guilty as those who perform.
Klaas and Titus Ultor :
I have a problem with parties : how can you say "stop doing it". People are individuals after all, they can act as they will, in the end. No one can, ultimately, stop them of being themselves. That why I'm fundamentally against formal parties and the so-called "party line".
-
As for me, I had a clear opinion :
"Let the Universe go when you can no more undo what has been done."
As far as I have been told, doctors stoped having hope reverting her state. What was left were prayers to God...
And in such state, I'll rather go on and die rather then forever sleep between active life and death. At least, I won't be a burden for my people, and they will be able to live on, just remembering me, instead of hopelessly hope.
It may seem harsh, but this is how I thaught the case.
-
In my History of East Asia class, we discussed about maoism. In fact, it is felt as a rather nationalist movement, proning power to the commoner, with a lot of stalinism. There are still people (in Nepal) that strongly are maoists. I do not respect maoism. I do respect though the original Jucheism (North Korea, before turning into the actual stalinism), especially since the main idea was self sufficiency and the developpement of consumption industry, not communism per se. It quickly fell though...
I like the idea of getting people arrested for what they actually do rather than what they think. That should always be the way.
-
The crisis will go on in Quebec as well. The church has lost a lot of people here in Quebec (they lost me in the way as well, to my own relief) and I don't think that Benedict VIX will help a lot more to undo what happened here. Yet, as almost all cardinals were chosen by John Paul II (Yet, he did not choose Ratzinger...), they just needed someone to persue JPII's work. Now, we'll see what BenVIX will offer to the Catholics and to the World.
-
In fact, Japanese language doesn't have genuine "ti" (well, it has, but pronouced "chi"), so when they find a t plus a high vowel, they usually say "Te". So it probably is Tinian
Happy I was useful. -
I would call it in English "dictatorship of majority", but that's not my main point here. We complain about because what has been chosen goes against, sometimes, our own values. Think about things that you wouldn't like in your society, because it goes agaisnt what you think is right. And now, majority says that something is right. You'll have a moral (or, in my case, social) dilemma.But why do we always complain about dictators of the majority?
I'd like to add something to that statement, and this shows how I'll answer to your next question. We will never have everyone pleased at the same time and at the same place. By adding this little phrase, I change the entire meaning, yet, it remains true.We will never have everyone pleased at the same time.
One cannot change his own time, at least, as far as our technology goes. Yet, one can change the "place" variable. In a very open society that I have postulated, they would have a superconstitution regarding the founding of societies.If there are two options with two distinct sides, and the majority wants one side, why would you go with any other way in a democracy?This "civilisation" (that I called for personal reasons Melville) would have formed a basic community, that evolved like any other. Yet, they dont have a democraty relying on "majority". They must achieve unanimity, or they cannot change anything. What happens then when a part of the civilisation want to change its ways? This civilisation encourage dissidence and they said that if only a part would want to change the law, they would first let them go, then, let them found their own community, and finally, helping that offspring community until (social and economical) autonomy.
Hence, that pleases those who don't want a change (by letting them the laws and ways they had) and that pleases those who want such change. Yet, they are no more in the same place, so I do not contradict myself. Since it is based on different places, I call such way "distancialism", based on the radical "distance", since the change-willing group take its distance from the former.
-
Curufinwë :
Must the population as a whole be considered as a child, whose decision has to be monitored in a way? Must people be protected from themselves in this case?
I have said once, to someone, if you choose, you agree with its consequences. So, if the people want the power od choice, I have no problem giving them. (Notice that rights are not natural states to me, so people take them or not.)
There is one limit to such thought, when you are not given the choice, obliged to suffer from other's choice. This is what I called in French "La dictature de la majorité". This is my great dilemma, how not to live with such dictature, even if it seems a noble one, because we call it democracy? My answer is what I have described in my first post, either unanimity on a change, or you go away and build your new ways. [As far as I'm concerned, what has no change is considered already accepted by all, so only the people who wish change shall do something for it, if their is no unanimity about it.]
-
I don't know who I'd want to meet with. Sometimes, its better to never meet in real life. Oh well. Well, since I already met akya (well, we saw about each day at college last year), I'd say I'd like to meet her (again
).Black Op as well.
Yet, I'd like to meet about everyone. As a joke, yet it's quite serious, I say : everyone even myself. (Meeting oneself would be quite interesting.)
-
I'm lucky to have remembered that old Japanese is written from right to left when horizontally written. FIEW. The second picture isn't clear enough, but it seems that those pictures were taken in the same place called "Tenian". On the first picture, it is written "Tenian-tyou syoubouso" wich means "firefighting meeting place of the town of Tenian". I could read on the second that it was in the same place (Tenian is written) but, not what's left.
kilroy was here
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
I often base myself on the ideal state I builded in my stories, when we come to multiculturalism. (Melville the State, Sevy the Community)
Rather than asking cohabitation in a single community, I ask cooperation and collaboration between the various communities. They all adhere to a common base law, which cannot be changed unless all member communities agree to do so, and that base law prescribs the relation between the various communities. The base law defined, each community, under the minimal respect of that basic law, is free to have its own ways and laws : especially since there is no cohabitation involved.
Yet, I also have the example of a multicultural community where the laws and ways are broad enough to encompass a lot of possible cultural answers, but those laws and ways often goes against a lot of "christano-occidental" viewpoints of morality as they broaden the possibilities (yet, not forbidding occidentals to live their own way).