I looked at the part when I said "Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them." and I realized that was stupid. I meant to say (and I have no idea how it came out the other way, I tend not to think sometimes when I post) basically that, but only for people who do it to themselves.
We all make mistakes sometimes, so that's okay. What's
not okay, however, is when you change your stance in the middle of a debate and then start complaining about previous arguments, which are outdated now that you've changed your opinion. You said something you didn't actually mean, I get it, but you have to realize that people are going to respond to what you
said, not to what you
actually meant but failed to say. There's a great example of this below, so read on.
(Coincidentally - note that you made a mistake. Do you want people to overlook it and give you a second chance to express yourself? If so, you should be able to understand the concept of giving people second chances, instead of just telling them to accept the consequences of their actions and refuse to give them a hand.)
Well, for one thing I don't think not having breakfast tomorrow is life altering. Before I go on, I would like to note that I know what you're going to think when I explain my view of it to you. You're going to think about how what I'm saying is ridiculous and we DO have the technology, so our choice of action SHOULD be to save this person's life. And I agree with you. IF the person is the victim. Like in a car accident, if one of the drivers is drunk and he hits the other driver. I'm all for saving the guy that got hit, but the other guy? I don't think he deserves the medical care, if he even needs it. Many drunk drivers walk away from accidents with no injury.
Other people have already explained why this comes off as really cruel; I've written a bit about it below, too.
Anyway, the way I like to think about fate is this: things aren't necessarily set in stone, but there is a general way things are meant to happen. Like if someone gets hit by a bus. They're probably meant to die there. Now, they could have taken the time to tie their shoe, and have missed the bus by a few seconds, but they didn't and now this is what is meant to happen. (NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT TYING YOUR SHOE SAVES YOU FROM BUSES, OR THAT THE PERSON IN THAT EXAMPLE EVEN DESERVED IT, JUST AN EXAMPLE. caps for emphasis) I don't think that everything is set in stone forever, but certain decisions lead to certain events. You're the one making the decisions, it's your job to own up to them (thinking, the bus example is not a good one).
But how is fate relevant to organ transplants? Couldn't it just as easily be someone's fate to get a new kidney?
If someone sees that they're about to get hit by a bus, should they step out of the way, or should they stand still and accept that their fate is now probably to die? You'd be okay with them trying to save themselves by stepping aside, right? So then, organ transplants should work the same way! You have the opportunity to save your life, so you take it. It's as simple as that, really. Both situations are exactly the same; you know you're about to die, so you do what you can to avoid it. Why should one person have to accept their fate while the other doesn't? What's the difference?
This brings me to my point I made earlier. Let's say we have two people. One of them is a heavy drinker and has lost the function of his kidneys, and the other spontaneously gained kidney failure. I'd be comfortable with giving dialysis to the heavy drinker, but I'd wouldn't want to give him a new set. I'd definitely want to give dialysis to the other guy too, and if he has a family member who can donate, that's cool too, probably.
Heavy drinkers don't usually get liver/kidney transplants in the first place, but regardless - can you honestly say that you think a person deserves death for being an alcoholic? See below about disproportionate retribution.
Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it's mostly the organ harvesting part of transplants and stuff like that that bothers me. I don't think we should have freezers full of old hearts, lungs, and livers, just because they could help a person in the future potentially. That is crossing the line, in my opinion.
Crossing what line? What's wrong about trying to help people in the future potentially?
How is it the same? I don't see how dodging a train even comes close to kidney transplant.
They're both actions that can change a person's fate from "imminent death" to "good chance of survival". Why is one okay but not the other? If I'm about to get hit by a train, I step aside, thus changing my fate. If I'm about to die from liver failure, I get a new liver (hopefully), thus changing my fate. Is there a difference, and if so, what is it?
I have no problem with any of the things you listed. I don't see how changing your hair, eye color, or certain piercings (I hate gauges. Not necessarily the people wearing them, I just think they're creepy and make you look asinine.) change the human form. Most of that is changing color, not form. Piercings, well, it depends on what they are and where they are but I'm usually fine with them. Sex reassignment surgery I'm good with, but that is brought upon by psychology and not one's own stupid decisions, like kidney failure can be.
What do you mean by "form"? Having a kidney transplant doesn't really change your outward appearance much, certainly not as much as a prosthetic limb. If you're fine with them, and with pacemakers, why not with new kidneys? What is this "form-changing" you're referring to? How can you be okay with replacing an actual leg with a prosthetic leg, yet not be okay with replacing an actual kidney with another actual kidney? And why is it okay to replace vast amounts of your blood, but not your internal organs?
Then why do you keep barraging me with accusatory questions? I get that the way I think about this isn't "normal", but it's how I see it, and I don't understand why you can't just let it be. I'm sorry that I think people should field the consequences for their actions. Also if you accept the fact that people can have irrational opinions, how can you possibly expect any sort of explanation? You even said that some opinions are irrational, and you're okay with that.
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote; you're entitled to your opinions, yes, but you also have to realize that other people will call bullshit if your opinion is "let's not help these people, they should die". If you can back that up with rational arguments, maybe other people will come around to your way of thinking, but if not, they'll think you're a jerk. We can't just "let it be" because you're saying it's unethical to give people a certain kind of medical treatment. In fact, you originally said it wasn't okay to treat people
even when they've done nothing wrong, which understandably made a lot of people upset. Yes, I know you've since retracted that statement, but how was I supposed to know that back when I wrote my first posts?
Racism and homophobia are also opinions, and you're perfectly allowed to hate gay people - but when an opinion is both irrational and offensive, people will react to that.
I'm sorry that I think people should field the consequences for their actions.
That is not at all what your original statement was. What you originally said was "whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them". You've since admitted that this was a mistake, but
don't complain when people call you out on things you actually said. Instead, try that thing where you pay for your mistakes.
(This is that example I mentioned earlier, by the way.)
If the result of inaction is that, and your choice is inaction, then no.
That's not a reply to the actual question. I asked "can you blame a person for acting?", and you say, "no, if their choice is inaction". But inaction means not acting, by its very definition. So when I ask "can you blame a person for acting?", it's rather explicit that the person in question didn't choose inaction, isn't it? Didn't think I'd have to spell that out!
How is someone a victim if they're making stupid decisions? If a person decides to be an underage drinker and they pay the consequences for it, I don't feel bad for them. I also don't think it's up to the rest of society to take care of them.
This has been covered by other posters already, but I'll repeat it for emphasis:
The problem isn't that you think people should accept the consequences of their actions; I think we can all agree with that to some extent. The problem is the utterly disproportionate retribution you're advocating. "He got hit by that car because he was jaywalking, so he should die!"
Well, not as severely as you're taking it, but in a way. Again, I get that it's weird, and I get that it's a tad antisocial. However, that does not change the fact that you know you have a bad heart and you're not actively trying to rectify it. (also, if you take that as offensive, then I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. If you have some sort of genetic heart disorder, or some other form of pre-existing heart disease, then I do apologize, but my argument stands for people that brought it upon themselves.)
Again, disproportionate retribution.
It's not squeamishness, it's biblical respect. I know I said I'm not particularly religious, but I do take some cues from the bible.
You already said you're okay with pacemakers, sex reassignment surgery and prosthetic limbs, so which part of the Bible is it that allows these things but not organ transplants?
Also - aren't forgiveness, helping people and allowing second chances way more important parts of the Bible than the part where God disapproves of organ transplants?
You know, I'm trying to find the part when I said that what Music Dragon said was a bad thing. All I said was "I don't know why you keep questioning me if you're alright with it".
There's a phrase that is often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You have every right to feel the way you feel about organ transplants, but everyone else also has the right to feel that what you're saying is awful.
Also: this is a debate. See below on the meaning of debates.
Did I say I knew every situation of every person ever? Not that I recall.
But nevertheless, you "just don't think it's ethically right" to have organ transplants; that means you're judging people on moral grounds, despite not knowing their situations.
Did I say it was? No, it seems I didn't.
That's a very childish response. If someone says you've done a bad thing, you can't just say "I never said it wasn't a bad thing"; such an answer means nothing.
"It was mean of you to steal that man's bike."
"I never said it wasn't mean!"
"It was also bad of you to murder him afterwards."
"I never said it wasn't bad!"
"You're being annoying now."
"I never said I wasn't annoying!"
It's a complete non-answer. Instead, try to understand what it was that made the person criticize you, then explain yourself or defend yourself. It's an opportunity for either you or the other person to learn something. ("I never said it wasn't!")
I'm really sorry if most of this comes off as petty and offended, but honestly I am offended at this point! I understand that the way I'm looking at this isn't "normal" or generally accepted, but at the same time examining it's every detail in an insulting and with forty refuting arguments at the ready isn't the way to go about finding out my motives!
Everyone else is also offended, not because your opinion isn't "normal" but because you've been saying that some people deserve death instead of medical treatment. Also, keep in mind that your original statement was even more awful, which is what got people all riled up in the first place. (Consequences, see...)
And anyway, this isn't about finding out your motives, but rather about explaining to you why we think your opinion is more or less horrible, and hopefully getting you to change your mind. Although that's apparently not going to happen, by your own admission.
And you seem to have missed the part of my last response where I blatantly said I made a mistake and fixed it. Also every part where I've said if the person isn't directly at fault for their misfortune I'm alright with treating them. If the person brought it upon themselves, as in their decisions up to this point in time have led to this condition, I think they deserve to suffer the consequences.
You're not being consistent, though. You've said that you're okay with treating people as long as they don't deserve death - but you've also said that you "just don't think it's ethically right" to "manipulate the human form", that organ donation is "crossing the line", and that it's wrong for Biblical reasons. So which is it? Are you okay with organ transplants for the deserving, or are you not?
You're not going to change my views on the matter, so I'd like to request that you guys kindly stop giving me the third degree about this.
It's been said before, like most everything else, but here goes:
First of all: don't go in the Debating Hall if you have no intention of debating. The purpose of a debate is to grow and learn through intelligent discourse, discovering things about yourself, the world, and other people by comparing viewpoints. If you're not ready to have yours challenged or called into question, then don't post here. This isn't a place to just voice your opinions, it's a place to discuss them.
Secondly: stubborn close-mindedness is the reason behind most of the world's prejudices and a lot of horrible stuff in general. Try to at least be open to criticism and be willing to learn from other people.
When did I ever say I was judging for anyone else? Right, at the part when I didn't!
Use of the phrases "I just don't think it's ethically right" and "that is crossing the line" constitute moral judgement.
When did I say anyone who thinks other than me, and thinks that transplants and the sort are the greatest thing ever is utterly and entirely wrong? Oh right, at the part when I didn't! When did I say I know everyone's story, and am therefore the ultimate authority on everything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have to say the part when I didn't!
If you don't know everyone's stories and aren't the ultimate authority on everything, don't be so eager to judge.
I'm sorry your heart is bad, and I'm sorry you can't do anything about it, but it seems that you are precisely the kind of person whom I've been excluding from my opinion!
Possibly, if you resolve the inconsistency described above.
Also, I don't see how anything I've said is bull****. If what I've said is, then basically what everyone else has said is, too, because everyone else has basically said the same stuff I've said, except from the opposite viewpoint and directed at me.
That depends on what you mean by bullshit. What people mean when they call your opinion bullshit is probably that it's not really very logical.
Still... in the end, no matter how much logic and reason you use, all opinions have to rely on some arbitrary set of axioms, meaning there's never really any bullshit or non-bullshit opinions - but yours is at odds with that of most of us, which is that people deserve second chances and that death is rarely an appropriate punishment for a mistake.
Ultimately, neither opinion is more "right" than the other, but yours makes you look like a bit of a jerk to everybody else. Might be something to consider. I mean, I get that you don't mind being "weird" and "antisocial", but more often than not, trying to fit in with the rest of society and being a generally empathetic and forgiving person is actually quite beneficial, as is using logic and reason instead of intuition and the Bible when judging and/or arguing.
