Kevorkian forced to die?
Paul Wharton
rejected a request to pardon assisted-suicide advovate Jack Kevorkian
or commute his sentence, despite claims that he is in grave condition.
The 77 year-old former doctor is serving a 10- to 25-year prison
sentence for murder after giving a fatal injection of drugs in 1998 to
a man with Lou Gehrig's disease. Kevorkian is eligible for parole in
2007. His lawyer, Mayer Morganroth, said last month that Kevordian was
in "dire shape" and might not live that long. The parole board, in a
7-2 vote, recommended the governor deny the application, according to
documents released Thursday."
What the government is telling us is that it is illegal to *choose* to
kill oneself. But, it is not illegal for the government to *force* us
to die.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
FED UP
>kill oneself. But, it is not illegal for the government to *force* us
>to die.
For a self decribe "objectivist", your logic is terrible.
Your conclusion here doesn't fit the story at all.
Kevorkian was imprisoned for aiding OTHERS in suicide.
How is the government "forcing" Kevorkian to die ? Are they
withholding medical treatment ?
Paul Wharton
FED UP wrote:
> Your conclusion here doesn't fit the story at all.
>
> Kevorkian was imprisoned for aiding OTHERS in suicide.
Should a pharmaceutical company be punished for producing the means for
individuals to kill themselves. Should an architect be imprisoned for
building a skyscraper that enables suicide. As things stand now, it
*is* illegal to die. It is not hard to enable suicide. So, the
primary issue in the Kevorkian case is the issue of suicide--not
assistance of suicide.
>
> How is the government "forcing" Kevorkian to die ? Are they
> withholding medical treatment ?
He is 77 years old, and, as reported, in very poor health. If he dies
in prison, it will probably be the government's fault. Thus, the
government will have killed him.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
atlasbugged
news:1135353058.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>As things stand now, it
> *is* illegal to die.
I am glad they outlawed dying so I don't have to worry about it ever
happening to me.
> He is 77 years old, and, as reported, in very poor health. If he dies
> in prison, it will probably be the government's fault. Thus, the
> government will have killed him.
They put an innocent - and noble - man in prison.
Killing him, or even holding him in a place not conducive to health, is just
further evidence that the people who did this to him are degenerates.
The right to own and control your own life, health, body, or even property,
has long since been repealed, at least at least as a matter of law.
George Vernon Skivington
>>As things stand now, it
>> *is* illegal to die.
> I am glad they outlawed dying so I don't have to worry about it ever
> happening to me.
Are you kidding? Now you have even more to worry about. Besides the nuisance
of being dead, you be a criminal. How the hell could you live with that?
Paul Wharton
The problem with death being illegal is that if the government thinks
that one is going to die, it has the legal power to intervene, and
control one's life. If you don't think that it is illegal to die, I
have over twenty incarcerations on my record to show that you are
wrong. Since, I have never been able to hire a private lawyer, despite
my efforts, during these incarcerations, it would be nice for some
private advocacy to help me out behind the scenes on the next one.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
George Vernon Skivington
> The problem with death being illegal is that if the government thinks
> that one is going to die, it has the legal power to intervene, and
> control one's life.
That explains why they have the right to detain you if you are over 65.
> Since, I have never been able to hire a private lawyer, despite
> my efforts, during these incarcerations, it would be nice for some
> private advocacy to help me out behind the scenes on the next one.
No problem. Next time they jail you for dying, I'd be happy to speak up on
your behalf. Just gimme a buzz.
Jerry Story
As I recall from a television documentary some years ago, Kevorkian had
a machine that enabled the patient to commit suicide painlessly. So it
was the patient killing himself/herself, not Kevorkian, and therefore
the killing did not qualify as murder. But in the last case it was
Kevorkian who operated the machine (perhaps because the patient was not
able to) and this was done in front of a television camera,
intentionally asking for trouble. So in the last case he was convicted
of murder.
There is a real legal question: how do you distinguish between assisted
suicide and murder?
But speaking more seriously, if assisted suicide became common and the
normal thing, it would be bad for the medical profession. It would cut
into their revenue. How is the medical profession supposed to make
money out of dead people? Those people that Kevorkian helped to die
might have lived for a long time and the medical profession might have
made a lot of money out of them. Kevorkian is a traitor to the medical
profession. What he did was not in the best interest of the medical
profession. The ideal for the medical profession is to have people be
unhealthy but alive for as long as possible.
atlasbugged
news:1135357489.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But speaking more seriously, if assisted suicide became common and the
> normal thing, it would be bad for the medical profession. It would cut
> into their revenue. How is the medical profession supposed to make
> money out of dead people? Those people that Kevorkian helped to die
> might have lived for a long time and the medical profession might have
> made a lot of money out of them. Kevorkian is a traitor to the medical
> profession. What he did was not in the best interest of the medical
> profession. The ideal for the medical profession is to have people be
> unhealthy but alive for as long as possible.
Which is further evidence that you are nutz, delusional and paranoid.
Last time I looked, doctors generally advised against smoking. This has to
be a major moneymaker for them.
My motto:
Smoking: Good for doctors, good for Social Security, and really, really
good for your children.
Robert J. Kolker
> Your conclusion here doesn't fit the story at all.
>
> Kevorkian was imprisoned for aiding OTHERS in suicide.
Wrong. Kevorkian was convicted of actually killing his client. Kevorkian
adminstered the drug himself. In prior case Kevorkian was indicted and
tried for -aiding- a suicide, but he beat all those raps. He went a step
too far and bought himself a conviction.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> He is 77 years old, and, as reported, in very poor health. If he dies
> in prison, it will probably be the government's fault. Thus, the
> government will have killed him.
He was legally convicted of manslaughter.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> They put an innocent - and noble - man in prison.
He admitted to adminstering the fatal does with his own hand. He is not
innocent of manslaughter. The law does not recognize that aiding and
abetting a suicide is legal. The law surely does not recognize that
administering a fatal dose of a drug even for the sake of ending the
life of a person who has consented to have his life ended is legal.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> There is a real legal question: how do you distinguish between assisted
> suicide and murder?
In the first case the person dying adminsters the fatal drug. In the
second case it is Kevorkian administering the fatal drug. It sounds
pretty straightforward to me.
I happen to support Kevorkian insofar as he -aids- suicides. Doing the
killing himself is a different matter.
bob Kolker
Jerry Story
> Last time I looked, doctors generally advised against smoking. This has to
> be a major moneymaker for them.
Those doctors who advise against smoking are not acting in the best
interest of the medical profession. They are not consistently
rational. Perhaps they are afraid of bucking the establishment. This
whole thing about tobacco being bad for health started with the
anti-capitalist and anti-big business movement. For more information,
ask an Objectivist.
Fortunately some doctors are rational and have the courage to say that
smoking is healthy.
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/smoking_is_healthy_for_your_arteries.html
For more evidence, ask Fred Weiss. There was a doctor on C2C who said
smoking is good for health.
Of course they would have you smoke in moderation. That way you get to
live longer and make more money for doctors. I can understand their
point of view. Perfectly rational.
There are two things that are bad for the medical profession: health
and death. The ideal for the medical profession is some state between
health and death, maintained as long as possible. Terminal diseases
are less profitable for the medical profession than diseases that don't
kill.
Recently in Europe they passed a law against nutrition. It is illegal
to be in possesson of vitamin C for the purpose of trafficking. That's
a step in the right direction. We can hope that eventually they will
outlaw fruits and vegetables. They could be outlawed on the ground
that they contain too much flavonoids. Pay some rational researchers
to prove that flavonoids are poisons.
Of course they don't want to go too far outlawing fruits and veggies.
They want people to live as long as possible, in a state of bad health.
Jerry Story
> Jerry Story wrote:> of murder.
> >
> > There is a real legal question: how do you distinguish between assisted
> > suicide and murder?
>
> In the first case the person dying adminsters the fatal drug. In the
> second case it is Kevorkian administering the fatal drug. It sounds
> pretty straightforward to me.
Perhaps the law should be changed so that it takes into account:
1. the case of the patient not being physically able to administer the
drug to self
2. the will of the patient
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Perhaps the law should be changed so that it takes into account:
> 1. the case of the patient not being physically able to administer the
> drug to self
> 2. the will of the patient
Perhaps the law should be changed. But until it is, active participation
in suicide carries a legal penalty.
I sympathize with your stand. If A can hire B to paint A's house, why
can't A hire B to end A's life? Both are services, both can be freely
and willingly engaged.
Bob Kolker
fred...@papertig.com
> "Jerry Story"...
> ...you are nutz, delusional and paranoid.
Tell us something we didn't know.
Fred Weiss
Jerry Story
> Which is further evidence that you are nutz, delusional and paranoid.
Paranoid??
[looking around to see if anyone is listening]
I think they are trying to poison me.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.in
dex.html
Jerry Story
That wrapped. Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/34652
fred...@papertig.com
> > I think they are trying to poison me.
> > http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.in
> > dex.html
>
> That wrapped. Try this:
> http://tinyurl.com/34652
Err...Jerry one of the characteristics of the delusional and the
paranoid is that they can always find "evidence" in support of their
delusions and paranoia. In fact it is their life's work to dig up such
"evidence".
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Err...Jerry one of the characteristics of the delusional and the
> paranoid is that they can always find "evidence" in support of their
> delusions and paranoia. In fact it is their life's work to dig up such
> "evidence".
What if a paranoid has real enemies?
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
I'm surprised by you, KAL. Why would you look only at the physical
description of the acts occurring, an ignore the relevant moral
component to them? (Wait. This is *KAL* I'm talking to here.) What
are you going to come up with next? That you support, condone and
congratulate some acts that you consider murder? That a Muslim
strapping on a bomb and blowing himself up is suicide, but our going
over and killing that Muslim is murder?
Kevorkian only did the killing (conceptually distinct from murder)
because the person was unable to push the button himself. And so,
according to all good reasoning to which I thought you subscribed, the
person *consented* to Kevorkian's pushing the button, to end his own
horrific suffering.
And now, someone's wanting to end their own horrific suffering becomes
the fucking business of the state? Once clear-cut evidence of the
person's consent is established, that ends the matter for state action
according to all reason, justice and morality. It's *his own life* to
determine what to do with as he chooses, not the state's.
Any good, workable definition of "murder" does not include acts where
consent is objectively established -- "killing" being a physical
description, "murder" a moral one.
Chris Cathcart
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps the law should be changed so that it takes into account:
> > 1. the case of the patient not being physically able to administer the
> > drug to self
> > 2. the will of the patient
>
> Perhaps the law should be changed. But until it is, active participation
> in suicide carries a legal penalty.
In other news, the sun will rise tomorrow.
> I sympathize with your stand. If A can hire B to paint A's house, why
> can't A hire B to end A's life? Both are services, both can be freely
> and willingly engaged.
But it violates the interstate commerce clause, so legally it's theft,
or something. So let's call it theft.
Chris Cathcart
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> But it violates the interstate commerce clause, so legally it's theft,
> or something. So let's call it theft.
(Okay, technical point: it's *circumscribed* by the interstate commerce
clause, just like Kevorkian's suicide-aiding, along with everything
else, is.)
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I'm surprised by you, KAL. Why would you look only at the physical
> description of the acts occurring, an ignore the relevant moral
> component to them? (Wait. This is *KAL* I'm talking to here.)
Fuck morality. Ethics schmethics. Do you want to talk about real things,
or do you want to prattle about morality, goodness etc etc. Let us talk
about real things.
What
> are you going to come up with next? That you support, condone and
> congratulate some acts that you consider murder? That a Muslim
> strapping on a bomb and blowing himself up is suicide,
Blowing himself up, in itself is suicide. Taking others with him is murder.
but our going
> over and killing that Muslim is murder?
Our ridding the world of Muslims is hygeinic improvement of the human
condition. It is a necessary step toward world peace.
>
> Kevorkian only did the killing (conceptually distinct from murder)
> because the person was unable to push the button himself. And so,
> according to all good reasoning to which I thought you subscribed, the
> person *consented* to Kevorkian's pushing the button, to end his own
> horrific suffering.
I happen to sympathize with your view. I think that active assistance
should be made legal provided the arrangement is properly witnessed
(this to prevent murder under the guise of consentual assisted killing).
If we can hire someone to fix our steps, surely we should be able to
hire someone to kill ourselves. But, until the law is change, the
distinction between passive and active participation in suicide stands.
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised by you, KAL. Why would you look only at the physical
> > description of the acts occurring, an ignore the relevant moral
> > component to them? (Wait. This is *KAL* I'm talking to here.)
>
> Fuck morality. Ethics schmethics. Do you want to talk about real things,
> or do you want to prattle about morality, goodness etc etc. Let us talk
> about real things.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to scientism, KAL.
> What
> > are you going to come up with next? That you support, condone and
> > congratulate some acts that you consider murder? That a Muslim
> > strapping on a bomb and blowing himself up is suicide,
>
> Blowing himself up, in itself is suicide. Taking others with him is murder.
I don't know what you're talking about, KAL. Where the hell did you
get that idea, KAL? KAL, do you read me? KAL, stay on point, will
you? KAL, is your mind going? Can you feel it? Can you feel it? Can
you feel it? Is there any question about it? Are you afraid? Are . .
. you . . . uh . . . fraid?
Go ahead, KAL, sing it for me.
> but our going
> > over and killing that Muslim is murder?
>
> Our ridding the world of Muslims is hygeinic improvement of the human
> condition. It is a necessary step toward world peace.
That's all well and good and a rosy scenario, but I specifically asked
whether the mere physical act of killing, akin to Kevorkian's killing a
patient, was the same thing as murder. According to your description,
killing all those terrible horrible Muslims, as hygenically important
as it may be, is murder.
> > Kevorkian only did the killing (conceptually distinct from murder)
> > because the person was unable to push the button himself. And so,
> > according to all good reasoning to which I thought you subscribed, the
> > person *consented* to Kevorkian's pushing the button, to end his own
> > horrific suffering.
>
> I happen to sympathize with your view. I think that active assistance
> should be made legal provided the arrangement is properly witnessed
> (this to prevent murder under the guise of consentual assisted killing).
I just got done saying that. That stuff about clear-cut proof of
consent. Consent being obectively established. At least I think I
said something about that. I have a hard time remembering. My mind is
going. My mind is going. My mind is going.
> If we can hire someone to fix our steps, surely we should be able to
> hire someone to kill ourselves. But, until the law is change, the
> distinction between passive and active participation in suicide stands.
Holy shit, it's *your* mind that's going! Whatever the law is, it's
not going to change one diddly damn thing about the distinction between
passive and active participation. After all, these are not legal
descriptions of an activity, but physical ones. And fuck the moral
ones, morality schmorality, beep buzz gurgle gurgle. You revel in all
that description of physical phenomena, so you shouldn't have any
problem recognizing the a-legal active/passive distinction just at the
physical level.
David Buchner
> Perhaps the law should be changed. But until it is, active participation
> in suicide carries a legal penalty.
[just an announcement of the Current Conditions]
And where we are right now is, there's a certain class of kooks who
resist changing the law to cover such cases. There's probably other
reasons, but at street level it's mostly wacky superstitions and runaway
sentimentality.
So, because it takes effort to change the law and none to leave it
alone, and because these particular kooks are very, very noisy, we're
stuck.
David Buchner
> I think they are trying to poison me.
> http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.in
> dex.html
Umm, was there anything in particular you wanted to call our attention
to in that page?
Because it all sounds yummy to me.
In fact, if the roads weren't so slippery (wife ran off road AGAIN this
morning trying to get to the PO) I'd run into town and get some right
now.
wot53
that have chosen physician assistance in dying.
Very few no matter how bad will choose to take their
own life... not from a religious problem... just because
people prefer life at all costs.
Maybe we should be advocating for better hospice
and palliative care and the funding should be increased
so staff can give better individual care.
Warren Thompson
Jerry Story
> Jerry Story <jst...@ocii.com> wrote:
>
> > I think they are trying to poison me.
> > http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredients.in
> > dex.html
>
> Umm, was there anything in particular you wanted to call our attention
> to in that page?
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/34652
> Because it all sounds yummy to me.
It not only sounds yummy. It also tastes yummy. Objectivists believe
in the validity of sense perception, including (I guess) the sense of
taste. But I tend to accept some variant of a view of the world called
"anopsology", which says that the validity of taste is limited. Some
things taste good and are bad. But *original* things that taste good
are good.
By *original* I mean things that the sense of taste adapted to over
millions of years of evolution. The sense of taste evolved in such a
way as to enhance survival, as is true of all things that evolved.
That is the nature of evolution. The sense of taste evolved in such a
way that what tastes good is good and what tastes bad is bad. In this
context, "good" means good for survival. That means digestibleness and
nutrition and so on.
BUT! Big BUT, most people miss this point. The sense of taste is not
reliable for substances that it did not encounter during its evolution.
Such as McDonald's foods.
"Culinary artifice" (Berger's term) can deceive the sense of taste. In
fact the *only* purpose of "culinary artifice" is to deceive the sense
of taste. If it fails to deceive the sense of taste, then it fails to
achieve its *only* purpose.
I believe "culinary artifice" comes under the category of what
Objectivists call "faking reality". The Objectivist virtue of honesty
is the refusal to fake reality.
"honesty is not a social duty, nor a sacrifice for the sake of others,
but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice...." -- Ayn
Rand
I prefer food that tastes good *without* culinary artifice. Then
"tastes good" means "is good". There is such a thing as food that
tastes good without culinary artifice, contrary to popular belief.
There is no necessary trade-off between good taste and good food; I
have both, without the deception. I believe that's what Ayn Rand meant
by "noncontradictory".
If you think McDonald's foods are good because they taste good, you are
practising false epistemology. If you sacrifice "is good" for "tastes
good", then you are practising false ethics of self-sacrifice. That is
unselfish of you. (Selfishness is a virtue.) You are also practising
hedonism, which Ayn Rand strongly opposed. You are also practising
"range-of-moment mentality", which Ayn Rand opposed. What's next?
Maybe you will become a socialist or a libertarian.
Anyone who thinks I'm off topic for HPO, maybe you would prefer to
discuss something other than Objectivism. I connected McDonald's to
the following Objectivist topics:
-- sense perception
-- survival
-- faking reality
-- honesty
-- purpose
-- noncontradictory
-- epistemology
-- self-sacrifice
-- hedonism
-- range-of-moment mentality
Another point:
Apparently the sense of taste can be repeatedly overstimulated (by
culinary artifice of course) to the point of exhaustion where hardly
anything tastes good. Then there is a need for culinary artifice and a
lack of appreciation of natural foods. But people whose sense of taste
is at full power (not exhausted by continuous overstimulation by
culinary artifice) usually enjoy natural foods as they are in original
form and don't suffer from a need for culinary artifice.
Chris Cathcart
Jerry Story wrote:
> David Buchner wrote:
> > Jerry Story <jst...@ocii.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think they are trying to poison me.
> > > http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.ingredie
> > > nts.in
> > > dex.html
> >
> > Umm, was there anything in particular you wanted to call our attention
> > to in that page?
>
> Try this:
> http://tinyurl.com/34652
>
> > Because it all sounds yummy to me.
>
> It not only sounds yummy. It also tastes yummy. Objectivists believe
> in the validity of sense perception, including (I guess) the sense of
> taste. But I tend to accept some variant of a view of the world called
> "anopsology", which says that the validity of taste is limited. Some
> things taste good and are bad. But *original* things that taste good
> are good.
A stopped cuckoo clock can be right twice a day. Anyone who's seen me
in person knows that I've been somewhat overweight (about 40 or so
pounds, or about 20+%) for some years. I managed to take off 20 of
those just in the past couple months with a sensible diet low in SUGAR.
All those fat fucks eating at Mickey D's 3, 4, even more times a week
are addicted to the sugar and have it in their minds that they need
those soft drinks because something is missing in a drink of plain
water that isn't sweet. Mickey D's got 'em hooked young by loading
their crappy food with sugar.
I've had all of two fast-food ham/cheesburgers in the past month. No
fries. It's been pretty fucking easy losing weight, too, once you get
it out of your mind that you need loads of sugar every goddam day to
enjoy eating. Quoting Pesci from -Raging Bull-: "Just don't eat so
fucking much." And stay mainly to the triad of fruits, veggies and
whole grains. You can work in the occasioinal fast food, chips,
dessert and pizza, like I have, and still make it work - and easy.
I've found myself being hungry literally just a couple times, and when
you get hungry, it's easily cured - just eat what you need to not be
hungry any more, and you'll be just fine weight-wise. And I'm perhaps
fortunate that after loading on sugar all those years I didn't become
diabetic.
I've exercised hardly a wink in this whole period of weight loss, too.
And all without paying a wink of attention to Jerry's hectorings and
ravings, either. I've probably had a few loads of MSG here and there
during this time, and I'm damn proud of it.
> If you think McDonald's foods are good because they taste good, you are
> practising false epistemology. If you sacrifice "is good" for "tastes
> good", then you are practising false ethics of self-sacrifice. That is
> unselfish of you. (Selfishness is a virtue.) You are also practising
> hedonism, which Ayn Rand strongly opposed. You are also practising
> "range-of-moment mentality", which Ayn Rand opposed. What's next?
> Maybe you will become a socialist or a libertarian.
Oh, by all means, rave on.
> Anyone who thinks I'm off topic for HPO, maybe you would prefer to
> discuss something other than Objectivism. I connected McDonald's to
> the following Objectivist topics:
> -- sense perception
> -- survival
> -- faking reality
> -- honesty
> -- purpose
> -- noncontradictory
> -- epistemology
> -- self-sacrifice
> -- hedonism
> -- range-of-moment mentality
We know. You pound it in to us. Over. And over. And over. And
over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over.
And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. And over. You
just go ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and
ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON about it. I've got the
speil all fucking memorized by now. And I managed to rationally enjoy,
on the range of the moment yet, a couple shamelessly loaded-up fast
food burgers in a period of rapid and to-be-sustained weight loss. I'd
be even more proud if they were loaded up with MSG along with
everything else pumped into 'em.
Jerry Story
[bunchuv stuff about weight control]
I was not talking about weight control.
Chris Cathcart
It was about healthy eating, which certainly is germaine to the chief
object of your obsessions and conspiracy theories, i.e., healthy
eating.
Jerry Story
Wrong! My obsession is not about healthy eating but about ALS. Apart
from ALS I don't give a damn about healthy eating. I make sure there
is lots of grease and salt (sea salt) and poisons (esp. flavonoids) in
my diet. Veggy juices contain lots of poisons. And I have no interest
in weight control.
Someone accused me of being paranoid. I responded in a way that I
thought was funny. Perhaps most people in HPO are humor deficient.
Then someone asked me to elaborate and I did, in a way that I thought
would be relevant to Objectivism. I also thought that my elaboration
was funny, but apparently the humor was lost on people in HPO.
In an ideal world I suppose it would be nice to avoid poisons, but in
fact it is impossible to completely avoid poisons and most of them
don't matter all that much to me. Except for those most relevant to
ALS.
Fred Weiss will be disappointed to know that this disease is taking
forever to kill me, contrary what was happening at first. I'm still
almost normally functional. Damn! Couldn't possibly be .... No, that
would be a conspiracy theory.
You don't know me. I am no more obsessed with healthy eating than I am
with some obscure programming language that nobody uses.
Paul Wharton
Jerry Story wrote:
> If you think McDonald's foods are good because they taste good, you are
> practising false epistemology.
Don't go bashing McDonald's. That company saved my life, once.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
fred...@papertig.com
> Fred Weiss will be disappointed to know that this disease is taking
> forever to kill me, contrary what was happening at first.
Yes, I am. You gave us hope when you announced that you would be dead
in 6 months. That was 10 years ago.
> I'm still
> almost normally functional. Damn! Couldn't possibly be ....
That you were always normally functional?
>No, that would be a conspiracy theory.
No, that would be that your "symptoms" were always psychosomatic.
You're a nut, Jerry. If you would face that fact you could go out and
enjoy a Big Mac and fries from time to time without any ill effects,
just like the rest of us.
Fred Weiss
Jerry Story
> No, that would be that your "symptoms" were always psychosomatic.
>
> You're a nut, Jerry. If you would face that fact you could go out and
> enjoy a Big Mac and fries from time to time without any ill effects,
> just like the rest of us.
Dr. Fred Weiss diagnoses people on the internet, without seeing them.
The regular doctors (quacks tho they may be in my view) are rational
enough to do tests.
Jerry Story
> Don't go bashing McDonald's. That company saved my life, once.
I am the judge and the jury and the executioner and the law and the
absolute dictator in my life. My word is final. There is no appeal.
Anyone who tries to over-rule me in my life is guilty of treason. All
restaurants are pronounced guilty until proved innocent and I am not
interested in any evidence that they are innocent. I have spoken.
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > No, that would be that your "symptoms" were always psychosomatic.
> >
> > You're a nut, Jerry. If you would face that fact you could go out and
> > enjoy a Big Mac and fries from time to time without any ill effects,
> > just like the rest of us.
>
> Dr. Fred Weiss diagnoses people on the internet, without seeing them.
And without charge, too.
> The regular doctors (quacks tho they may be in my view) are rational
> enough to do tests.
Yes, but you have to pay for those. My services are free.
Fred Weiss
Jerry Story
> Jerry Story wrote:
> > Dr. Fred Weiss diagnoses people on the internet, without seeing them.
>
> And without charge, too.
>
> > The regular doctors (quacks tho they may be in my view) are rational
> > enough to do tests.
>
> Yes, but you have to pay for those. My services are free.
>
> Fred Weiss
The regular doctors (even tho they are clueless in some ways) have a
more rational epistemology in their diagnosis than you do. They base
their conclusions on facts derived from tests. You base your
conclusions on only venom, no facts. Your "services" are worthless and
ill motivated.
Paul Wharton
Whatever...? I just wouldn't short sell on McDonald's if I were you.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
David Buchner
> Whatever...? I just wouldn't short sell on McDonald's if I were you.
So... are you gonna tell how McDonald's saved your life once, or not?
Paul Wharton
Basically, in 1997, I decided that I didn't want to live my life being
controlled by the government. So, I packed up my things, and drove off
to Montana--seeking political freedom. Unfortunately, it was the
beginning of winter when I left. I had less than one thousand dollars
at this point, so that was a problem, too. I bartered my computer for
a motel room in Billings, and sold off much of my valuable property for
cash. I drove around town trying to get a job. But, the economy that
winter was really bad. I finally got an offer to be an assistant
manager at a pizza place. However, just before I was to begin work,
the weather report forcasted a very warm five-day window. I had not
wanted to risk driving over the mountain passes because of the snow and
cold. But, this was too good an opportunity to give up. I knew that
if I could make it to Western Washington, I would be alright. It
rarely dips below freezing there in the winter, so I could save a lot
of money by sleeping in my car. The ultimate goal was to last until
May when the strawberries appear. Edible wild plants had been a hobby
of mine since I was young, but unfortunately, I can't survive off of
them in the winter, or early spring.
I made it to Washington, and got one job, but then left it for another
that didn't work out. The first job was at Burger King, which still
owes me money because the manager lied to me about my wage. I actively
pursued Domino's Pizza, but accidently went to the wrong place on my
first day of work--so lost that opportunity.
At this point, I gave up. I didn't want to die, and I thought that I
would really last until May. But, I had lost about 80 lb's. And, I
decided I would foxhole to whatever end, and just think of ideas until
my dilemma was over. My final decision was not a "primacy of
existence" choice. And, perhaps it should be condemned. But, you see,
I wanted to live free, and filling out paperwork for a regulated job
was risky. The government finally noticed me. They put me through the
same old routine--then extradited me out of the state.
Anyway, about a week before that, I had noticed a big McDonald's
special. I think it was, "39 cent hamburgers, and 49 cent
cheeseburgers". I decided to buy thirty burgers, and ate them all.
Looking back, I probably wouldn't have survived without that food. I
think that the McDonald's nutrition saved my life.
You can defy McDonald's because the *government* says that what tastes
good there, is "bad for you". You can try to claim that McDonald's has
"unhealthy" food. Or, you can go to a restaurant that I say has "good
and healthy" food. If it's convenient, I choose McDonald's because it
is McDonald's.
Paul Wharton
American Objectivist
rap...@netscape.net
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Perhaps the law should be changed. But until it is, active participation
> in suicide carries a legal penalty.
>
> can't A hire B to end A's life? Both are services, both can be freely
> and willingly engaged.
Isn't suicide actually illegal. The issue being that it is not
possible to prosecute?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Isn't suicide actually illegal. The issue being that it is not
> possible to prosecute?
In many places attempted suicide is a felony. It is highly unjust. If a
person does not own his life and the right to dispose of it (with the
usual caveats of not harming other parties), then what does he own?
Bob Kolker
rap...@netscape.net
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> rap...@netscape.net wrote:
> >
> > Isn't suicide actually illegal. The issue being that it is not
> > possible to prosecute?
>
> In many places attempted suicide is a felony. It is highly unjust.
Agreed
> If a
> person does not own his life and the right to dispose of it (with the
> usual caveats of not harming other parties), then what does he own?
Ownership of one's own body isn't necessarily a prerequisite to
ownership of other things. For example, a slave who rents his freedom
from his master could potentially own other things (including having a
will for how his property is to be disposed of if his master decides
not to renew the lease). The rental agreement would probably
explicitly disallow damaging the "goods" he is renting. However, it is
not exactly practical. It would be like building a building on land
you are renting. The owner could threaten to knock it down at any
time. This makes any value created subject to ransom, unless it is a
(very) long term lease and/or with explicit agreement on terms for
renewal.
Jerry Story
> In many places attempted suicide is a felony. It is highly unjust. If a
> person does not own his life and the right to dispose of it (with the
> usual caveats of not harming other parties), then what does he own?
That's for the courts to decide, not for Kolker to decide. Don't
matter how stupid it is.
David Buchner
> [long story of poverty that finally comes 'round to...]
> ...."39 cent hamburgers, and 49 cent cheeseburgers". I decided to buy
> thirty burgers, and ate them all. Looking back, I probably wouldn't have
> survived without that food. I think that the McDonald's nutrition saved
Hooray!
Okay, I get it. Yep: some people bitch about cheap, plentiful food. Go
figure.
> ....If it's convenient, I choose McDonald's because it is McDonald's.
Whenever possible, I choose McDonald's on principle -- just because so
many people are so shrilly opposed to it (either for Jerry's reasons, or
PETAreasons or rainforesty reasons or antiglobalist or anticapitalist
reasons, or ...). Same for Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and the rest.
Ken Gardner
>Whenever possible, I choose McDonald's on principle -- just because so
>many people are so shrilly opposed to it (either for Jerry's reasons, or
>PETAreasons or rainforesty reasons or antiglobalist or anticapitalist
>reasons, or ...). Same for Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and the rest.
MMMmmm....Starbucks.
Ken
David Buchner
> David Buchner wrote:
>Same for Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and the rest.
> MMMmmm....Starbucks.
Mmmm... Wal-Mart. Last time we were there, Clara and I picked up
diapers, live fish, frozen chicken nuggets, motor oil, and a flashlight
I can wear on my head. And made an appointment to get my eyes checked.