YEDG bullies gang up on lovable KC
케이씨
|
Greetings, all!
We had a large turnout at this morning's discussion. By my count, we had 15 people crowded around those Twosome tables. You all know how cute and lovable I am. That's why I was shocked, shocked, shocked that those 14 bullies ganged up on me, including the newcomers. They ruthlessly attacked me during the second hour (as I argued in favor of creating a market in vital organs).
* * *
Probably the funniest moment was when I decided to take a survey when it was clear I was standing alone and had convinced no one. With 15 YEDGers, there were about 48 opinions about the impromptu survey. Even just coming to an agreement about what would be part of the unscientific, never-to-be-published survey was a major undertaking--and even then, it seemed that people were ready to demand a recount even before the first vote. It felt like the Florida 2000 dispute for the U.S. presidency as we then had to have a SECOND vote. The bullies didn't like the options offered, they wanted more options, or fewer ones. Even worse, they were acting like they were born in Chicago or Texas--they wanted to be able to vote two or three times. In the end, here were the (probably still disputed) results:
Presumed Consent (or "opt-in" or "opt-out"): 6 votes Aggressive information campaign: 6 votes Donation "credit": 2 votes Market in vital organs: 1 (LOUD, HELL YEAH, DO IT NOW) vote
As I mentioned I don't have any tattoos on my body, but because of that "presumed consent" policy I have thought about getting some tattoos all over my body:
"Deliver directly to undertaker!" "Do not dismember for donation purposes." "Presume consent DENIED." "Hands off, you evil body part stealers."
Before traveling to a country with an Organ Stealing Policy, I would take out an advertisement in the newspaper clearly stating that my organs are not to remain in that country to be given away.
* * *
In short, my main points were that 1) altruism, charity, donations, information campaigns, and begging for more organs have all been failures and will continue to be so 2) because they doesn't offer economic incentives to people 3) price controls inevitably lead to shortages and a zero price will cause an even greater shortage--economic laws aren't suspended just because people have ethical concerns, just as laws of gravity or science don't get suspended because we don't like them. 4) that the focus needs to be on making more organs available rather than focusing on distributing the handful of available organs with a lousy process that needlessly allows people to die. In other words, do we want more organs available or more moralizing about organs? 5) that "presumed consent" and "opt-out" policies are horrible because they give the government first dibs on our bodies rather than allowing families or ourselves to make the decision. From what I have heard, slavery ended in America in 1865 and Korea in 1895, so neither of the governments nor my fellow citizen have a claim on my body and its parts. 6) that everyone (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.) in the organ transplant process make money out of the process except the recently departed who is on the table getting cut up, that it is strange that it is somehow ethical that people get praised when they give away their organs but that it is offensive to many if those same people even have the option to get cash 7) I own myself, that means I own every part of my body and have the right to dispose of or sell all of the parts as I see fit, that it is understandable that I may need to notify the government about such a sensitive contract, but that I don't need the government's permission. 8) that if I ever need an organ to stay alive or even just to be healthier that I would fly off to China or wherever necessary to buy one, and just live with the shame or criticism from everyone around me. I would be alive to answer their criticisms rather than being dead and having people express regret that I was at the end of a long line and didn't get an organ in time.
Anyway, those are the points I remember now. I can't believe anyone would attack me for saying such innocent things...
KC
"I am your fellow man, but not your slave." --Frederick Douglass, 1848 (in a letter to his former master) |
Jong Greg Park
Hi Casey from one of 14 bullies who brutally offended you,
I appreciate your tremendous effort during the second session that you hosted last Sunday due to these following two reasons.
(1) It was a splendid case like your name, CASE~~~y[sic], that we could share our ideas. Personally, I thought it seemed to be a class of Harvard professor M. Sandel because we dealt with one of controversial issues such as “What is Justice?" and "Do you agree with a Military Service Replacement between the rich and the poor?”
Your recommeded option, a market in vital organs, was an inevitable issue that roused a series of attacks only because it, by nature, contains ethics, morals, legalities or justice.
(2) I did like your discussion procedure, somehow a Socratic elenchus or dialogue, including the impromptu survey even though I could not accept the "Presumed Consent" concept.
I am sure that bullies' attacks decorated your Fantastic session entirely. Look forward your well-prepared and overwhelming debate with Professor Jang and let us know the detailed information on the debate or seminar.
ciao,
Greg
--- On Sun, 5/1/11, 케이씨 <casey...@hanmail.net> wrote:
From: 케이씨 <casey...@hanmail.net>
Subject: [YEDG] YEDG bullies gang up on lovable KC
To: "ye...@googlegroups.com" <ye...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 10:41 AM
#yiv529834484 p {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}
케이씨
|
Thanks, Greg, It was definitely a lot of fun. I just re-read what I wrote, I hope the people who weren't there don't feel too sorry for me. I know that is unlikely, based on all of the sympathy I got last week when I complained about having to leave the country for one day, compliments of the Korean immigration office. Oh, Professor Sandel and Chang Ha-Joon. I disagree with one and despise the other. Sandel is not a free-market supporter, but I can appreciate that he seems to think aloud. Chang is an educated buffoon. Whereas Sandel is a thoughtful philosopher who is suspicious of free markets, Chang is a big-government hack. Sandel can't always decide which shoes to put on, Chang has custom-made clown shoes. KC "If we can’t trust people with freedom, how can we trust them with power?" --Unknown "I murdered a rock, Injured a stone, Hospitalized a brick. I’m so mean, I make medicine sick." --Muhammad Ali 보낸사람: Jong Greg Park <che...@yahoo.com> |
