[jhowelb]

I find it rather stupid for a person to insist on their 'right' to gorge on whatever they want and then pop-off from a massive heart attack in their fifties.

His wallet, his food and his funeral. He should be allowed to do as he pleases!

Either due to direct government interference, indirect government interference as in subsidizing ethanol and diverting food grain away from food production,..........

READ: Government BLUNDERS!

[Geof]

His wallet, his food and his funeral. He should be allowed to do as he pleases!...

That is correct; I said I find it stupid.

But I have a different attitude when it is some fat slob beside me in an airplane who wants to lift the arm rest and splork over onto part of the seat I paid for; if someone is too big to fit in a single seat they should pull out their wallet and pay for two.

Similarly if I arrived at a hospital ER through a condition that was not preventable and no fault of my own, and I made to wait because some fat slob has just been brought in with a massive heart attack just behind me I have a different attitude.

A person can do what they want with their own life just don't interfere with mine in a small or large way.

[One of Many]

Well you have not completely missed the point; I thought for a while you had.

I have been reading your posts for a long time Geof. One common element that often bleeds through is your ingrained regard for status and intellectual prose.

Some people talk at you, some people talk to you and others just have a bad habit of talking down to you!

Maybe that is just me, being put on the defensive since I have little use for status or intellectual popularity.

DC

[jhowelb]

ER visits are ALL preventable in one way or another. Triage procedure can't include preventability as criterion for order of treatment. That would require a battery of lawyers to fight out the order specificity of each visitor.

I do think that he, and you, should have to arrange for payment of you own treatment expenses. I also think that without third party payees (insurance companies, private or government) being involved, in anything other than catastrophic conditions, my health care expenditures would be much more manageable.

"A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have!"

[Geof]

I have been reading your posts for a long time Geof. One common element that often bleeds through is your ingrained regard for status and intellectual prose....DC

If I have given any impression that I have any regard for status I am sorry; that is totally inadvertant. The intellectual prose....well does that mean I am an intellectual? Or does it just mean I subscribe to Reader's Digest and avidly devour the Increase Your Word Power pages. Or does it mean I strive to spell words conventionally and assign conventional meanings to them? If you are put on the defensive that is your problem not mine. Several months ago I posted in the thread "Why do you visit CNCzone", or some title like that. Included in my reasons was to puncture pompous prigs; and I think you will agree there are some. Another reason was to be a pompous prig myself to irritate people. Bit childish? Probably but that is not an uncommon failing judging by the responses of a lot of people who post here.

[Geof]

ER visits are ALL preventable in one way or another. Triage procedure can't include preventability as criterion for order of treatment. ....

All ER visits preventable? Well, in principle, yes; but in practise not easy, and irrelevant. If you or I are peacefully and law-abidingly going about our busines and some yahoo drives into us with a vehicle maybe the resulting ER visit was in theory preventable but neither of us had any control over that. And triage procedure could easily be modified to take into account preventability.

But you don't comment on my airplane example...is it a case that you agree.

[jhowelb]

.............triage procedure could easily be modified to take into account preventability.

That become problematic as we contemplate the person whose opinion is to be used to triage. Ergo, the lawyers! (logjam beyond snafu!)

As far as airfare is concerned, I think we should just slow down a bit. Nothing goes by air that is not a life/death crucial necessity. Rails can move freight, mail and human carcasses ( large AND small) quite rapidly enough and was for many years the fastest practical transport. And still could be the most economical provided the infrastructure is properly maintained. (There is a cause Wxyz should get behind)

In any case I believe that each should carry his own freight. Help those around you and they will help you. Then as a unit we can accomplish more than our sum total....as long as it is strictly voluntary.

[One of Many]

If I have given any impression that I have any regard for status I am sorry; that is totally inadvertant. The intellectual prose....well does that mean I am an intellectual? Or does it just mean I subscribe to Reader's Digest and avidly devour the Increase Your Word Power pages. Or does it mean I strive to spell words conventionally and assign conventional meanings to them? If you are put on the defensive that is your problem not mine. Several months ago I posted in the thread "Why do you visit CNCzone", or some title like that. Included in my reasons was to puncture pompous prigs; and I think you will agree there are some. Another reason was to be a pompous prig myself to irritate people. Bit childish? Probably but that is not an uncommon failing judging by the responses of a lot of people who post here.

I thought I took ownership of the probability of defensive being my problem.

Pompus prig(around here we use the PC term "Richard Cranium") is probably a more accurate term than intellectual prose, that puts people on the defensive. The reaction may be a self imposed problem but it brings me no satisfaction in setting out to generate it on others intentionally. Take one of your statements below for example. You don't want things others do that effect you small or large, but what you do effects others is somehow different and not your problem?

I see how you are! LOL!

DC

A person can do what they want with their own life just don't interfere with mine in a small or large way.

[Geof]

....I see how you are! LOL!

DC

How I am is how I am, but I don't think I have ever found it necessary to call someone a Dick Head no matter how it is dressed up.

And what is wrong with saying that others shouldn't interfere in my life? Good grief that is a common theme in many of the posts here; phrased differently but same meaning to all intents and purposes.

[One of Many]

They are one in the same in my book. That is a method of interaction not technically any label. I thought that is exactly what you meant in Canadian terms, no matter how it was dressed up. I just equated it in my terms, you went vulgar with it.

There is nothing wrong with you not wanting interference/annoyances from others effecting you. That is a given. But it is in direct conflict with the other statement being an interference/annoyance to others "intentionally" you were admitting to. Quite different views being on the giving and/or receiving end, eh?

These are just my honest observations. Let me know if I have unintentionally offended you; jussss so I can tell you that is your problem!:stickpoke

That is not meant to be disrespectful, just what I honestly have gleaned out of many of your authoritarian postings. Reminds me of this old permanently out of work drunk codger in the neighborhood I grew up in. He would start almost every response with "Well, ya dumb $h1t, if ya'd just listen to me...."

The difference is you have the smarts to back it up, but it ain't fun to read.

DC

[Geof]

.... But it is in direct conflict with the other statement being an interference/annoyance to others "intentionally" you were admitting to. Quite different views being on the giving and/or receiving end, eh?......

..... Reminds me of this old permanently out of work drunk codger in the neighborhood I grew up in. He would start almost every response with "Well, ya dumb , if ya'd just listen to me...."

The difference is you have the smarts to back it up, but it ain't fun to read.

DC

First and last points; don't read it then you won't be annoyed. Your response is your choice.

Second point; out of work is wrong, permanently drunk is wrong (I can't afford it), old codger is probably correct: But please identify any post were I have addressed anyone with that phrase.

[martinw]

Dear Geof,

I know this goes back a bit, but thank you for this...

I actually skipped over the bit about animal rights; a lot of that is idiotic. My view is that humans have a responsibility to treat other living creatures humanely; failing to live up to this demeans us as humans.

The real question is where each of us draws the line.

- I do not kick my dog, even when it took a chunk from my hand when in pain and in confusion.

- I eat meat and fish, have no problem with leather, but draw the line at veal raised in the dark to make their flesh pale.

- No problem with any fur clothes at all, as long as the animal dies instantly, and humanely. I do not care if the pelt goes to the wife of a hedge fund manager in Dubai for fashion purposes, or to keep an Inuit hunter warm on a hunting trip. I get queasy at a day long death in a remotely-set trap however.

- I try and avoid buying battery chickens, and their eggs. Visited a chicken unit once, and didn't like the sights, smells or density.

-I do not hunt foxes with a pack of hounds, and do not wish to do so. Maybe it is cruel. That is for those who hunt to decide, and not for me to dictate.

- Fishing? No problem. It is quite difficult to put yourself in the position of a fish. That said, for all I know they swim about and debate the finer points of quantum physics. And no, I personally would not wish to be hooked in the mouth and dragged out of my natural environment. The only defence I can offer in mitigation is that I stun them as soon as possible, and always catch no more than is needed for supper (on a lucky day).

- Animal experimentation may well be necessary. No need to squirt a new brand of shampoo into the eyes of rabbits, but there might be medical research that could benefit humans that leads to the death of some lab. animals. Anybody IMVVHO who denies that should offer themselves or their children in the place of the lab. rats, and stop putting petrol through the letter boxes of those engaged in animal experimentation.

Ultimately, could I meekly suggest, one's own position on animals' welfare, rights etc etc is just a matter of personal aesthetics, rather than a universal moral standard.

Best wishes,

Martin

[One of Many]

Ultimately, could I meekly suggest, one's own position on animals' welfare, rights etc etc is just a matter of personal aesthetics, rather than a universal moral standard.

Best wishes,

Martin

You can do this meekly, but inevitably someone will take the position that yours is stupid, theirs is right. Just like global warming and pro or con in wearing fur, some can't leave you with the sense that it is, ever was or ever will remain personal choice if they get their way. There must some basic instinct to pass judgment on the actions of those ones sensibilities conflict. I think it evolves into a desire to control with absolute power if no justice is found to stop the practice that is being obsessed over. Just knowing an offense takes place is enough to arm a brigade for no other reason than to push their will on someone for something that affects them in no other capacity of life. Problematic inventions like these give stature driven puritan people something to look down their noses at the indignant heathens that could care less.

The more the world changes, the greater humans need to dominate remains the same!

Try that personal aesthetic idea on radical Islam or any other activist group and see what happens. They all have a plan for a universal moral standard, which you can follow peacefully, or they have ways to make you go in peace. By brute force or by court, there is no rest until you will conform. It seems only a matter of time until this applies to all issues on the test of moral standards and it might just start in your own neck of the woods.

DC

[Mariss Freimanis]

DC,

Eloquently put but I don't think it's quite as bad as you say. We are social creatures so there must be some built-in mechanism in all of us, an instinct to compel others to conform. Without it civilization wouldn't exist and we would all be solitary creatures living a marginal existence.

Mariss

[jhowelb]

The more the world changes, the greater humans need to dominate remains the same!

Freedom is not free, Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be nourished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike."

Are you willing to make a payment when they come to cut down the tree?

[One of Many]

DC,

Eloquently put but I don't think it's quite as bad as you say. We are social creatures so there must be some built-in mechanism in all of us, an instinct to compel others to conform. Without it civilization wouldn't exist and we would all be solitary creatures living a marginal existence.

Mariss

Some civilization wouldn't exist. Just as some still clutch to third century mentality and cannot prosper for the same reasons? A society where anyone caught trying is dealt with severely?

Take the American dream and freedom for instance. I would contend that was gained out of cooperation, not conformity. Trading cooperation for conformity is what I fear may tear it apart. Where in one form is having a stake in its success and the other is a demand because some official told you to or else (as Martin eludes), "failing to live up to this demeans us as humans". Didn't Hitler coin a similar quip?

I don't mean to paint it all bad. I am just saying the potential is there and in many ways seems to be spreading like wild fire on several hot button issues at once. Special interests groups like ACLU, PETA and the like fan the flames for their over blown causes. All in effort to make people "aware of mundane atrocities". These types of minuscule emotional issue activisms already invoke 2% of the population controlling the majority.

Don't you get a sense the partisan divide is widening with polarizing talking heads on the news, Elected leaders on down? I fear the coming clamp down will lead us to conditions in the first paragraph above. Katrina was a great example of how anarchy can erupt into lawless chaos in short order. It is after all, a more prevalent " screw you, me first" generation.


DC

[jhowelb]

Katrina was a great example of how anarchy can erupt into lawless chaos in short order. It is after all, a more prevalent " screw you, me first" generation.

If you want to consider that kind of activity, the upstanding citizens of Watts showed you how to really do it!

[Shotout]

A person can do what they want with their own life just don't interfere with mine in a small or large way.

If everyone could follow that advice the world would be a much nicer place to live.

[jhowelb]

The British counterpart of the German Marxian revisionists and heavily influenced by the English Historical school, the upper-middle-class intellectual group - the "Fabian Society" - emerged in 1884 as a strand of latter-day utopian socialism. They became known to the public firstly through Sidney Webb's Facts for Socialists (1884) and then through the famous Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889) written by the Webbs, Shaw, and others.

As one contemporary noted, "they combined an ounce of theory with a ton of practice". The practice, for the Fabians, was to influence public opinion in this direction. This was to be accomplished, they argued, not through mass organization but rather by the selective education of the powerful "few" who would lead the reforms in government (hopefully themselves), thus they only belatedly extended their appeal beyond the narrow intelligentsia class from which they arose.

"...who, remembering that those (policies of high taxation and centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx and Engels in 1848), can doubt our common inspiration."
- Professor Harold Laski, famous Fabian Socialist theoretician in his
Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party (1948).

[One of Many]

Originally Posted by Geof
A person can do what they want with their own life just don't interfere with mine in a small or large way.



If everyone could follow that advice the world would be a much nicer place to live.

It'll never work!

Not when one doesn't practice what they preach. It is the two faced self centered "it's all about me" malfeasance that will mess it up with regularity. The imbalance tips with what others do that effects your life may be a problem for you. What we do that carelessly effects others is no longer viewed as our problem, it is someone else's with a tough luck attitude to boot!

We see it on a daily basis here and and every walk of life around the world. To the point, some find it convenient to recruit others to blow themselves up to remove groups that they determine create their life problems with abject ignorance to the problem they themselves create in turn.

What, you got a problem wit me? You don't achieve success by being Mr. nice guy to the unworthy under-educated working class.......Se La Vi, Que Sera, Sera, Allah Akbar, Kiss my fat white a, .......you know the drill!


DC