• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Euthanasia for the elderly

Patrick

Graduate Poster
P
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
1,224
I heard this rumor that Lurch with solve the health care crisis by offering humane euthanasia to the elderly, and they would be encouraged to accept. It's known that a large percentage of health care costs are expended in the last six months of life, and this would significantly reduce government health care costs, as well as help balance the budget.
 
It sounds every bit as credible as the rumor I heard that Bush plans to have homosexuality declared a mental disorder and have all homosexuals forcibly committed to insane asylums, with their assets forfeited to pay for the war.

You can do better than this, Patrick. I'm disappointed.
 
"heard?" "rumor?" a Johnathan Swift storyline?

Somehow it is appropriate that as I read this, the title of the thread immediately below is "Dumb people vote Republican." :p
 
Patrick said:
I heard this rumor that Lurch with solve the health care crisis by offering humane euthanasia to the elderly, and they would be encouraged to accept. It's known that a large percentage of health care costs are expended in the last six months of life, and this would significantly reduce government health care costs, as well as help balance the budget.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well I heard a rummor that bush eats babies. Apparently he didn't relise that A Modest Proposal was satire. Find a board that isn't quite so loaded with sceptics and people might just might belive you.
 
Well, just a minute here guys .... haven't I frequently heard the rumor du jour here about Bush, (like today) followed by a calm discussion by so-called "skeptics" about its implications, as if it were received truth? Sounds like you are very credulous with the Bush rumors, and have become born-again skeptics with the Lurch rumor. Which gets to another point -- the overwhelming liberal/left contingent here turns on/off their skepticism like I turn on/off a water faucet - with "off" being the liberals' mode whenever it comes to Lurch's claims about his personal history, his voting record, his statements, and his vaunted (and mysterious) "plans". Most of the people here are as much skeptics as my aunt is an astronaut.
 
Notwithstanding Patrick’s intentions this is a serious issue.

Personally I support euthanasia, which according to my dictionary is “the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp, in cases of incurable suffering”. Naturally it should only be done with the consent of the person concerned, although I could easily be persuaded that it could also be done with the consent of the next of kin.

We (in the UK) every couple of years get high profile media cases of people who want to have their life ended when the suffering becomes too acute but they will be in a position where they are unable to commit suicide unaided. To assist someone to take their own life is a criminal offence in the UK. Generally the patients go to Holland where euthanasia is legal.

Very recently there was the case here of a severely brain damaged baby who could be kept alive through medical science, but the child would never have a quality of life.

The judge ruled that the child should not be resuscitated following the next attack. This is certainly a step towards a euthanasia law in the UK.
 
Patrick said:
Well, just a minute here guys .... haven't I frequently heard the rumor du jour here about Bush, (like today) followed by a calm discussion by so-called "skeptics" about its implications, as if it were received truth? Sounds like you are very credulous with the Bush rumors, and have become born-again skeptics with the Lurch rumor. Which gets to another point -- the overwhelming liberal/left contingent here turns on/off their skepticism like I turn on/off a water faucet - with "off" being the liberals' mode whenever it comes to Lurch's claims about his personal history, his voting record, his statements, and his vaunted (and mysterious) "plans". Most of the people here are as much skeptics as my aunt is an astronaut.
Click to expand...

Evidence for any of these staments? I seem to recall making a reasonable effot to debunk the last anti-bush one.
 
Notwithstanding Patrick’s intentions this is a serious issue.

My "intentions" are to call attention to intermittent PC suspension of skepticism on what holds itself up to be a skeptics board - that's not serious?
 
Patrick said:
Well, just a minute here guys .... haven't I frequently heard the rumor du jour here about Bush, (like today) followed by a calm discussion by so-called "skeptics" about its implications, as if it were received truth? Sounds like you are very credulous with the Bush rumors, and have become born-again skeptics with the Lurch rumor. Which gets to another point -- the overwhelming liberal/left contingent here turns on/off their skepticism like I turn on/off a water faucet - with "off" being the liberals' mode whenever it comes to Lurch's claims about his personal history, his voting record, his statements, and his vaunted (and mysterious) "plans". Most of the people here are as much skeptics as my aunt is an astronaut.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are incapable of recognizing the difference between something that is possible, something that is probable, and something that is ludicrous?

You might debate, intelligently, either side of the question "Did Kerry receive that medal legitimately?". You would not, however, debate the question "Is Santa Claus working with the aliens to develop the anthrax spores found in Rice Krispies cereal?"

"Lurch" as you call him wouldn't suggest encouraging euthanasia for the elderly. No serious American political candidate would. You made a highly improbable scenario even more openly ridiculous by a) using your silly nickname for Kerry and b) calling it a rumor.

There is simply no point in debating, skeptically or otherwise, things that are as profoundly silly as you are turning out to be, Patrick. What's happened to you lately? You used to post some interesting topics that were worthy of debate, but recently you've gotten the crazies. Is it the election fever? I hope you calm down soon before you become a 1inChrist level troll. If you're not having fun posting any more, you should take a break.

edited to add: Implausible. That's the word I was trying to think of.
 
Evidence for any of these staments?

E.g., see Tmy's post "A Military Draft for Doctors", and notice the total lack (up till now) of critical comment from the "skeptics" here for what the poster himself identifies as a rumor.
 
Patrick said:
Evidence for any of these staments?

E.g., see Tmy's post "A Military Draft for Doctors", and notice the total lack (up till now) of critical comment from the "skeptics" here for what the poster himself identifies as a rumor.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, several people pointed out that such a thing would be unnecessary, and it then devolved into a general discussion of military medicine. If you want to bring it back on topic and address the issue, post there.
 
Perhaps you are incapable of recognizing the difference between something that is possible, something that is probable, and something that is ludicrous?

Lessee if I've got it: A silly ass unsupported rumor about Bush is "probable", but a silly ass unsupported rumor about Lurch is "ludicrous"? It's amazing and entertaining to observe the strange workings of the left wingnut mind!
 
On the contrary, several people pointed out that such a thing would be unnecessary, and it then devolved into a general discussion of military medicine. If you want to bring it back on topic and address the issue, post there.

No no - you don't get it. Nobody said "where did you hear this? Supply links" etc etc. Nobody questioned the rumor.
 
Patrick said:
Lessee if I've got it: A silly ass unsupported rumor about Bush is "probable", but a silly ass unsupported rumor about Bush is "ludicrous"? It's amazing and entertaining to observe the strange workings of the left wingnut mind!
Click to expand...

Please point out what "silly ass unsupported rumor" about Bush that I've deemed to be probably true.

Once again, Patrick, you are confusing me with other people. Perhaps if you learnt to use the quote function correctly?
 
I heard that they'll put some sort of gem of some sort in your hand, and when it turns red, that's when they euthanize you.

Wait, no, that was logan's run.
 
Patrick said:
I heard this rumor that Lurch with solve the health care crisis by offering humane euthanasia to the elderly, and they would be encouraged to accept. It's known that a large percentage of health care costs are expended in the last six months of life, and this would significantly reduce government health care costs, as well as help balance the budget.
Click to expand...

Not only that, they will turn their bodies into healthy nutritious soylent green for the poor which will reduce the amount we need to spend on welfare.
 
Patrick said:
No no - you don't get it. Nobody said "where did you hear this? Supply links" etc etc. Nobody questioned the rumor.
Click to expand...

Um, all I did was point out that the basis of the rumor, the supposed shortage of military doctors, was untrue. If disproving the truth of a rumor isn't questioning it, what is? If the original poster wants to bring in links to support the rumor, then would be the time to counter with other links, etc. It seemed unnecessary to pursue it to that level because the whole thing was apparently untrue.

You aren't providing links to prove that Santa Claus isn't adulterating your Rice Krispies with anthrax, I notice.
 
Please point out what "silly ass unsupported rumor" about Bush that I've deemed to be probably true.

Once again, you don't get it. I didn't claim you personally have done that. I was ridiculing your post that I can't tell the difference between "ludicrous" and "probable" - with the clear implication that the rumors about Bush like the one today, given their unskeptical reception, must be on the "probable" side.
 
Patrick said:
Once again, you don't get it. I didn't claim you personally have done that. I was ridiculing your post that I can't tell the difference between "ludicrous" and "probable" - with the clear implication that the rumors about Bush like the one today, given their unskeptical reception, must be on the "probable" side.
Click to expand...

Pointing out the absurdity of your "rumor" claim in this thread does not in any way suggest the probable truth value of another rumor elsewhere. "Clear implication"? How? Because you suppose that everyone who disagrees with your choice of candidate must necessarily assume and believe the worst of Bush and the best of Kerry? Kindly don't project your partisanship upon me, Partick. I am far less closeminded than you would appreciate, but you prefer attacking what you think I mean, rather than what I actually say.

And if you bothered to read the other thread, Patrick, you would see general agreement that the rumor in the opening post there is most likely untrue because the premise it is based upon is untrue. True, nobody posted "That's not true, you filthy liberal liar!"...because it was unnecessary to do so.

edited for spelling error
 
Pointing out the absurdity of your "rumor" claim in this thread does not in any way suggest the probable truth value of another rumor elsewhere.

There you go again! :D Any rumor of Lurch for something many people would find repugnant is absurd, no such presumption for Bush!

And if you bothered to read the other thread, Patrick, you would see general agreement that the rumor in the opening post there is most likely untrue because the premise it is based upon is untrue.

Well, no. Actually neither you, Tmy, doubt, or materia3 really questioned the rumor. Compare that to the instant skepticism (quickly turned back to "ON") about a rumor about Lurch, which is not "incredible" because the self same thing had already been proposed by Gov. Lamb of Colorado, and gave rise to a serious debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom