My Kidney Challenge

[TomC]

Oh, my bad, you didn't edit it, I'm just an idiot, and couldn't find it somehow with a search for "poison".

Here Tom, is you exactly arguing to steal a kidney from joe.

Bob poisons Joe, resulting in Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Bob is the sole possible donor of the kidney Joe needs to survive. Bob refuses to donate the kidney.

Under those circumstances, I've got no problem with the state strapping Bob down and taking the kidney.

Exactly where do you see me even taking, much less stealing, a kidney from Joe?

Do you even read these things before you figure out how to prove I'm dishonest?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, my bad, you didn't edit it, I'm just an idiot, and couldn't find it somehow with a search for "poison".

Here Tom, is you exactly arguing to steal a kidney from joe.

Bob poisons Joe, resulting in Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Bob is the sole possible donor of the kidney Joe needs to survive. Bob refuses to donate the kidney.

Under those circumstances, I've got no problem with the state strapping Bob down and taking the kidney.

Exactly where do you see me even taking, much less stealing, a kidney from Joe?

Do you even read these things before you figure out how to prove I'm dishonest?
Tom

Where you, via the power of the state, contribute your consent to the activity of strapping down Bob the Poisoner.

By this same logic, "Joe the bartender" will, not may, WILL be strapped to a table for the sake of Bob Moneybags.

This I reject the logic.

 

[TomC]

Where you, via the power of the state, contribute your consent to the activity of strapping down Bob the Poisoner.

Do you even realize that Bob and Joe are different people?
Or this crap about holding a bartender responsible for a customer's choice is also crap that you invented.

That what's going on here is you being dishonest. Refusing to discuss what I actually post, and getting all emotional about strawmanning bullshit that you invented?

I'm confident I know why.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Where you, via the power of the state, contribute your consent to the activity of strapping down Bob the Poisoner.

Do you even realize that Bob and Joe are different people?
Or this crap about holding a bartender responsible for a customer's choice is also crap that you invented.

That what's going on here is you being dishonest. Refusing to discuss what I actually post, and getting all emotional about strawmanning bullshit that you invented?

I'm confident I know why.
Tom

You are being a ridiculous comedy show and everyone here except perhaps you understands the subject.

I'm arguing a different Bob and Joe, under the precedent of the first.

Seriously, is this hard for ANYONE else?

One pair of persons will be most certainly used as an apparent "ok case, I guess", like Poisoner/Poisoned. Then some affluent cunt will successfully argue something stupid, like bartender/drinker-with-kidney-failure.

Then someone else will argue that it ought be fungible.

Then next thing you know everyone who has ever caused organ damage will be liable.

Of course this is not a slippery slope since all the legal precedents are already in place to allow it to become fungible, and there are ZERO good arguments against fungibility if you go so far as allow Poisoner to be strapped down.

Somehow, you do not by whatever mechanism recognize that this is the path you set us on when you allow forced organ donations.

We discussed this in the other thread too.

I argue that it is never justified, no matter who it is or what they did, to steal someone's organs against their consent.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

So?

If you were the one needing a kidney, would you insist the doctors only look for kidneys from those who were responsible for your condition?

 

[Elixir]

Where, precisely, does science inform you of the attributes of "person"?

Science doesn’t do that, as previously explained. Science is a method that consist mainly of falsifying hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that a tiny blob of protoplasm is a person in any regard above the molecular level.

Define “person” as you may, though. If it is convenient for your contortion to call a nearly invisible clump of goo a “person” I can only sympathize for your inability to recognize your own religious conditioning.

 

[TomC]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

So?

If you were the one needing a kidney, would you insist the doctors only look for kidneys from those who were responsible for your condition?

No.
What possible reason would you have for asking that?
I'm the one insisting that doctors look for the best possible donor.

The likelihood of that donor also being the person who caused the need is so Infinitesimally small I don't see it as an important consideration.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Define “person” as you may, though.

As many times as I've pointed out that I avoid that word, in this discussion, specifically because it's too difficult to define and you still come back with this crap?

Seems like either blatant dishonesty or you've got you ideological blinders on so firmly you don't even see what's on the screen in front of you.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

So?

If you were the one needing a kidney, would you insist the doctors only look for kidneys from those who were responsible for your condition?

No.
What possible reason would you have for asking that?
I'm the one insisting that doctors look for the best possible donor.

The likelihood of that donor also being the person who caused the need is so Infinitesimally small I don't see it as an important consideration.
Tom

You have yet to answer the fungibility problem.

Let's assume Poisoner/poisoned aren't a match, nor are Stabber/Stabbed.

Can you give ANY actual argument why Poisoner and Stabber can't trade donations, assuming Stabber is a match for Poisoned, and Poisoner is a match for Stabbed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's my suggestion.
Everyone who signs up as an organ donor gets a little tax break. Say, $50, every year that they remain an official organ donor.

Then nobody has to wait around when Brad, who doesn't like wearing motorcycle helmets, hits his head and dies in hospital an hour later.

I've got a slightly different proposal:

You, and only you, decide what your organ donor status is--this is officially recorded and accessible to the hospitals. You can change this at any time. Your position on transplant lists is dependent on the percent of your adult life that you have been listed as a donor. Any period of time in which you are ineligible to donate isn't counted at all and in the 0/0 case (you became ineligible before becoming an adult) is treated as 100%. Children get the average of their parent's numbers.

You want a reasonable shot at an organ someday, you need to be willing to contribute also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Short memory, much? You asked me to pick a time of personhood using science.

Could you post a quote, or a post number?

FYI: Quotes or links are better than post numbers. Post numbers aren't set in stone--posts can get moved or zapped.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

So?

If you were the one needing a kidney, would you insist the doctors only look for kidneys from those who were responsible for your condition?

No.
What possible reason would you have for asking that?
I'm the one insisting that doctors look for the best possible donor.

The likelihood of that donor also being the person who caused the need is so Infinitesimally small I don't see it as an important consideration.
Tom

And yet you also said that the best possible donor should refuse on the grounds that they had nothing to do with causing Sally to require a new kidney in the first place.

 

[Rhea]

It’s no as far-fetched as this claims. If all the other matches refuse to donate then each one becomes the “sole possible donor,” including the one who had something to do with the need.

I know how important it is to you to keep up the organ donor connection to pregnancy. But it's not there.

It's right there in what you just posted. If there are multiple possible donors, then none of them are the "sole possible" donor. That's very different from pregnancy where there is only one possible mother.

I realize how attached you are to this metaphor. But if the same human being isn't both part of choosing the pregnancy and also the sole possible provider of that fundamental human right, gestation, then it's just not relevant.
Tom

Would it be accurate to say that I know how important it is to you to maintain that only women must serve as chattel vessels for society whenever society whims it?

Would it be accurate to say that it’s right there in what you just posted, where I said the existence of refusing donors is equivalent to no donors, and you absurdly say that matches your claim of many donors?

Would it be accurate for me to say I know how attached you are to this hellscape idea that women have no say over their own bodies because you will never ever experience your organs being used by someone else, not the utter exhaustion as the other being taps into your blood, not the racing heart as the other being changes your blood pressure, not the use of your stomach, lungs and kidneys for its benefit, not the permanent breakdown of your immune system as the other being poisons it against you; and therefore it must not be happening at all?

The dismissive disdain you have for the people who HAVE experienced live, ongoing organ donation seems to be the root of your argument. You don’t know, so it must be trivial.

I mean, I get that. It matches the stance of the religionists for whom the sexuality of the woman is something they feel that have a say over, and after they have a say about whether her sexuality is proper, they claim to own her body because she is no longer worthy of it.

But honestly, it’s just so weird to hear someone refuse to address the argument and instead attack the person - on this particular topic - because that is the basis of the entire anti-choice position. Attack the person. Demonize the woman, because you plan to choose for her. Your disdain evokes the same feeling as the others; call her dumb, worthless, stupid, slutty; whatever it takes to feel good saying you are choosing for her - and she must never EVER choose for you, because you’ve defined yourself as different.

I realize how attached you are to that position.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

Why should that matter? Why should a person not responsible, not be compelled to save her life? It is almost like you are saying a person should have the right to choose whether to donate an organ.

 

[Jarhyn]

Here's my suggestion.
Everyone who signs up as an organ donor gets a little tax break. Say, $50, every year that they remain an official organ donor.

Then nobody has to wait around when Brad, who doesn't like wearing motorcycle helmets, hits his head and dies in hospital an hour later.

I've got a slightly different proposal:

You, and only you, decide what your organ donor status is--this is officially recorded and accessible to the hospitals. You can change this at any time. Your position on transplant lists is dependent on the percent of your adult life that you have been listed as a donor. Any period of time in which you are ineligible to donate isn't counted at all and in the 0/0 case (you became ineligible before becoming an adult) is treated as 100%. Children get the average of their parent's numbers.

You want a reasonable shot at an organ someday, you need to be willing to contribute also.

Throw in default opt-in and recognition of signatures on a shared, distributed, public ledger as validation of choice, and only allow opting out to take immediate effect and opt-in only after a month, and this is an excellent model.

Also, treat kids as 0/0|100%, always.

The game theory here holds that coerced donations are going to usually be an "immediate" need, allowing someone to spoil any non-sudden theft immediately

 

[TomC]

No.

Because you had nothing to do with her need for a kidney.
Tom

Why should that matter? Why should a person not responsible, not be compelled to save her life?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Jarhyn is advocating organ donor status without consent.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't grasp the concept behind the word "responsible"?

It is almost like you are saying a person should have the right to choose whether to donate an organ.

I am saying that.
One way to avoid the problem is to refrain from behavior that risks causing organ failure, thereby not being responsible for any.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Not without consent, but rather with default consent, and strong structural protections for the paranoid.

Opt-out is in fact a paradigm being adopted in various parts of Europe. Religious exemption should be exactly that.

Either way, I see that my model protects people from something that your model does not, without exposing them to a non-combatable harm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is almost like you are saying a person should have the right to choose whether to donate an organ.

I am saying that. One way to avoid the problem is to refrain from behavior that risks causing organ failure, thereby not being responsible for any.

Interesting. So... why? Why can't a person be compelled by the state to donate an organ, especially if the compatibility is rare? What justification do you use to prevent the state from compelling a person with a rare kidney compatibility with another who's life depends on it, to donate the kidney?

 

[TomC]

Interesting. So... why? Why can't a person be compelled by the state to donate an organ, especially if the compatibility is rare? What justification do you use to prevent the state from compelling a person with a rare kidney compatibility with another who's life depends on it, to donate the kidney?

It's right there in the part of my post you clipped off.

Is the concept of responsibility so difficult you don't even see it?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Interesting. So... why? Why can't a person be compelled by the state to donate an organ, especially if the compatibility is rare? What justification do you use to prevent the state from compelling a person with a rare kidney compatibility with another who's life depends on it, to donate the kidney?

It's right there in the part of my post you clipped off.

Is the concept of responsibility so difficult you don't even see it?
Tom

Mostly, I know for me, I don't recognize "punishment" as a valid form of justice so you using this to punish someone is thrown out almost without thought.

The responsibility that someone has is not to "repay", per SE, the harm they do but to cease to do harm and be made to have any benefits from their harms spoiled for them.

If you would like to argue otherwise, you will have to defend those principles.

And you have again prepared ZERO discussion on why this responsibility must be "non-fungible" if we are even to accept this begged question.