My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die. You are the only compatible donor available.

Should you be forced you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

Why or why not?

 

[TomC]

No.

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

 

[atrib]

No.

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

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl? Say you are the doctor who misdiagnosed and mistreated Sally, which is the reason she needs a kidney now, and this can be conclusively established. Should the doctor be forced to give up a kidney to Sally since "he had something" to do with the need for her kidney, assuming the doctor is a match?

Just trying to clarify.

 

[TomC]

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will. That is, the same person having caused the organ failure and also the sole possible donor.
Tom

 

[atrib]

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will. That is, the same person having caused the organ failure and also the sole possible donor.
Tom

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney? Lets assume they are compatible and this person is a match to Sally. What would that "something" be? And second, are you concerned that if the state were allowed to force organ donation from its citizens under certain circumstances, this power could be misused? Again, I am trying to clarify if you have thought this through in any detail.

An interesting work of fiction that deals with a scenario like this is Never Let Me go.

 

[Jarhyn]

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will. That is, the same person having caused the organ failure and also the sole possible donor.
Tom

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney? Lets assume they are compatible and this person is a match to Sally. What would that "something" be? And second, are you concerned that if the state were allowed to force organ donation from its citizens under certain circumstances, this power could be misused? Again, I am trying to clarify if you have thought this through in any detail.

An interesting work of fiction that deals with a scenario like this is Never Let Me go.

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

 

[TomC]

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney?

Did you really have trouble understanding the first sentence of my second paragraph? You quoted it.
Let me repeat:

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will.

And while we're wallowing in y'alls semantic tomfoolery, I never used the phrase "had something to do with it". That was yet more semantic tomfoolery.
Tom

 

[atrib]

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney?

Did you really have trouble understanding the first sentence of my second paragraph? You quoted it.

I'm not talking about the physiological match between the donor and the receiver, I am talking about the circumstances that would trigger such a forced donation being an acceptable option in your mind. I can't think of a scenario where a forced donation would be acceptable, which is why I am asking. Can you give us a hypothetical example? I also notice that you ignored the hypothetical scenario I had provided. Could you tell us if the doctor in the hypothetical scenario should be forced to donate one of his kidneys to Sally? Its a simple question.

Let me repeat:

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will.

And while we're wallowing in y'alls semantic tomfoolery, I never used the phrase "had something to do with it". That was yet more semantic tomfoolery.
Tom

This is what you said:

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

How have I misrepresented what you said? I think its Tom thats doing the tomfoolery here.

 

[atrib]

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will. That is, the same person having caused the organ failure and also the sole possible donor.
Tom

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney? Lets assume they are compatible and this person is a match to Sally. What would that "something" be? And second, are you concerned that if the state were allowed to force organ donation from its citizens under certain circumstances, this power could be misused? Again, I am trying to clarify if you have thought this through in any detail.

An interesting work of fiction that deals with a scenario like this is Never Let Me go.

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

Exactly.
I am trying to ascertain if TomC has thought his position through. As of now, it would appear he has not.

 

[Jarhyn]

So in your mind there may be circumstances where you think it would be appropriate to force someone to donate their kidney to the little girl?

Correct.
It's a theoretical possibility.

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will. That is, the same person having caused the organ failure and also the sole possible donor.
Tom

Can you elaborate on the circumstances that you think would justify the state forcing this human who "had something to do with" Sally's need for a kidney into giving her a kidney? Lets assume they are compatible and this person is a match to Sally. What would that "something" be? And second, are you concerned that if the state were allowed to force organ donation from its citizens under certain circumstances, this power could be misused? Again, I am trying to clarify if you have thought this through in any detail.

An interesting work of fiction that deals with a scenario like this is Never Let Me go.

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

Exactly.
I am trying to ascertain if TomC has thought his position through. As of now, it would appear he has not.

I mean, he wants to proclaim that there is such, but it's just so hard to find an example. He refuses to provide an example KNOWING we will take whatever example he gins up and use that same formula to cook up "Moneybags buying a beer" as such a justification, or similar.

 

[TomC]

I'm not talking about the physiological match between the donor and the receiver, I am talking about the circumstances that would trigger such a forced donation being an acceptable option in your mind.

Without a physiological match the point becomes moot. "Sole possible donor" is quite different from "a possible donor".
As long as there is another option that's where I'd start.

But in an attempt to address your point. Suppose Bob demonstrably caused Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Maybe Bob poisoned Joe or something. Bob is the sole possible donor. Under such bizarre circumstances what I'd probably be inclined towards would be something like this:
Bob is under indictment for attempted murder. As long as Joe stays alive, the charge is only attempted murder. Donating a kidney will keep the charge the same. Refusing to do so ups the charge to premeditated murder.
Bob goes to the darkest, ugliest, prison the judicial system can find, where he'll stay until Joe gets a kidney. If Joe dies for lack of a kidney, then Bob stays in that prison until he dies.

Voila!
No force. Personal responsibility and choice.
Tom

 

[atrib]

I'm not talking about the physiological match between the donor and the receiver, I am talking about the circumstances that would trigger such a forced donation being an acceptable option in your mind.

Without a physiological match the point becomes moot. "Sole possible donor" is quite different from "a possible donor".
As long as there is another option that's where I'd start.

But in an attempt to address your point. Suppose Bob demonstrably caused Joe's catastrophic kidney failure. Maybe Bob poisoned Joe or something. Bob is the sole possible donor. Under such bizarre circumstances what I'd probably be inclined towards would be something like this:
Bob is under indictment for attempted murder. As long as Joe stays alive, the charge is only attempted murder. Donating a kidney will keep the charge the same. Refusing to do so ups the charge to premeditated murder.
Bob goes to the darkest, ugliest, prison the judicial system can find, where he'll stay until Joe gets a kidney. If Joe dies for lack of a kidney, then Bob stays in that prison until he dies.

Voila!
No force. Personal responsibility and choice.
Tom

But that is not the proposition being discussed. Bob is not being forced to donate a kidney here, he has a choice in the matter. Also, there are sentencing guidelines and laws in place to protect convicted felons from being tortured by the state for the rest of their lives. Are you not aware of these, or are you saying you don't agree with such legal protections either?

Since you are unable to come up with a hypothetical scenario, do you want to revise your original statement that you would be OK with the state forcing a person to donate their organs under certain circumstances? And since you still haven't given us any objective standards that would trigger approval of said forced organ donations, I will assume you haven't thought it through.

 

[TomC]

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

This is a remarkably stupid strawman argument.
And your emotive use of "Mr Moneybags" just makes it worse.

If someone chooses to drink enough alcohol to cause liver damage, pays for it even, that's not anybody else's responsibility.

But you are doing a good job of illustrating the difference between the culture of "victimhood and entitlement" and the culture of "personal responsibility and restraint".

Flailing about with your semantic nonsense and ridiculous strawmanned arguments. You really are a poster boy for your ideology.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

But you are doing a good job of illustrating the difference between the culture of "victimhood and entitlement" and the culture of "personal responsibility and restraint".

The main difference being that the culture of victimhood and entitlement is very real, and practiced religiously by the Party of Trump, while the culture of personal responsibility and restraint is a figment of right wing delusional imagination.

 

[TomC]

But you are doing a good job of illustrating the difference between the culture of "victimhood and entitlement" and the culture of "personal responsibility and restraint".

The main difference being that the culture of victimhood and entitlement is very real, and practiced religiously by the Party of Trump, while the culture of personal responsibility and restraint is a figment of right wing delusional imagination.

I seriously agree.

The success of the TeaParty is based primarily on tapping into the culture of entitlement and victimhood. Selling it to white Christian(mostly blue collar) voters.

Real Republicans got left in the dust. Personal responsibility and restraint didn't get politicians power enough to make their benefactors even richer.

So they're gone. Primaried. Declared RINOs, attacked any time they fail to stay in line with the TeaParty.

It's why I became a straight ticket Democratic voter, despite not being particularly fond of the DNC.

But there's a flip side to this. Godzillary didn't become president becausea few voters in a handful of states didn't vote for her. Specifically, Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania. A tiny handful of voters changed history by staying home, taking a long lunch, or voting third party, or whatever.

But yeah.
Trump is the leader of the TeaParty. The TeaParty leaders are masters of manipulating the culture of "entitlement and victimhood" amongst white Christian voters.

I find Wokesters and TeaPartiers altogether too similar. And I'm stuck in a country they dominate.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

This is a remarkably stupid strawman argument.
And your emotive use of "Mr Moneybags" just makes it worse.

If someone chooses to drink enough alcohol to cause liver damage, pays for it even, that's not anybody else's responsibility.

But you are doing a good job of illustrating the difference between the culture of "victimhood and entitlement" and the culture of "personal responsibility and restraint".

Flailing about with your semantic nonsense and ridiculous strawmanned arguments. You really are a poster boy for your ideology.
Tom

No, the point is that unlike you, I can actually contemplate the results of the selfish gaming of such rules. As has been pointed out, your bizarre scenario is not him being forced to donate a kidney.

Forced is, Bob gets tied down no matter what he may want, his kidney is removed, and given to the little girl, period.

This is a rape against his bodily autonomy, and there is no scenario where it is OK, even if the original crime was him stealing the little girl's kidney in the same way.

 

[atrib]

"You sold Mr Moneybags a beer at a bar, and now he has liver damage. That makes you liable to donate half your liver to Mr Moneybags!"

This is a remarkably stupid strawman argument.
And your emotive use of "Mr Moneybags" just makes it worse.

If someone chooses to drink enough alcohol to cause liver damage, pays for it even, that's not anybody else's responsibility.

But you are doing a good job of illustrating the difference between the culture of "victimhood and entitlement" and the culture of "personal responsibility and restraint".

Flailing about with your semantic nonsense and ridiculous strawmanned arguments. You really are a poster boy for your ideology.
Tom

So tell us what your objective standard would be to decide that it is appropriate for the state to force a person to "donate" an organ? I have asked for it three times already.

 

[TomC]

So tell us what your objective standard would be to decide that it is appropriate for the state to force a person to "donate" an organ? I have asked for it three times already.

And I responded, way back, that I have trouble thinking of any plausible scenarios.
I managed to come up with one, hugely implausible, scenario.

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

So tell us what your objective standard would be to decide that it is appropriate for the state to force a person to "donate" an organ? I have asked for it three times already.

And I responded, way back, that I have trouble thinking of any plausible scenarios.
I managed to come up with one, hugely implausible, scenario.

But all the baby killers keep changing the subject, changing the meanings of words, changing what I said to the exact opposite and quizzing me on why I said that.

This thread is a great illustration of why I don't believe y'all any more than I believe YEC believers or TeaPartiers. Y'all can't stay on a subject, understand English, or use science to inform your moral code.

Tom

No, you provided one scenario where there was no force, but rather a consensual decision.

Part of the issue here is that unless there is some way to spoil Mr Moneybags' attempt to place culpability and steal a kidney, Mr Moneybag can get his kidney by foul play.

"Force" means there is no alternative.

 

[TomC]

No, you provided one scenario where there was no force, but rather a consensual decision.

Did you read my post where I stated that I couldn't think of any plausible scenario for requiring a kidney donation?

All I could think of were bizarre,

But so vanishingly rare that the combination of factors has probably never happened in the history of organ transplants, and probably never will.

I don't think it's ever happened, and I don't think it will. Why can't you grasp that part of my posts?
Tom