My Kidney Challenge

[Jimmy Higgins]

The hypothetical is a bit strained, an adult kidney for a child... is that a thing? It is an interesting hypothetical for futuristic genetics database world, where knowing you have something that could save the life of another.

I think the state wouldn't be within its right to compel anyone to donate anything from their body for the simple issue of self-autonomy, and we don't even need to get judgmental to get to that point.

But what would be a more interesting question, should a person be personally compelled to donate the kidney, if such a situation arose, presuming you get a head of the line card for organ donation for yourself, family, or friends (non-transferrable for cash)? Would it be impacted by creating a TikTok challenge?

No.

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

So much for "pro-life". You're not a victim Sally!

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Even so, you are the one posing that it exists, either put one up or drop the claim.

I've given some really well formulated reasons as to why the answer is "never", and why Bob always needs the right to say no: no other scenario allows the spoiling of theft.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You are accusing people at TF of killing babies?

 

[Elixir]

Y'all can't … use science to inform your moral code.

Says the guy who believes in “proven science”.
Real thin ice there Tom.
Science informs me that microscopic blobs of protoplasm lack ALL the observable physical and behavioral attributes of a person above the molecular level.

 

[TomC]

The hypothetical is a bit strained,

It was very strained.
I was reaching for a scenario that fit the bizzare circumstances given.

Nothing to do with my beliefs, I've said that over and over.
Tom

 

[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.

You are accusing people at TF of killing babies?

I don't even know what TF is.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Even so, you are the one posing that it exists, either put one up or drop the claim.

I did.
I didn't say it was plausible.
I'm the one who stated, many times, there is no plausible scenario.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Even so, you are the one posing that it exists, either put one up or drop the claim.

I did.
I didn't say it was plausible.
I'm the one who stated, many times, there is no plausible scenario.
Tom

Yet you do claim it is possible.

So either defend your assertion, or drop it.

What you posed does not satisfy the requirements of "force" thus you did not, and have dishonestly claimed several times that you have

 

[TomC]

Science informs me that microscopic blobs of protoplasm lack ALL the observable physical and behavioral attributes of a person above

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

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Science informs me that microscopic blobs of protoplasm lack ALL the observable physical and behavioral attributes of a person above

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

Tom

We could have a conversation about this, but given how difficult it's been walking DBT and FDI through a discussion in semantic completion of "free will" I'm not confident that it would be very productive.

Needless to say, it's a long and fraught road.

 

[TomC]

Yet you do claim it is possible.

I already did.
If your reading comprehension is insufficient, I won't be surprised.

You've made that clear enough to me already.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Yet you do claim it is possible.

I already did.
If your reading comprehension is insufficient, I won't be surprised.

You've made that clear enough to me already.
Tom

Your own is clearly insufficient. You failed to satisfy "force"

 

[TomC]

Yet you do claim it is possible.

I already did.
If your reading comprehension is insufficient, I won't be surprised.

You've made that clear enough to me already.
Tom

Your own is clearly insufficient. You failed to satisfy "force"

I don't recall using the word force in this thread.

Before we discuss that, how about you get precise about your vague term "satisfy 'force'?

You commonly redefine words and terms to suit your ideological bent.

So I'm asking you flat out. What do mean by that term?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Yet you do claim it is possible.

I already did.
If your reading comprehension is insufficient, I won't be surprised.

You've made that clear enough to me already.
Tom

Your own is clearly insufficient. You failed to satisfy "force"

I don't recall using the word force in this thread.

Before we discuss that, how about you get precise about your vague term "satisfy 'force'?

You commonly redefine words and terms to suit your ideological bent.

So I'm asking you flat out. What do mean by that term?
Tom

"Made to" is "forced". It's right in the title of the OP.

It does not brook objection, but rather inevitability.

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]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.
I put you and your opinions in similar categories for that reason.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.
I put you and your opinions in similar categories for that reason.
Tom

And yet, I'm pretty sure from the fact that I'm not the only person objecting to the applicability of your scenario that you're missing something here...

 

[TomC]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.
I put you and your opinions in similar categories for that reason.
Tom

And yet, I'm pretty sure from the fact that I'm not the only person objecting to the applicability of your scenario that you're missing something here...

Go ahead.
Add ad populum to your resume.

Then try using the "everyone knows" argument on other venues.

IIDB is a seriously limited ideological bubble. I'm not part of it. You are. That's why nobody is going to call out your bullshit. There's no point.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.
I put you and your opinions in similar categories for that reason.
Tom

And yet, I'm pretty sure from the fact that I'm not the only person objecting to the applicability of your scenario that you're missing something here...

Go ahead.
Add ad populum to your resume.

Then try using the "everyone knows" argument on other venues.

IIDB is a seriously limited ideological bubble. I'm not part of it. You are. That's why nobody is going to call out your bullshit. There's no point.
Tom

Says the person who wants to claim "being made to" is not "forced"

For sanity sake, I just posed the question to some of my coworkers, just out of the blue. "Being 'made to' is just a gentler way of saying 'being forced'."

Of course, it's not "ad populum" when the question is whether someone is redefining words, and the response is "other people commonly share this definition".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You are accusing people at TF of killing babies?

I don't even know what TF is.
Tom

The name of the web board you joined. Then it changed back to IIDB after a long while. But kudos on the *look a squirrel!* technique.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Made to" is "forced".

Your ability to create arguments based on your personal definitions of words and terms is quite reminiscent of TeaPartiers and YEC.

And Nazis!