Sternhauser Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304221804' post='2235221'] ok, so you equate losing ones liscense with killing someone? or being sued with killing someone? or going to jail with killing someone?[/quote] If you threaten someone with violence, merely for the act of treating patients without a particular permission slip, no matter how objectively skilled or qualified he is, if when he resists the imposition of violence upon him, he is killed, (and he will be) a grave injustice has been done. [quote]let me ask you something, i assume you don't work in the medical field. let's just say you don't if you do. if you went around acting like a doctor and treating patients without a medical liscense you think there should be absolutly no action taken against you?[/quote] As long as there is no fraud, meaning that the patient knows that a physician is not certified by a particular organization, there is nothing wrong with someone practicing medicine. It has been done for thousands of years before the State decided that it knew better than patients. And because the State has embedded itself like a tick into the entire field, you'll see that the decision of who lives or dies will instead be made by the State. [quote]how about serving liquir at a bar without a liquir liscense? how about driving without a liscense? how about working in any number of fields that by law requires a liscense. do you think if your practicing without a liscense there should be no problem with that?[/quote] Not only "should there be no problem" with any of those things, there [i]is[/i] no problem with any of those things, as long as one does those things responsibly and with regard to the rights of others. [quote]another question. do you think doctors should be allowed to pick and choose who they treat? should they be able to refuse care to someone who is an illegal immigrant? how about someone who is black? how about someone who is christian? how about someone who is female? should doctors be allowed to treat only who they choose and everyone else is left to die? [/quote] I think doctors should treat everyone. I have no right to threaten them with violence if they refuse. Neither do you. If neither you nor I have the right, then neither do the agents of the State. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1304222452' post='2235222'] If you threaten someone with violence, merely for the act of treating patients without a particular permission slip, no matter how objectively skilled or qualified he is, if when he resists the imposition of violence upon him, he is killed, (and he will be) a grave injustice has been done. As long as there is no fraud, meaning that the patient knows that a physician is not certified by a particular organization, there is nothing wrong with someone practicing medicine. It has been done for thousands of years before the State decided that it knew better than patients. And because the State has embedded itself like a tick into the entire field, you'll see that the decision of who lives or dies will instead be made by the State. Not only "should there be no problem" with any of those things, there [i]is[/i] no problem with any of those things, as long as one does those things responsibly and with regard to the rights of others. I think doctors should treat everyone. I have no right to threaten them with violence if they refuse. Neither do you. If neither you nor I have the right, then neither do the agents of the State. ~Sternhauser [/quote] so your have no problem with rascim if practiced in america? or sexism? you think they should be allowed to be practiced? cause your saying a doctor should be allowed to refuse someone care just because they are black, correct? if a doctor refuses to help somoene who is in need of medical attention and they end up dying how is that any different than abortion or euthinasia? i am guessing your against the later, so why is one way of killing someone ok but not the other? so let me understand this. according to your logic, since i am a paremedic, if somoene who comes up to me who has been shot and is dying. i am perfectly within my right to refuse to help them and instead can sit there and watch him die. if this were to happen you think there should be nothing wrong with that and there should be no punishment for me for refusing to help this person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304223362' post='2235225'] so your have no problem with rascim if practiced in america? or sexism?[/quote] I do not approve of racism. Or sexism. But I will not use violence against someone who is racist and refuses to serve a white person. Or a black person. I will instead boycott his business, and encourage others to do the same. [quote]you think they should be allowed to be practiced? cause your saying a doctor should be allowed to refuse someone care just because they are black, correct?[/quote] Havok, would your company fire you if you refused to care for a black person? I'll wager it would. And as a voluntary contract, they have every right to terminate your employment. Do you disagree? Given a culture which despises racism, how long do you suppose a racist-embracing business would last? [quote]if a doctor refuses to help somoene who is in need of medical attention and they end up dying how is that any different than abortion or euthinasia? i am guessing your against the later, so why is one way of killing someone ok but not the other?[/quote] One is a direct act against human life. One is a lack of action to save human life. One may use violence to physically stop an aggressive act. One may not use violence to try to coerce someone's will to perform an act. Do you recognize the difference? [quote]so let me understand this. according to your logic, since i am a paremedic, if somoene who comes up to me who has been shot and is dying. i am perfectly within my right to refuse to help them and instead can sit there and watch him die. if this were to happen you think there should be nothing wrong with that and there should be no punishment for me for refusing to help this person?[/quote] No, you are not within your rights to do so. However, I am not within my rights to force you to care for him, and neither is anyone else. There[i] is[/i] something wrong with that, and I will wager that your company would fire you. If your company does not fire you, there are some larger cultural problems underfoot, and as the State's characteristics are informed by the cultural milieu, for good or for ill, all the statutes in the world wouldn't help the situation. The State is the cart. Culture is the horse. You're putting the cart before the horse. The horse can figure out how to walk on its own. It doesn't need to be continually bridled, bitted, prodded and whipped. It can live well enough without the resource-destroying dead weight behind it. ~Sternhauser Edited May 1, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1304224145' post='2235229'] I do not approve of racism. Or sexism. But I will not use violence against someone who is racist and refuses to serve a white person. Or a black person. I will instead boycott his business, and encourage others to do the same. Havok, would your company fire you if you refused to care for a black person? I'll wager it would. And as a voluntary contract, they have every right to terminate your employment. Do you disagree? Given a culture which despises racism, how long do you supposed a racist-embracing business would last? One is a direct act against human life. One is a lack of action to safe human life. One may use violence to stop an aggressive act. One may not use violence to coerce someone's will to perform an act. Do you recognize the difference? No, you are not within your rights to do so. However, I am not within my rights to force you to care for him, and neither is anyone else. There is something wrong with that, and I will wager that your company would fire you. If your company does not fire you, there are some larger cultural problems at stake, and as the State's characteristics are informed by the cultural milieu, for good or for ill, all the statutes in the world wouldn't help. The State is the cart. Culture is the horse. You're putting the cart before the horse. The horse needs to get rid of the dead, resource-destroying weight behind it. ~Sternhauser [/quote] and this is where we will never agree. i work in the medical field. i got into it to help people. to sit there and watch someone as they die and refuse to help them when that is my job is wrong. if i ever did that i should not only be fired but also lose my liscense and be sent to jail. that is no different than euthinasia. absolutly no different. euthinasia can be done without directly lifting a finger. without actively doing anything. i understand you hate the state and everything it stands for. you think the state does nothing good. well sorry to inform you, just like with nearly all things in life, there is good and bad about it. it is the states responsibility to make sure a class of people is not being slighted. most of all when that class is a minority. by your logic, anyone should be allowed to refuse someone services because of the color of their skin. well if the only people who were hired as paramedics in a certain city were white people who refused to help black people, it would put a black person at a disadvantage and could and would lead to their death. it is a good thing the state does not allow this type of thing to happen. i understand you think that the state has no business butting in, but your wrong. the state needs to step in when a person or group of people is being denied basic rights. the right to life is the most basic right. it is God's most basic right. you have the right to life, no matter what your skin color, gender or fincial status is. you don't work in the medical field, so you can never understand what we do. we help people. that is our job. getting into the profession i knew it was my job to help all people. i knew that, accepted that and even agreed with it going in. that is part of the field. to refuse to do your job and have that lead to someone's death is wrong. i should not be allowed to work in my field if i refuse to do my job. the medical field can not be compared to any other field in the world. no other field of work holds a persons life in your hands. your ideas do not work in the medical field. in almost all other forms of jobs your idea works. not in the medical field. its a unique field of work which is not comparible to any other field of work. people should not be allowed to have medical care denied to them, thus letting them die. the right to refuse someone care so they die should never be a right. NEVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304223362' post='2235225'] so your have no problem with rascim if practiced in america? or sexism? you think they should be allowed to be practiced? cause your saying a doctor should be allowed to refuse someone care just because they are black, correct? if a doctor refuses to help somoene who is in need of medical attention and they end up dying how is that any different than abortion or euthinasia? i am guessing your against the later, so why is one way of killing someone ok but not the other? so let me understand this. according to your logic, since i am a paremedic, if somoene who comes up to me who has been shot and is dying. i am perfectly within my right to refuse to help them and instead can sit there and watch him die. if this were to happen you think there should be nothing wrong with that and there should be no punishment for me for refusing to help this person? [/quote] Havok, I admire the fact that you help people when they are in need. But nobody made a racial issue out of this other than you. Are you sure you aren't a racist? I think we can all agree here that denying someone health care based on race is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304225948' post='2235235'] Havok, I admire the fact that you help people when they are in need. But nobody made a racial issue out of this other than you. Are you sure you aren't a racist? I think we can all agree here that denying someone health care based on race is morally wrong. [/quote] EXCUSE ME, BUT WHAT THE HECK DID YOU ACCUSE ME OF??? I take extreme offense of someone who jumps in mid conversation and accuses me of being racist. That was a personal insult. Last I checked, this was a catholic board and personal insults are not catholic. although maybe i am wrong. maybe you can show me where Jesus says its ok to insult someone and make WILD accusations about someone. accusations that have no fact to them. but if your can't have a debate without throwing personal insults my way, feel free to not respond to my posts directed at someone else. you obviously don't understand how to read my posts or refuse to. the point about race is stern believes that no one for any reason in the medical field should be forced to help someone else. i wanted to clarify my point, hence why i brought up racism AND sexism AND fincial class. although you obviously did not read my posts and instead saw the word race and jumped on that word with peronsal insults. Edited May 1, 2011 by havok579257 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304225604' post='2235234'] to sit there and watch someone as they die and refuse to help them when that is my job is wrong. if i ever did that i should not only be fired[/quote] Correct. [quote]i understand you hate the state and everything it stands for. you think the state does nothing good. well sorry to inform you, just like with nearly all things in life, there is good and bad about it.[/quote] Yes. There is good and bad about leeches, whorehouses, and Satan himself, too. It doesn't mean we need any of them to survive, or that their presence in one's life is at all desirable. [quote]it is the states responsibility to make sure a class of people is not being slighted.[/quote] Collectives do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Therefore, only individuals have responsibilities. [quote]well if the only people who were hired as paramedics in a certain city were white people who refused to help black people, it would put a black person at a disadvantage and could and would lead to their death. it is a good thing the state does not allow this type of thing to happen.[/quote] Except when "black" is changed to "human" and "white" is changed to "police officer." Who do not have an obligation to protect any particular individual, according to the State's blackrobes. Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. You think the State can countermand an entrenched culture. It cannot. People were openly using chemical contraception and committing sodomy long before statutes against the practices were repealed. You cannot [i]make[/i] people good. You cannot morally [i]coerce[/i] their wills. Physical violence may only be used to stop physically aggressive attacks. [quote]i understand you think that the state has no business butting in, but your wrong. the state needs to step in when a person or group of people is being denied basic rights. the right to life is the most basic right. it is God's most basic right. you have the right to life, no matter what your skin color, gender or fincial status is.[/quote] The good of the right to life cannot be protected by the immoral means of coercing the free will. That includes torture. [quote]you don't work in the medical field, so you can never understand what we do.[/quote] Clearly. [quote]we help people. that is our job. getting into the profession i knew it was my job to help all people. i knew that, accepted that and even agreed with it going in. that is part of the field. to refuse to do your job and have that lead to someone's death is wrong. i should not be allowed to work in my field if i refuse to do my job.[/quote] Do you understand that I believe that everyone should be helped, and that physicians are morally obliged to assist in saving human life insofar as it is practical and possible? Did you catch that? I don't think you did. You should have. I repeated it several times in various ways. [quote]i should not be allowed to work in my field if i refuse to do my job.[/quote] Correct. You should be fired. But your free will may not be coerced. [quote]no other field of work holds a persons life in your hands.[/quote] You haven't seen people in State-issued clothing going overseas to kill people recently? [quote]people should not be allowed to have medical care denied to them, thus letting them die. the right to refuse someone care so they die should never be a right. NEVER![/quote] Again, have you not seen what I've written? There is a difference between a "right," and "not using physical violence to coerce someone's will to do their jobs." So you either believe that it is moral to coerce someone's will, or you believe what the Church teaches on the issue: "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind,[i] [b]attempts to coerce the will itself;[/b][/i] . . . all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator" (GS 27, EV 3). Which is it going to be, Havok? ~Sternhauser Edited May 1, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304226524' post='2235236'] EXCUSE ME, BUT WHAT THE HECK DID YOU ACCUSE ME OF??? I take extreme offense of someone who jumps in mid conversation and accuses me of being racist. That was a personal insult. Last I checked, this was a catholic board and personal insults are not catholic. although maybe i am wrong. maybe you can show me where Jesus says its ok to insult someone and make WILD accusations about someone. accusations that have no fact to them. but if your can't have a debate without throwing personal insults my way, feel free to not respond to my posts directed at someone else. you obviously don't understand how to read my posts or refuse to. the point about race is stern believes that no one for any reason in the medical field should be forced to help someone else. i wanted to clarify my point, hence why i brought up racism AND sexism AND fincial class. although you obviously did not read my posts and instead saw the word race and jumped on that word with peronsal insults. [/quote] Ah so thats how you react when you can't call someone a racist. Instead you accuse them of insulting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304226739' post='2235238'] Ah so thats how you react when you can't call someone a racist. Instead you accuse them of insulting you. [/quote] so now i was trying to call you racist, is that right? that makes no sense to anyone but you. you did insult me. you accused me of being racists. last i checked, racism is a sin. its something taught by the church as being wrong. you accused me of doing something against church teaching. something the church condemns. accusing me of being something not in line with the church and something that goes against church teaching. so yes, i take that as a huge insult. so not admitting wrongs must be something Jesus taught also. could you fill me in on where that is in the bible? are you sure your even catholic? cause that's not insulting at all, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1304227134' post='2235239'] so now i was trying to call you racist, is that right? that makes no sense to anyone but you. you did insult me. you accused me of being racists. last i checked, racism is a sin. its something taught by the church as being wrong. you accused me of doing something against church teaching. something the church condemns. accusing me of being something not in line with the church and something that goes against church teaching. so yes, i take that as a huge insult. so not admitting wrongs must be something Jesus taught also. could you fill me in on where that is in the bible? are you sure your even catholic? cause that's not insulting at all, is it? [/quote] when did I call you a racist? Edited May 1, 2011 by infinitelord1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304226739' post='2235238'] Ah so thats how you react when you can't call someone a racist. Instead you accuse them of insulting you. [/quote] Uh, Infinite, really, where did that notion that Havok was a racist come from? He was using the possibility of racists as a legitimate example. ~Sternhauser Edited May 1, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304227695' post='2235240'] when did you call me a racist? [/quote] so you accuse me of being racists. you personally insult me. you can't even apologize for accusing of being racist and insulting me when you were in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304227695' post='2235240'] when did I call you a racist? [/quote] Somewhere between here:[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304225948' post='2235235']But nobody made a racial issue out of this other than you. Are you sure you aren't a racist? [/quote] and there. So at about 12:59 EDT. Edited May 1, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) To get back to our pre-accusation interruption discussion . . . havok579257 wrote: [quote]to sit there and watch someone as they die and refuse to help them when that is my job is wrong. if i ever did that i should not only be fired[/quote] Correct. [quote]i understand you hate the state and everything it stands for. you think the state does nothing good. well sorry to inform you, just like with nearly all things in life, there is good and bad about it.[/quote] Yes. There is good and bad about leeches, whorehouses, and Satan himself, too. It doesn't mean we need any of them to survive, or that their presence in one's life is at all desirable. [quote]it is the states responsibility to make sure a class of people is not being slighted.[/quote] Collectives do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Therefore, only individuals have responsibilities. [quote]well if the only people who were hired as paramedics in a certain city were white people who refused to help black people, it would put a black person at a disadvantage and could and would lead to their death. it is a good thing the state does not allow this type of thing to happen.[/quote] Except when "black" is changed to "human" and "white" is changed to "police officer." Who do not have an obligation to protect any particular individual, according to the State's blackrobes. Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. You think the State can countermand an entrenched culture. It cannot. People were openly using chemical contraception and committing sodomy long before statutes against the practices were repealed. You cannot [i]make[/i] people good. You cannot morally [i]coerce[/i] their wills. Physical violence may only be used to stop physically aggressive attacks. [quote]i understand you think that the state has no business butting in, but your wrong. the state needs to step in when a person or group of people is being denied basic rights. the right to life is the most basic right. it is God's most basic right. you have the right to life, no matter what your skin color, gender or fincial status is.[/quote] The good of the right to life cannot be protected by the immoral means of coercing the free will. That includes torture. [quote]you don't work in the medical field, so you can never understand what we do.[/quote] You don't think I understand, eh? [quote]we help people. that is our job. getting into the profession i knew it was my job to help all people. i knew that, accepted that and even agreed with it going in. that is part of the field. to refuse to do your job and have that lead to someone's death is wrong. i should not be allowed to work in my field if i refuse to do my job.[/quote] Do you understand that I believe that everyone should be helped, and that physicians are morally obliged to assist in saving human life insofar as it is practical and possible? Did you catch that? I don't think you did. You should have. I repeated it several times in various ways. [quote]i should not be allowed to work in my field if i refuse to do my job.[/quote] Correct. You should be fired. But your free will may not be coerced. [quote]no other field of work holds a persons life in your hands.[/quote] You haven't seen people in State-issued clothing going overseas to kill people recently? [quote] people should not be allowed to have medical care denied to them, thus letting them die. the right to refuse someone care so they die should never be a right. NEVER[/quote] Again, have you not seen what I've written? There is a difference between a "right," and "not using physical violence to coerce someone's will to do their jobs." So you either believe that it is moral to coerce someone's will, or you believe what the Church teaches on the issue: "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind,[i] [b]attempts to coerce the will itself;[/b][/i] . . . all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator" (GS 27, EV 3). Which is it going to be, Havok? ~Sternhauser Edited May 1, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1304227699' post='2235241'] Uh, Infinite, really, where did that notion that Havok was a racist come from? He was using the possibility of racists as a legitimate example. ~Sternhauser [/quote] [mod]personal attack[/mod] Edited May 1, 2011 by Lil Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts