Change my view

[Victor Ian]

Victor Ian is Ikki and I claim my five pounds.

Here you go. Join these numbats.

dfuk I am ikki. Did you have to scroll that last post?

I just think the argument for automatic doner is a slippery slope. If you want my heart, how about you pay my family a cool million, just like the hospital wants to charge for putting it in. The resource here is more important than the doctor in saving this life. So offer me a fee for parts to become a doner. Make it easy for me to become a doner. They could easily get more than enough doners if they would just pay.

 

[straw man]

I don't agree with default opt-in organ donation but I also don't agree with paying people for donations - when people donate they are doing it to contribute to society in some way, and that impulse is flattened when the norm becomes to be paid instead.

 

[Burgey]

dfuk I am ikki. Did you have to scroll that last post?

I just think the argument for automatic doner is a slippery slope. If you want my heart, how about you pay my family a cool million, just like the hospital wants to charge for putting it in. The resource here is more important than the doctor in saving this life. So offer me a fee for parts to become a doner. Make it easy for me to become a doner. They could easily get more than enough doners if they would just pay.

Yeah but you're dead mate, you don't have any need or use for the organ in question.

That's why zorax donated his brain several years before he joined CW.

 

[zorax]

I don't think I agree with the existence of non-binary genders...not sure though

If I understand correctly, the argument put forwards it the difference between Biological Gender (of which there are 2) and Social Gender. Gender roles in society and stuff.

I think the general idea is that there is a spectrum of what "Gender' you are as a person in day to day life, and what people are doing is defining markers along that spectrum so that you aren't simply black or white Male or Female. They use stuff like sexual preferences to help define those markers. But I don't know enough to comment on how they actually come up with all their new Genders.

My only issue is that once you start creating new labels/groups to capture those who don't feel strongly as either of the two existing labels, then eventually some people are going to pop up who don't feel they belong to any of the new labels either, thus creating even more labels, and so on and so forth till basically every individual is their own gender and the whole concept becomes meaningless.

One should never publicly don the mantle of being "good", and rather be known for your unpredictability. Anchoring expectations only make your efforts and ethics go underappreciated.

Edit: CMV.

What if 'anchoring expectations' helps bind you towards behaving in a certain way, when without having any reason to do so, you may be tempted to behave otherwise.

Example - I don the mantle of being a Good Person. I see someone in need of help. I know I can help them, but at inconvenience to myself. I'm tired, worn out, would much rather do nothing and go home. But I have donned this mantle, therefore I now have something to lose if I don't help out. Therefore, I put in the effort and inconvenience myself to help this person out and do something good.

 

[Burgey]

Isn't the mantle you've donned in that example more of an internal expectation you've put on yourself, or are you saying if you've consciously sought the mantle of a "good" person in the eyes of others, you're more likely to act accordingly?

 

[zorax]

Isn't the mantle you've donned in that example more of an internal expectation you've put on yourself, or are you saying if you've consciously sought the mantle of a "good" person in the eyes of others, you're more likely to act accordingly?

Works both ways. Harsh's statement wasn't clear.

Oh no wait he does say publicly. Well in that case you've got a public image to live up to now. If you wish to maintain that, you behave accordingly. That can push you to do more 'good' than you would have without the pressure.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah fair enough. I can see how the idea of being seen as a "good" person could become a burden in certain situations. I'd have thought if the motivation to see yourself as a "good" person and act accordingly comes from within, it's likely to lead to a more durable and consistent pattern of behavior.

 

[zorax]

Harsh's entire argument is based on doing good things in order to be acknowledged for it. Hence being known as unpredictable is favourable - so when you do something good, you get praised, vs people just expecting it to be the norm.

I don't think that's why you should be good, but just working off the premise, being known as a consistently good person is preferable in most situations than being known as an ethically ambiguous person who sometimes does good things. Who would you rather be friends with, for instance? Or hire to work for you? Or get into a relationship with?

Maybe for your own ego and satisfaction you would like to be patted on the back for every single good thing you do, and therefore you cultivate a persona to ensure that happens, but then I'd just suggest that if that's your motivation to be good, then you're not actually a good person anyways. You're just in it for the endorphins. And that's probably a good strategy to get lots of endorphins with.

 

[Ausage]

If I understand correctly, the argument put forwards it the difference between Biological Gender (of which there are 2) and Social Gender. Gender roles in society and stuff.

I think the general idea is that there is a spectrum of what "Gender' you are as a person in day to day life, and what people are doing is defining markers along that spectrum so that you aren't simply black or white Male or Female. They use stuff like sexual preferences to help define those markers. But I don't know enough to comment on how they actually come up with all their new Genders.

My only issue is that once you start creating new labels/groups to capture those who don't feel strongly as either of the two existing labels, then eventually some people are going to pop up who don't feel they belong to any of the new labels either, thus creating even more labels, and so on and so forth till basically every individual is their own gender and the whole concept becomes meaningless.

I don't understand why these gender advocates are so wed to gender roles that they insist on codifying the human experience to them. A spectrum is just an extension of the binary. Seems like the kind of unnecessary restriction they're supposed to be against.

 

[zorax]

I don't understand why these gender advocates are so wed to gender roles that they insist on codifying the human experience to them. A spectrum is just an extension of the binary. Seems like the kind of unnecessary restriction they're supposed to be against.

Yup. It's the entire paradox of trying to break down any labels or group identities that are too restrictive - in that you just end up creating more and more labels to the point where it feels like every single person is a label to themselves.

Maybe that's the end goal.

 

[Burgey]

Harsh's entire argument is based on doing good things in order to be acknowledged for it. Hence being known as unpredictable is favourable - so when you do something good, you get praised, vs people just expecting it to be the norm.

I don't think that's why you should be good, but just working off the premise, being known as a consistently good person is preferable in most situations than being known as an ethically ambiguous person who sometimes does good things. Who would you rather be friends with, for instance? Or hire to work for you? Or get into a relationship with?

Maybe for your own ego and satisfaction you would like to be patted on the back for every single good thing you do, and therefore you cultivate a persona to ensure that happens, but then I'd just suggest that if that's your motivation to be good, then you're not actually a good person anyways. You're just in it for the endorphins. And that's probably a good strategy to get lots of endorphins with.

Sounds like the odd occasion when you pretend to GAF about other people on here.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah but you're dead mate, you don't have any need or use for the organ in question.

That is like you don't need your house when you're dead but you still maintain your right to direct who takes possession of it after you die. I reserve the right to direct how my body is used until it decays.

Personally, I like the idea of being a doner. It's not for everyone and I don't think it should be opt out. The onus is on them to get me to help their cause, not on me to exclude myself from it. I'm not sure paying is a great idea either, but in this slut of a world, money solves most problems.

 

[Burgey]

The analogy with the house isn't great, is it? A house remains useful to occupants once the original owner dies. A body doesn't.

Paying is a terrible idea. Imagine letting greedy ****ers like health funds or Americans have a say as to the price to be put on an organ. **** that.

 

[Victor Ian]

It's a great analogy. Renters don't take possession after your death, nor, the homeless man down the street. Being yours, it passes to who you dictate, or failing that, to next of kin. So how about the same system with a body. As soon as I'm dead my next of kin own it and can determine what to do with it.

In an opt out system, not paying is also dangerous. Imagine letting greedy ****ers like the hospitals have the say over whether you are actually dead when a lot of money hinges on you being dead so they can harvest your organs.

It will soon be irrelevant anyways. Soon I'll just grow my own cloned heart in a petri dish

 

[Burgey]

When you do, can you send it to the Parramatta forward pack? They’re short a few.

 

[Ausage]

When you do, can you send it to the Parramatta forward pack? They’re short a few.

With Kenny Edwards gone they're down a brain cell too.

 

[Burgey]

Poor Kenny. A much misunderstood character.

 

[zorax]

The analogy with the house isn't great, is it? A house remains useful to occupants once the original owner dies. A body doesn't.

You could argue that, if left alone and unmaintained long enough, a house will eventually decay and rot into something useless too. Much like an organ would after a person dies, but a lot lot slower. If you're able to pass the house on to someone else before that happens, it retains it's utility. Again, much like an organ, but with a different time frame.

 

[harsh.ag]

The house transfer upon death is also an opt-out system

 

[Victor Ian]

The house transfer upon death is also an opt-out system

Yeah. I'm giving up on this one. I don't believe one bit of what I'm saying.