[PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 6, Issue 20

[glen e. p. ropella]

=><=><= "p0" == plug 0 <plug_0 at robinson-west.com> writes:

>> But, my question to you, Michael, is whether or not you have other
>> outlets for your opinions?  If so, don't you get more satisfaction
>> posting them there?  
p0> ( 
p0>    Are you saying I should leave the Linux tech community alone when 
p0>    it comes to moral issues?  Do ethics and morality go out the window 
p0>    when you work on computers?  I care about the opinions of people I 
p0>    may have to work with some day.  Their opinions are more likely to 
p0>    be relevant when it comes down to who I have to trust in the future.  
p0>    Whether or not this outlet is representative of the local tech 
p0>    community though, I do not know.  Looking at the response so far,
p0>    I sure hope it isn't. 
p0> )

No.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm just expressing that you seem to 
regularly post opinions like this without having been provoked in any
sense.  These posts don't naturally evolve from, say, a conversation 
about how to tweak a machine or which text editor to use.  You post
these opinions seemingly out of the blue.  That seems odd to me.
 
gepr> Personally, I get a real kick out of posting some rant in places like
gepr> plug-talk when they're related to linux in some obtuse way or if I
gepr> know there's someone like Jeme out there that needs baiting. [grin]
gepr> But, overall, plug-talk is not my main outlet for discussing moral
gepr> and ethical issues like the right-to-die. 
p0> ( 
p0>    There is a right to live written into the U.S. Constitution.
[...]
p0>    food and water, not artificial life support.  Since when is 
p0>    feeding and hydrating patients in nursing homes anything 
p0>    other than ordinary care?  The assumption that Terry Shiavo
p0>    can't feel pain is an assumption based on what information
p0>    from her?  Even if she isn't feeling pain, it's wrong to
p0>    conclude that she wants to die.  Being disabled doesn't mean
p0>    that you don't value your life enough to want the protections
p0>    written into the U.S. Constitution. 
p0> )

I haven't the slightest idea how your text relates to my preceding
paragraph. [grin]  But, I'll answer the questions, anyway.

Feeding and hydrating in a nursing home has to be paid for.  Since
we have a welfare state, there is a bottom-rung care for people who
have trouble caring for themselves.  But, even in the most committed
welfare states (which ours isn't), people often slip through that
bottom rung.  It just happens.  We're human and imperfect.

Pain is _not_ all subjective.  Granted, it is mostly subjective, but
not all.  The information the doctors (or whoever) get from her consists
of measurements, some qualitative that appeal to years of diagnostic
and prognostic experience, and some quantitative such as you get from
biometrics.

Nobody has _concluded_ that she wants to die.  I think it's safe to say
that there are people who believe she "would express a desire to die
if she could communicate" given her current condition.  And there are
people who believe she did communicate, at one time, that she did not
want to live persistently in a state like the one she's in.  That's
the extent of it.

As for the "disabled" argument.  That is the only argument worth the
time spent on it.  The _only_ argument that might persuade me is the
one that says, "just because you wouldn't want to live this way doesn't
mean others wouldn't".  Worse yet, I cannot know how I would feel in
her situation.  As a result, I actually agree that she should be fed
and hydrated.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree with having the Fed or State
interfere in my family.  So, I believe it is morally and ethically
wrong to interfere with the husband's wishes in this case.  Just
because I disagree with her husband doesn't give me the right to
interfere.  We allow all sorts of abuses like commission to mental
hospitals, corporal punishment for children, alcoholism, and second
hand smoke... Why shouldn't we also allow abuse like this?

gepr> I get much more satisfaction out of discussing these issues with 
gepr> people in a forum for that purpose.  
p0> (  
p0>    Why discuss moral opinions with people who agree with you?  
p0>    That's a waste of time lacking the potential to increase 
p0>    the number of people who share your view.  
p0> )

Not with people who agree.  But, with people who also seek out
discussion of moral issues, specifically.  I would think you'd get
more satisfaction talking to people who actively seek out forums 
in which to discuss moral issues.  You're not going to convince a
bunch of people who read your opinions only to pass the time or 
procrastinate.

>> One is highly likely to be frustrated if one goes to rock concerts
>> to hear classical music, goes to physics forums to discuss ethics,
>> goes to political forums to discuss physics, etc.
p0> ( 
p0>   So what.   
p0>   I don't have to refrain because of your opinion on the subject.
p0> )

I didn't claim that you did.  I'm just curious.  It's curious how you
post these opinions unprovoked and for no apparent reason other than
to troll or evangelize.

>> Of course, the exception to this rule is "the evangelical".  Someone
>> who wants to trojan horse their (not "his", GLL ;-) ethical beliefs
>> might be well served by attending alot of rock concerts.  Or if you
>> want to propogate your theory of the aether but can't get any
>> face-time with mainstream physicists, you might hang out in an ethics
>> forum.... 
p0> ( 
p0>   Well, you're expressing this view in the wrong forum if your claim 
p0>   that plug-talk isn't for moral and ethical discussions is correct. 
p0>   Just because an opinion is here, that doesn't prove that it's absent
p0>   in other forums.  BTW, you don't have to be an evangelical to have
p0>   a sense of ordinary care.  I guess you don't recognize
p0>   that some non evangelical christians, some Baptists, some Muslims, 
p0>   some etceras have moral views that mirror the ones which GLL and I 
p0>   have been expressing here.  I guess Oregon is so unchurched that
p0>   it shouldn't surprise to run into a lack of tolerance and respect
p0>   for religious ideas and practices.  You don't have to be religious
p0>   to believe in feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty.
p0>   Otherwise, the channel 8 food drive wouldn't be politically correct. 
p0> )

I never claimed that plug-talk isn't for moral or ethical discussion.
And, from my perspective, Oregon has _alot_ of religious people.  The
town I live nearest to has a population of about 2-5k and we have
something on the order of 8 churches, all of which are pretty full on
Sunday morning.  And we have pretty much every Christian sect covered.
So, granted my data is sparse; but, it seems to me that Oregonions are
quite well "churched".

To boot, I also don't see any intolerance for religious belief, ideas,
or practices.  Most everyone I talk to is respectful of others'
religion.  In fact, Oregon seems to have a shortage of the
angst-ridden, misanthropes, that populate the previous places I've
lived.  But, as you say, this conversation has nothing to do with
religion.  And that makes me even more curious why you spontaneously
raise issues like this.

You're a peculiar person, as far as I can tell.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com