I would have bumped them off and then blamed it on the blacks. September 14, 2005 2:03 PM Subscribe
What would you have done?
I would have bumped them off and then blamed it on the blacks.
I don't think that sgt.serenity is living up to his handle.
I would have bumped them off and then blamed it on the blacks.
I don't think that sgt.serenity is living up to his handle.
Well have a little humor, it's a satire on the whole looting situation. Wasn't it an American Dad episode that made a very similar joke? The basic premise was the alien and the son kill a guy in their house and the alien goes, "I hope they catch the two black guys that did this."
Even David Chapelle had a routine where the cops would accidently kill a black guy or something similar and just sprinkle some crack on him. My point is, he simply bringing to the forefront the underlying stereotype that all blacks are criminal (the whole looting, taking liquor debacle). Not that it was the best thread to do it in, but I don't think this warrants a call out.
posted by geoff. at 2:14 PM on September 14, 2005
Even David Chapelle had a routine where the cops would accidently kill a black guy or something similar and just sprinkle some crack on him. My point is, he simply bringing to the forefront the underlying stereotype that all blacks are criminal (the whole looting, taking liquor debacle). Not that it was the best thread to do it in, but I don't think this warrants a call out.
posted by geoff. at 2:14 PM on September 14, 2005
Yeah, as one of the participants in this undignified pissing match, even I took it as an absurd rejoinder meant to call an end to the argument and had to laugh. The guy's obviously no racist.
posted by docpops at 2:16 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by docpops at 2:16 PM on September 14, 2005
The guy's obviously no racist.
You're right. It's actually just an attempt to derail without losing face because he had no argument, and knew it.
posted by Miko at 2:21 PM on September 14, 2005
You're right. It's actually just an attempt to derail without losing face because he had no argument, and knew it.
posted by Miko at 2:21 PM on September 14, 2005
But at least the punctuation in his sentence wasn't padded by superfluous spaces. It was even capitalized properly!
'cant be arsed spending the money to try , oh aye , thats a lot of dignity.'
'these days ?'
'I have actually , happy now ?'
posted by driveler at 2:33 PM on September 14, 2005
'cant be arsed spending the money to try , oh aye , thats a lot of dignity.'
'these days ?'
'I have actually , happy now ?'
posted by driveler at 2:33 PM on September 14, 2005
We're all racist. Admitting that is the least racist possible statement.
This was an edgy snark that played on that fact; it implied that we are all racists. Not the most tasteful comment in the world, and since many people won't "get" the "joke", there is a good case for deletion. However, it doesn't make me hate Captain Blissful.
posted by cleardawn at 2:37 PM on September 14, 2005
This was an edgy snark that played on that fact; it implied that we are all racists. Not the most tasteful comment in the world, and since many people won't "get" the "joke", there is a good case for deletion. However, it doesn't make me hate Captain Blissful.
posted by cleardawn at 2:37 PM on September 14, 2005
It was both edgy and fresh. It's what the teens are into these days. Also it may have been extreme. But definitely edgy.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:44 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:44 PM on September 14, 2005
He keeps saying "aye". Is he a pirate? Don't argue with pirates.
posted by quadog at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by quadog at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2005
/summons whaambulance
OH NO NOW YOU'VE DONE IT
posted by fishfucker at 3:22 PM on September 14, 2005
OH NO NOW YOU'VE DONE IT
posted by fishfucker at 3:22 PM on September 14, 2005
*shudders*
fishfucker, you bastard.
We're all racist. Admitting that is the least racist possible statement.
For once, I'm with cleardawn. Everybody of every race, gender and sexuality, everywhere on the planet is guilty of some kind of bigotry. People who spend all their time looking to be offended about minor gaffes have issues that go way beyond politics.
posted by jonmc at 3:39 PM on September 14, 2005
fishfucker, you bastard.
We're all racist. Admitting that is the least racist possible statement.
For once, I'm with cleardawn. Everybody of every race, gender and sexuality, everywhere on the planet is guilty of some kind of bigotry. People who spend all their time looking to be offended about minor gaffes have issues that go way beyond politics.
posted by jonmc at 3:39 PM on September 14, 2005
My point is, he is simply bringing to the forefront the underlying stereotype that all blacks are criminal...
Which is wrong! Wrong, I say! Racism must be swept under the rug where it can fester and grow into paranoid projection. Acknowledging racism is wrong; truly non-racist people aren't even aware of other people's color.
posted by squirrel at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2005
Which is wrong! Wrong, I say! Racism must be swept under the rug where it can fester and grow into paranoid projection. Acknowledging racism is wrong; truly non-racist people aren't even aware of other people's color.
posted by squirrel at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2005
For once, I'm with cleardawn
next you'll be handing out leaflets on a corner for the Red Brigade! Take it elsewhere, chairman maomc!!!
posted by jonson at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2005
next you'll be handing out leaflets on a corner for the Red Brigade! Take it elsewhere, chairman maomc!!!
posted by jonson at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2005
next you'll be handing out leaflets on a corner for the Red Brigade!
How much will he pay me? And can I eat Twinkies, drink Bud and read The Unabomber Manifesto while I do it?
posted by jonmc at 3:49 PM on September 14, 2005
How much will he pay me? And can I eat Twinkies, drink Bud and read The Unabomber Manifesto while I do it?
posted by jonmc at 3:49 PM on September 14, 2005
Now all we need is for loquacious to write us a poem. A long, long poem that requires much scrolling.
posted by mystyk at 5:18 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by mystyk at 5:18 PM on September 14, 2005
alternately, I could just post a moderatley offensive mp3. Your choice.
posted by jonmc at 5:32 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:32 PM on September 14, 2005
Mystyk: Sorry, I don't really do much poetry these days. I just don't have the angst anymore. But when I do, it's pretty short and sweet, relative awfulness aside. Or random. But I prefer prose anyway.
posted by loquacious at 6:15 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by loquacious at 6:15 PM on September 14, 2005
Swastika info. (Some links or images may be NSFW.)
posted by loquacious at 6:35 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by loquacious at 6:35 PM on September 14, 2005
Wait, so now it's racist to blame things on black strangers? Shit.
posted by klangklangston at 7:12 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 7:12 PM on September 14, 2005
he had no argument, and knew it
I think he had an argument, and stated it. He doesn't think euthenasia is a medical option. That's an opinion. And then Optimus Whyne got in his face going "WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? OMG WHAT WOULD YOU DO???" which is not worthy of a serious response.
posted by scarabic at 8:04 PM on September 14, 2005
I think he had an argument, and stated it. He doesn't think euthenasia is a medical option. That's an opinion. And then Optimus Whyne got in his face going "WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? OMG WHAT WOULD YOU DO???" which is not worthy of a serious response.
posted by scarabic at 8:04 PM on September 14, 2005
I think he had an argument, and stated it. He doesn't think euthenasia is a medical option. That's an opinion. And then Optimus Whyne got in his face going "WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? OMG WHAT WOULD YOU DO???" which is not worthy of a serious response.
Which would be fine if the situation were about euthanasia as opposed to a very sad triage situation and comfort care -- the real issues. And unfortunately it didn't help that the moronic writer of the linked article also didn't care to investigate the subtleties of euthanasia, comfort care, medical ethics and triage before throwing around words he didn't understand.
But lord knows it's neither a violation of MeFi policy, nor even an exception to the rule here to find a user blather on about their irrelevant opinion without carefully thinking about the topic. Insufferably taking a moral high ground one isn't entitled to is also, of course, our bread and butter.
posted by drpynchon at 9:22 PM on September 14, 2005
Which would be fine if the situation were about euthanasia as opposed to a very sad triage situation and comfort care -- the real issues. And unfortunately it didn't help that the moronic writer of the linked article also didn't care to investigate the subtleties of euthanasia, comfort care, medical ethics and triage before throwing around words he didn't understand.
But lord knows it's neither a violation of MeFi policy, nor even an exception to the rule here to find a user blather on about their irrelevant opinion without carefully thinking about the topic. Insufferably taking a moral high ground one isn't entitled to is also, of course, our bread and butter.
posted by drpynchon at 9:22 PM on September 14, 2005
He doesn't think euthenasia is a medical option.
That sure does sound nice & simple. Except, if there's a given scenario and you say "x is not even an option," asking "what, then, is the option?" is a perfectly sound, logical response, perhaps the only one. Yet he refused to even address the question, which makes his hardy-har "racist" joke just another lame-ass dodge of an issue he himself has forced.
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on September 14, 2005
That sure does sound nice & simple. Except, if there's a given scenario and you say "x is not even an option," asking "what, then, is the option?" is a perfectly sound, logical response, perhaps the only one. Yet he refused to even address the question, which makes his hardy-har "racist" joke just another lame-ass dodge of an issue he himself has forced.
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on September 14, 2005
Metafilter: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to enjoy some milk and swastikookies.
posted by Rothko at 9:31 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by Rothko at 9:31 PM on September 14, 2005
Hey, I didn't say the opinon was well-informed, fully qualified in all the semantic subtleties, not anything I agreed with. Just that he stated his position and was done. Obviously the "blame it on the blacks" comment was a crack.
Some people can't handle racist humor under any circumstances. Amongst my friends, making a racist statement is automatically received as a joke because we assume no one reasonable would actually hold such a view. I'm willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt to anyone here, although it's almost certain to be a mistake in many cases. I don't think this is one of them.
posted by scarabic at 9:58 PM on September 14, 2005
Some people can't handle racist humor under any circumstances. Amongst my friends, making a racist statement is automatically received as a joke because we assume no one reasonable would actually hold such a view. I'm willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt to anyone here, although it's almost certain to be a mistake in many cases. I don't think this is one of them.
posted by scarabic at 9:58 PM on September 14, 2005
1. sgt serenity expressed his opinion, at first, in a completely non-offensive manner. Furthermore, his point is not offensive, or necessarily "wrong." If you're offended that someone might not value mercy killing the way you do, you seriously need to check your priorities.
2. He was responded to with nothing less than venom and condescension.
3. Whatever language he used following that, it was easily matched by the tone of voice his detractors used, if not their language.
4. Lastly, as has been noted, it was sarcasm. Since what he said isn't a commentary about black people, but rather racist opinions, that actually makes it anti-racist.
5. moratorium on call-outs for a month? please?
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 PM on September 14, 2005
2. He was responded to with nothing less than venom and condescension.
3. Whatever language he used following that, it was easily matched by the tone of voice his detractors used, if not their language.
4. Lastly, as has been noted, it was sarcasm. Since what he said isn't a commentary about black people, but rather racist opinions, that actually makes it anti-racist.
5. moratorium on call-outs for a month? please?
posted by shmegegge at 11:22 PM on September 14, 2005
I think perhaps it's time to start doing digest callouts where we call out all the fuckers who post weak-ass, shrill callouts.
posted by scarabic at 11:29 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by scarabic at 11:29 PM on September 14, 2005
This one's not that shrill. But it is pretty weak-ass. What are people thinking? That the MeFi community is going to rush to their banner and say "yeah! enough of this behavior! you're damn right! this is bad!" That almost NEVER happens. I think people aren't reading MeTa or something.
posted by scarabic at 11:30 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by scarabic at 11:30 PM on September 14, 2005
I would have answered the question but i had to deal with some black looters at my front door , they really are getting everywhere these days.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:12 AM on September 15, 2005
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:12 AM on September 15, 2005
I think people aren't reading MeTa or something.
I'd just like to point out that MeTa is all I read. How else would I know which threads are the good ones?
posted by rocketman at 6:02 AM on September 15, 2005
I'd just like to point out that MeTa is all I read. How else would I know which threads are the good ones?
posted by rocketman at 6:02 AM on September 15, 2005
I think he had an argument, and stated it. He doesn't think euthenasia is a medical option. That's an opinion. And then Optimus Whyne got in his face going "WHAT WOULD YOU DO??? OMG WHAT WOULD YOU DO???" which is not worthy of a serious response.
posted by scarabic at 8:04 PM PST on September 14
First, that's a pretty serious misrepresentation of my posts. Secondly, you can't say - or you shouldn't, anyway - that these doctors are evil, immoral scum and then decline to explain what you would have done in their situation. That's not productive, and it's intellectually dishonest.
But hey, if you want to defend this vile asshole: "I would have answered the question but i had to deal with some black looters at my front door , they really are getting everywhere these days," that's cool.
P.S.: Commas with spaces around them are the new misplaced apostrophe; pass it on.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:21 AM on September 15, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:04 PM PST on September 14
First, that's a pretty serious misrepresentation of my posts. Secondly, you can't say - or you shouldn't, anyway - that these doctors are evil, immoral scum and then decline to explain what you would have done in their situation. That's not productive, and it's intellectually dishonest.
But hey, if you want to defend this vile asshole: "I would have answered the question but i had to deal with some black looters at my front door , they really are getting everywhere these days," that's cool.
P.S.: Commas with spaces around them are the new misplaced apostrophe; pass it on.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:21 AM on September 15, 2005
I think that there's been a misplacement of blame, here. Optimus Chyme was not the leader of the rabble accusing serenity of needless cruelty and intolerance. He was just the one with the ridiculous "what would you have done?" question.
but since we're on the topic: leaving aside that he JUST called serenity a vile asshole, there's also this post:
You are a coward. Answer the question. What would you have done?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:58 PM EST on September 14 [!]
and bear in mind that serenity's initial post in the thread (before he was attacked) is as follows, in its entirety:
Being overdosed with morphine cause they see no value in me and cant be arsed spending the money to try , oh aye , thats a lot of dignity.
What other spurious Human rights are floating about these days ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:37 AM EST on September 14 [!]
p.s. - colons followed by italicized quotations (complete with quotation marks) followed by a continuation of the initial statement from before the colon are the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style.
posted by shmegegge at 9:50 AM on September 15, 2005
but since we're on the topic: leaving aside that he JUST called serenity a vile asshole, there's also this post:
You are a coward. Answer the question. What would you have done?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:58 PM EST on September 14 [!]
and bear in mind that serenity's initial post in the thread (before he was attacked) is as follows, in its entirety:
Being overdosed with morphine cause they see no value in me and cant be arsed spending the money to try , oh aye , thats a lot of dignity.
What other spurious Human rights are floating about these days ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:37 AM EST on September 14 [!]
p.s. - colons followed by italicized quotations (complete with quotation marks) followed by a continuation of the initial statement from before the colon are the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style.
posted by shmegegge at 9:50 AM on September 15, 2005
How is webranding's comment - the original "what would you have done?" - an attack, shmegegge?
sgt, more details may come out. I hope what you suggest is not the case. I am 35. Pretty fit. A few years back I got a bizzare virius that almost killed me in three or four days. I was in the ICU with a tube helping me to breath for more then a week. Without power I would have died.
I can only assume much older and sicker people were in worse shape. And the people in the hospital after days and days of waiting for help, knew they would die a much longer and worse death. I mean the temps in the hospital in question was 106 in the afternoon.
No toliets. Almost no water. Armed people coming in looking for drugs. What would you have done?
posted by webranding at 12:49 AM PST on September 14
No one was a dick to sgt. until this lovely and well-thought out rejoinder:
Give the drugs to the junkies as long as they carry someone out.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:56 AM PST on September 14
So he refused to answer the question all of the times it was posted, preferring to instead rely on a series of juvenile hey-I'm-not-a-real-racist-so-I-can-say-racist-things! comments.
And re: "colons followed by italicized quotations (complete with quotation marks) followed by a continuation of the initial statement from before the colon are the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style" I think that it's pretty awesome and that I am a true pioneer and all-'round American Hero.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:38 AM on September 15, 2005
sgt, more details may come out. I hope what you suggest is not the case. I am 35. Pretty fit. A few years back I got a bizzare virius that almost killed me in three or four days. I was in the ICU with a tube helping me to breath for more then a week. Without power I would have died.
I can only assume much older and sicker people were in worse shape. And the people in the hospital after days and days of waiting for help, knew they would die a much longer and worse death. I mean the temps in the hospital in question was 106 in the afternoon.
No toliets. Almost no water. Armed people coming in looking for drugs. What would you have done?
posted by webranding at 12:49 AM PST on September 14
No one was a dick to sgt. until this lovely and well-thought out rejoinder:
Give the drugs to the junkies as long as they carry someone out.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:56 AM PST on September 14
So he refused to answer the question all of the times it was posted, preferring to instead rely on a series of juvenile hey-I'm-not-a-real-racist-so-I-can-say-racist-things! comments.
And re: "colons followed by italicized quotations (complete with quotation marks) followed by a continuation of the initial statement from before the colon are the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style" I think that it's pretty awesome and that I am a true pioneer and all-'round American Hero.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:38 AM on September 15, 2005
...an argument and an opinion are not the same thing. Arguments are ideas that support opinions (or don't).
posted by Miko at 11:22 AM on September 15, 2005
posted by Miko at 11:22 AM on September 15, 2005
You're probably not really a lawyer , but never mind , one day you'll get the fact that the nurses used black people as an excuse for their behaviour.
Please bear in mind you've named yourself after a transformer , do you turn into someone with a brain ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:59 PM on September 15, 2005
Please bear in mind you've named yourself after a transformer , do you turn into someone with a brain ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:59 PM on September 15, 2005
ok, I'm not serenity's lawyer, but since I've been asked a direct question, I'll respond. After this, serenity can speak for himself:
As I understand it, Serenity's point was that (to his mind) this mercy killing was murder. In their position, he would have done something, whatever it was, to try and get them out, regardless of their condition. He would not have given them lethal injections of morphine. Presumably (although here I'm putting thoughts in his head) he saw the questions of "what would you have done" as precisely what they were: loaded questions designed to give his detractors the opportunity to jump on him. No matter what he answered, hoots and hollars of "And then they'd have died worse deaths, you monster!" would have resounded down the thread.
One of his principle points, however sarcastically brought up, was that the article specifically mentioned phantom armies of junkies and rapists descending on the hospital. It was nothing less than lying in order to sex up a story, and paint the doctors and nurses more sympathetically than he felt they deserved. But the majority of those who responded to serenity weren't interested in what he felt or was trying to say. Once he'd stated the unpopular (in that thread) opinion, the dogs were out. He saw this, and refused to take the bait.
Now, I disagree with serenity regarding the mercy killing, but I also recognize that there is no clear answer to that dilemma. You either believe in the value of human life and death in the doctor's way, serenity's way or some other way, but there's no clearcut right and wrong. Those doctors will carry the weight of their decision to their graves, and if serenity were in their position, he'd carry the weight of his decision to his grave.
So basically, if you disagree, it's not because you're right. And no amount of baiting serenity with what you see as logical arguments matters. There IS NO logical conclusion to make, here. It's a tragedy, plain and simple. So if he's not going for your red herring, it's easy to see why. If he resents being put in that position, it's easy to see why. So now the whole thread is nothing but venom and bad sentimnet. whoopee!
posted by shmegegge at 2:30 PM on September 15, 2005
As I understand it, Serenity's point was that (to his mind) this mercy killing was murder. In their position, he would have done something, whatever it was, to try and get them out, regardless of their condition. He would not have given them lethal injections of morphine. Presumably (although here I'm putting thoughts in his head) he saw the questions of "what would you have done" as precisely what they were: loaded questions designed to give his detractors the opportunity to jump on him. No matter what he answered, hoots and hollars of "And then they'd have died worse deaths, you monster!" would have resounded down the thread.
One of his principle points, however sarcastically brought up, was that the article specifically mentioned phantom armies of junkies and rapists descending on the hospital. It was nothing less than lying in order to sex up a story, and paint the doctors and nurses more sympathetically than he felt they deserved. But the majority of those who responded to serenity weren't interested in what he felt or was trying to say. Once he'd stated the unpopular (in that thread) opinion, the dogs were out. He saw this, and refused to take the bait.
Now, I disagree with serenity regarding the mercy killing, but I also recognize that there is no clear answer to that dilemma. You either believe in the value of human life and death in the doctor's way, serenity's way or some other way, but there's no clearcut right and wrong. Those doctors will carry the weight of their decision to their graves, and if serenity were in their position, he'd carry the weight of his decision to his grave.
So basically, if you disagree, it's not because you're right. And no amount of baiting serenity with what you see as logical arguments matters. There IS NO logical conclusion to make, here. It's a tragedy, plain and simple. So if he's not going for your red herring, it's easy to see why. If he resents being put in that position, it's easy to see why. So now the whole thread is nothing but venom and bad sentimnet. whoopee!
posted by shmegegge at 2:30 PM on September 15, 2005
you know, I read the whole preview before hitting post, and then noticed that I misspelled sentiment as sentimnet right after hitting post.
misspelling sentiment is the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style.
posted by shmegegge at 2:32 PM on September 15, 2005
misspelling sentiment is the new complete disregard for the rules of grammar and the elements of style.
posted by shmegegge at 2:32 PM on September 15, 2005
you can't say - or you shouldn't, anyway - that these doctors are evil, immoral scum and then decline to explain what you would have done in their situation
While I understand your point, I think you ought to also ponder the concept of right and wrong, and justice, for a moment. When someone commits first degree murder, we don't explore what their other options were before we send them to jail. Your contention that morality must be interpreted subjectively may have a bit of merit, for someone articulate and persuasive to bring to light. But it's hardly a given that you can waltz around expecting people to comply with in every discussion.
posted by scarabic at 2:38 PM on September 15, 2005
While I understand your point, I think you ought to also ponder the concept of right and wrong, and justice, for a moment. When someone commits first degree murder, we don't explore what their other options were before we send them to jail. Your contention that morality must be interpreted subjectively may have a bit of merit, for someone articulate and persuasive to bring to light. But it's hardly a given that you can waltz around expecting people to comply with in every discussion.
posted by scarabic at 2:38 PM on September 15, 2005
While I understand your point, I think you ought to also ponder the concept of right and wrong, and justice, for a moment. When someone commits first degree murder, we don't explore what their other options were before we send them to jail. Your contention that morality must be interpreted subjectively may have a bit of merit, for someone articulate and persuasive to bring to light..
This is generally true. However, it's no stretch to say that we don't send every person who kills another immediately to jail. Was it self-defense? Vehicular manslaughter? Sometimes even first-degree murder may be justified, though I certainly think it would be an extraordinarily rare occurence.
One of his principle points, however sarcastically brought up, was that the article specifically mentioned phantom armies of junkies and rapists descending on the hospital. It was nothing less than lying in order to sex up a story, and paint the doctors and nurses more sympathetically than he felt they deserved.
This is an excellent point, and I wish serenity had brought it up in a more articulate manner.
You're probably not really a lawyer
Hey buddy, if it says it on someone's user page, it must be true. I learned that from esquire.
but never mind , one day you'll get the fact that the nurses used black people as an excuse for their behaviour.
If you honestly think that doctors and nurses are just biding their time until that magical day when they can kill people for fun, I don't know how to convince you otherwise.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:06 PM on September 15, 2005
This is generally true. However, it's no stretch to say that we don't send every person who kills another immediately to jail. Was it self-defense? Vehicular manslaughter? Sometimes even first-degree murder may be justified, though I certainly think it would be an extraordinarily rare occurence.
One of his principle points, however sarcastically brought up, was that the article specifically mentioned phantom armies of junkies and rapists descending on the hospital. It was nothing less than lying in order to sex up a story, and paint the doctors and nurses more sympathetically than he felt they deserved.
This is an excellent point, and I wish serenity had brought it up in a more articulate manner.
You're probably not really a lawyer
Hey buddy, if it says it on someone's user page, it must be true. I learned that from esquire.
but never mind , one day you'll get the fact that the nurses used black people as an excuse for their behaviour.
If you honestly think that doctors and nurses are just biding their time until that magical day when they can kill people for fun, I don't know how to convince you otherwise.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:06 PM on September 15, 2005
Looks like I'm late to the ballgame - that's what happens when you spend the day away from your desk.
I posted this because I thought the language was out of bounds. Not because I think sgt.serenity is or isn't a racist. I don't know him and haven't ever paid any attention to him before yesterday. To me, it didn't matter whether it was sarcasm, irony or hyperbole.
However, the consensus opinion seems to be that I'm the one who's out of step on this one. Obviously, I think that blows, but... whatever. I think I need to just ignore my impulses to post to MeTa from now on.
posted by Irontom at 4:51 PM on September 15, 2005
I posted this because I thought the language was out of bounds. Not because I think sgt.serenity is or isn't a racist. I don't know him and haven't ever paid any attention to him before yesterday. To me, it didn't matter whether it was sarcasm, irony or hyperbole.
However, the consensus opinion seems to be that I'm the one who's out of step on this one. Obviously, I think that blows, but... whatever. I think I need to just ignore my impulses to post to MeTa from now on.
posted by Irontom at 4:51 PM on September 15, 2005
What language? "The blacks?" There's one out-of-bounds unit of language which, if anything, is conspicuously absent, I'd say.
posted by scarabic at 7:52 PM on September 15, 2005
posted by scarabic at 7:52 PM on September 15, 2005
You could always ask me if i'm a racist tom.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:56 PM on September 15, 2005
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:56 PM on September 15, 2005
there is no clear answer to that dilemma. You either believe in the value of human life and death in the doctor's way, serenity's way or some other way, but there's no clearcut right and wrong. Those doctors will carry the weight of their decision to their graves, and if serenity were in their position, he'd carry the weight of his decision to his grave.
This is extreme moral relativism. By this reasoning, anyone who could justify any act within their personal moral system may commit it because there's no clearcut right and wrong. It's how sociapaths reason. That doesn't work in civil society; we need to have some agreed-upon goals or aims, so that we can tell which actions advance them or slow them down.
Some in the thread are arguing that the better aim is preservation of life unless and until it means inflicting harm and pain. This is the aim that the medical profession, in general, subscribes to. It is also a widely agreed-upon aim in American families when they must make end-of-life decisions, as several people in the thread described.
Others are arguing that the attempt to preserve life is always the better aim regardless of the pain endured by individuals.
The people in the first group have presented more arguments to support their view (it is in line with most currently practiced medical ethics and standards; it is more humane in that it spares the dying patient suffering; many lives could not have been preserved anyway) than have the people in the second group, who have stopped at saying "but it's killing, and killing is always wrong." But until they present more arguments, they have only opinions. They have not convinced the wider group that their aims are widely accepted or that their aims should form the basis for ethical decisions to be made in future.
posted by Miko at 7:31 AM on September 16, 2005
This is extreme moral relativism. By this reasoning, anyone who could justify any act within their personal moral system may commit it because there's no clearcut right and wrong. It's how sociapaths reason. That doesn't work in civil society; we need to have some agreed-upon goals or aims, so that we can tell which actions advance them or slow them down.
Some in the thread are arguing that the better aim is preservation of life unless and until it means inflicting harm and pain. This is the aim that the medical profession, in general, subscribes to. It is also a widely agreed-upon aim in American families when they must make end-of-life decisions, as several people in the thread described.
Others are arguing that the attempt to preserve life is always the better aim regardless of the pain endured by individuals.
The people in the first group have presented more arguments to support their view (it is in line with most currently practiced medical ethics and standards; it is more humane in that it spares the dying patient suffering; many lives could not have been preserved anyway) than have the people in the second group, who have stopped at saying "but it's killing, and killing is always wrong." But until they present more arguments, they have only opinions. They have not convinced the wider group that their aims are widely accepted or that their aims should form the basis for ethical decisions to be made in future.
posted by Miko at 7:31 AM on September 16, 2005
you mistake my intention, though for understandable reasons. I'm not justifying anyone's position on the matter, and I'm not claiming that there is no right way to decide in the matter. What I'm saying is that the pile-on that occurred in that thread isn't related to the merits of the issue. It's related to the fact that people disagree with serenity.
I disagree with sgt. serenity on this issue. But I'm not going to hound him with derision for it. There are people in that thread who sought to legitimately discuss the logic of their position contrasted with the logic of serenity's. It's unfortunate that they never got to have that discussion. The reason they didn't, however, is because serenity was immediately jumped on by a group of people just waiting for the opportunity to pounce on anyone who TRIED to have that legitimate discussion. They began their preparations by asking what they imagined to be infallible red herring questions such as "what would you have done? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE, YOU COWARD!" etc... I don't blame serenity for refusing to engage those people. It's a shame that he couldn't find it in him to instead deal with the more reasonable members of the discussion, but the fault of that thread isn't serenity's, in my opinion. It's the people who made it perfectly clear that they weren't about to listen to him.
posted by shmegegge at 3:56 PM on September 16, 2005
I disagree with sgt. serenity on this issue. But I'm not going to hound him with derision for it. There are people in that thread who sought to legitimately discuss the logic of their position contrasted with the logic of serenity's. It's unfortunate that they never got to have that discussion. The reason they didn't, however, is because serenity was immediately jumped on by a group of people just waiting for the opportunity to pounce on anyone who TRIED to have that legitimate discussion. They began their preparations by asking what they imagined to be infallible red herring questions such as "what would you have done? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE, YOU COWARD!" etc... I don't blame serenity for refusing to engage those people. It's a shame that he couldn't find it in him to instead deal with the more reasonable members of the discussion, but the fault of that thread isn't serenity's, in my opinion. It's the people who made it perfectly clear that they weren't about to listen to him.
posted by shmegegge at 3:56 PM on September 16, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Irontom at 2:04 PM on September 14, 2005